Care order - application by the Minister for a full care order in respect of all three children.
[2011]JRC242
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and Nicolle. |
Between |
Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
(1) A |
Respondents |
|
(2) B |
|
|
(3) C, (4) D and (5) E acting through their Guardian Anthony Williams |
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE CCC CHILDREN
AND IN THE MATER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate C. Hall for the Guardian.
Advocate V. Myerson for the Minister.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 10th March, the Court as presently constituted sat to consider an application by the Minister for Health and Social Services for a full care order in respect of the three children, C, D and E. Before the hearing, the Guardian and the Minister agreed that the Court should be asked to deal only with the issue as to whether the threshold criteria had been passed for the making of a full care order. This the Court did, and at the end of the hearing gave its decision that the threshold criteria had been established. The reasons for that decision appear in the Court's judgment, which for reasons of administrative oversight was not handed down until 6th October 2011.
2. On 11th October the Court sat for the adjourned disposal application in relation to C and E. Once again, we note that the parents have not appeared. Some detail in relation to their previous lack of appearance is to be found in paragraph 1 of the Court's judgment of 6th October. In addition, the Court notes that Mr Matthew Davis, the social worker dealing with the case of these children at present, met the mother on Friday 9th September. The father did not attend, apparently because he was at work, but the mother confirmed that she supports the Minister's care plan and therefore can be taken to support the Minister's application for a full care order. Additionally, both the mother and E's father have been given notice of the hearing today such that they are aware of its ambit. They have been told that it is open to them to attend and also have been told that the application by the Minister is supported by the Guardian. They have chosen not to attend.
3. We heard briefly from Mr Davis in evidence.
4. The threshold criteria having been met, the Court is now charged with determining whether a full care order should be made under Article 24. The first matter we have considered is whether it would be better to make an order than to make no order at all, that being our obligation under Article 2(5) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law"). Advocate Myserson submitted that it was clear that some order was necessary. If no order were made, then the mother would have parental responsibility for C and the mother and the father would have parental responsibility for E. Both of them, however, had for all intents and purposes abandoned the two children, although contact was now taking place between C and his mother, albeit arranged by C. There was no contact between the mother and E, and the evidence was that E was not seeking any such contact.
5. The Court has no doubt that making no order would be the wrong course to follow. It would be to leave the children with parental responsibility being exercised by those who have abandoned them.
6. We have next considered the welfare test as set out in Article 2 of the Law. We are very pleased to note that since the hearing in March there has continued to be some progress made both by C and by E. It was said to us in relation to C that although there had been no positive response to the advertisement seeking foster care for him, he was a resilient young man who is thriving in his current environment at La Preference. The psychotherapist's report in March 2011 shows a considerable improvement on the report of Dr Bryn Williams in December 2010. As of March this year, it is now said that C has been able to engage within a complex framework of inter-agencies support and that "C is an extraordinary young person who throughout his life has endured many anxious and traumatic adjustments. He has developed, improved emotional resilience and my view is that the spectrum of previously observed anxious or disturbed behaviour or emotions essentially throughout his early childhood appear to be essentially proportionate to these experiences." The psychotherapist also says that C is currently able to maintain a significantly calmer temperament and that his self esteem appears to have recovered.
7. In addition the social worker Mr Davis reports that C's placement at La Preference continues to proceed positively and that he benefits from an effective relationship with his residential key workers.
8. At one point it was suggested that there might be some benefit in investigating a placement in the UK. The Guardian was opposed to this, not least because it would remove him from an environment in Jersey which he understands, including one in which he is able to have contact at his request with his mother. We are advised that C himself is not willing now to contemplate any form of placement in the UK. We are completely satisfied therefore that this is not an option which needs to be considered any further.
9. In those circumstances, although it is the case that the Minister is not able to come forward with any fostering placement for C, and is obliged to consider continued residential accommodation at La Preference, we are satisfied that these provisions in the care plan are the best we can achieve at this stage and indeed that the present arrangements are having a beneficial effect on him. In the circumstances, having regard to the matters set out in Article 2(3) of the Law, and to the fact that the Minister's application is supported by the Guardian, the Court finds that it is appropriate to make a full care order in respect of C in favour of the Minister.
10. We received from Advocate Lawrence a submission that the Minister might wish to consider appointing someone to advise and befriend C under Article 21 of the Law. The background to that application is that C will stay at La Preference until he is aged 18 and will then have to move into other accommodation which will either be in the private sector, where he will be completely independent, or potentially into some States accommodation where there will be a greater degree of independence than he currently enjoys. The Children's Service are expecting to provide what is called "half-way planning" with the leaving care team, in order that he is assisted with information about how to budget his finances, how to look after himself with basic cooking skills and so on. It is expected that the members of the leaving care team will be introduced to him shortly after these proceedings. It is thought that the existing key workers at La Preference may continue to have some dealings with him in a quasi parenting capacity, although they would not be advisers and befrienders for the purposes of Article 21.
11. Both counsel agreed that the Court would have power to appoint someone to befriend C under Article 75 of the Law, notwithstanding that the proceedings were coming to an end. However we do not propose to do so today for a number of practical reasons. Nonetheless it is right to record that the Court anticipates that C will need considerable support if, at the age of 18, he leaves La Preference to take up accommodation in the private sector on his own. Young adults who leave a secure family home to set up on their own frequently need and indeed have the support of their families thereafter. That support is available to them in the circumstance that they have had a much better grounding in their lives to date than has been available to C, who has faced a number of very challenging circumstances. From the time that C attains the age of 18, he will no longer be a child for the purposes of the Law, and the care order made under Article 24 will no longer have effect. It follows that it will be entirely a matter for C as to whether he wishes to accept any advice or befriending that is made available to him. Nonetheless, the Court expresses the hope that very careful consideration will be given by the Minister over the next 12 months to putting in place a structure which will provide C with advice and assistance and which he will be encouraged to use. He will face a number of challenges, and it is no sign of weakness to accept help in meeting them. Indeed he would be showing strength in recognising that the authorities wish to help him as far as possible in preparing him for a full adult life in the years to come. We hope these remarks may indeed assist him as well in this respect.
12. In accordance with the Law, we have considered the question of contact between C and his mother. No order is sought by any party to these proceedings. It is anticipated that this will continue naturally as C arranges such contact himself. There has been some sibling contact between C and his half sisters. It is anticipated that this is likely to be continued perhaps once a month. Once again the Minister seeks no formal order nor indeed do other parties. Accordingly, no contact orders are made.
13. We turn next to E.
14. E is making very good progress in her current placement with her experienced, committed and Jersey based foster parents. We were pleased to note the Guardian's comments that:
"E is thankfully very well catered for in the excellent care offered by Mr and Mrs F and the wider family. They are to be commended for the commitment that they give to this most delightful but needy of children and the dozens upon dozens of other children this family have cared for in the past. In his 35 years of practice the guardian has not found any other foster carers more dedicated. Simply observing E interacting with G and H is an utter delight. It would be difficult to find a happier little girl - what you see with D [sic] is what you get (as the saying goes) as despite her disability and her sad history she is a very bright little thing who reflects onto others the warmth and affection shown to her... the guardian is fully satisfied with the arrangements for E."
15. Once again, there is no question of no order being made, as indicated above. That would deliver her back to her parents in terms of parental responsibility, and they have abandoned her. Applying the welfare test set out in Article 2 of the Law, we have no doubt that this is met and that a full care order should be made in favour of the Minister. The care plan is approved and we note that no orders for contact are being sought.
16. In his report to the Court, the Guardian indicates that the length of time that has been taken to resolve this family's difficulties is troubling, and much harm could have been prevented had there been an earlier intervention. We agree that there is no beneficial purpose for this Court in picking over the embers of what has taken place, or not taken place prior to the care proceedings commencing. However, it may just be worth reflecting on what has taken place within the care proceedings, in case it should be useful in other cases. The Court granted an interim care order for the first time on 12th March 2010, and fixed a directions hearing to take place within eight weeks of that date. On 1st July 2010, the parents not having appeared, at the request of the Minister and having heard the Guardian, the Court ordered that a number of reports be prepared on the parents - a psychological assessment of the mother in relation to her ability to understand and absorb information and whether or not she had a learning disability; a psychological assessment and a parenting assessment in respect of the mother and the father; a psychological assessment in respect of the children; a psychiatric assessment in relation to the father; a paediatric report and assessment in relation to E; and the Court also ordered a risk assessment in relation to both the mother and the father. Insofar as the children are concerned, these reports have no doubt been useful, not only to the Court but also to the Minister and the Guardian. Insofar as the orders were made for assessment of the parents, only some of those assessments were made, and these were completed by September 2010. The delay since then seems to be down to two factors:-
(i) Continuing uncertainty as to the prosecution of C, which is a matter which we mentioned at paragraph 5 of our judgment of 6th October; and
(ii) Uncertainty as to what the long term arrangements for D, sister of C and E, should be, given problems which have arisen from time to time with her placement during this period.
17. As to the first of these matters, we think it would be desirable for the Attorney General to review with the Police and the Minister the decision taking process in relation to this prosecution, and the extent to which information was provided to the prosecution authorities in case any lessons might be learned from such a review and improvements in practice introduced as a result. Insofar as the second point is concerned, what has taken place is a reminder to all parties, including the Court, that the interests of the children of a family, where more than one child is concerned, should always be considered separately as well as together. Arrangements in respect of D have now been split from the hearings for C and E, and indeed are not expected to be completed until March next year. That bifurcation could possibly have been made at an earlier stage, and resulted in the care proceedings for C and E being concluded earlier.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.