[2012]JRC009
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Marett-Crosby. |
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Service |
Applicant |
And |
The Mother |
First Respondent |
And |
The Father |
Second Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF A (CARE ORDER)
Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Minister.
Advocate V. Myerson for the Mother.
Advocate C. Hall for the Father.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 22nd September the Minister applied for an interim care order under Article 30 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") and for directions if such order were granted, in respect of the child A who is aged three. The Court made the interim care order on that day after hearing evidence from Mrs Jane Isaacs, the social worker concerned with A over the last three and a half years and indicated that reasons would be given later. These reasons now follow.
2. The Minister contended that there were reasonable grounds for believing that A was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm, and that the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child. The Minister relied both on the previous history in relation to the care of the child, and the likely future risk, having regard to:-
(i) Domestic abuse of the mother by the father in the child's presence.
(ii) The father's drug dependency.
(iii) The lack of co-operation with the Children's Service.
(iv) The concern at the parents' inability to change their ways.
(v) The risk that the child may suffer psychological damage if left in the care of her parents, and therefore that she would suffer significant emotional harm and neglect of her emotional needs.
3. Advocate Myerson on behalf of the mother accepted that an interim care order should be made on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the Minister's case might be made out, but she asked the Court to note that her client did not accept all the facts alleged in the report of the social worker. Advocate Hall, for the father, took the same line - he agreed that the threshold for an interim order was passed, without accepting the allegations which were made.
4. Both parents indicated their willingness to work with the Children's Service and agreed the care plan. Both parents agreed the terms of the exclusion order which was proposed by the Minister under Article 31 of the Law.
5. The child was made the subject of an interim supervision order on 11th July, 2008, shortly after her birth. This followed an instance of domestic abuse on 1st July. Later that year, the father was sentenced to a term in custody for drug related offences. As a result, the supervision order was not renewed when it expired and in October 2008, the child's name was taken off the Child Protection Register. The father was released in September 2009 and the Minister asserts that on 16th November, 2009, an 11th incident of domestic abuse was reported by the mother who requested assistance in having the father removed from her home. Further complaints of domestic abuse were reported to the Police on 20th February, 2010, and to the social worker in February 2011. There is some evidence that the child has been directly affected by the violence which has been alleged. On 1st February, 2011, at a core group meeting, the child disclosed that "Daddy smacked Mummy". The following week, the child was reported as telling the social worker that she was worried for her mother, stating that "Daddy had been naughty" and that the mother "needed to tell the policeman".
6. On 13th July, 2011, a drugs warrant was executed on the mother's flat, following intelligence which suggested there might be drugs in the home. The Police found a small amount of cannabis, a used needle, a "fit pack" and a cooking spoon which they described as "evidence of heroin use".
7. The mother has been asked to sign a written agreement drawn up by the Children's Service to safeguard the child's welfare, but she has refused. Her attendance with the Children's Service has been intermittent. In May 2011, the father advised the Children's Service that he would not be attending any meetings and wished to have no further contact with them.
8. In short summary, the Minister contends that the child has suffered significant emotional harm and neglect of her emotional needs as a result of her witnessing the domestic abuse within the home. It is said that she has also been at risk of physical harm through her parents' actions. It is also said that the child continues to be exposed to neglect as a result of the needs of the parents in relation to their respective mental health and drug dependency. All of this is compounded by an unwillingness to work with the Children's Service.
9. The Court accepted that there were reasonable grounds for making the interim care order given the allegations of domestic abuse, the father's drug dependency and the inability of the parents to work with the Children's Service. It is clear that making no order would not be an appropriate solution.
10. At this stage however, it is appropriate to add some further comments on the evidence which is revealed in the papers which have been presented to us.
11. The major point to make is that notwithstanding the serious concerns there are for A's emotional development, given the substance misuse and alleged domestic abuse, which justifies the interim care order which the Court has made, it seems to be clear that both the mother and the father, although the evidence is stronger in connection with the mother, treat A with great affection. The social worker reports that the mother:-
"clearly loves A and has no difficulty in expressing this evidence through hugs and the gentle way she speaks to her. [The mother] has always had a lot of time for A and it is has been a pleasure to observe them as they have appeared to mutually enjoy spending time together...
[The mother] has many strengths in her parenting capacity and her ability to be patient, warm yet firm all at the same time, has always been the most prominent of these strengths".
12. On the evidence which is currently available, there seems no doubt at all that there is a significant attachment between A and her mother. The Court is very much of the view that the arrangements which are put in place in the short term while the interim care order is in place should be supportive of the family. The father needs to learn how to cope with what appears to be a tendency to domestic violence and a heroin dependency, and the mother must learn how to protect A from witnessing any actual abuse and from the consequences of abuse to her mother. The Law requires us to take decisions in the best interests of the child, as indeed is the obligation of the Minister. The mother is the first choice carer for the child in this case and all the work which is done ought to be aimed at supporting the mother in the long term interests of the child. Subject to significant different evidence produced at a later stage, this is the approach which the Court considers ought to be followed.
13. Indeed those sentiments underlie the directions which we have made at this stage. The psychological report has been ordered on both parents - on the father so that he can better understand himself for, if his behaviour is as suggested, he needs to learn how to exercise control over himself; and for the mother as a means of support so she can better understand how to manage on her own. Similarly, there is not sufficient evidence of any need for a psychiatric report or a child psychiatric report or a child psychologist report at present. Expert reports of this kind should only be ordered if there is a serious reason for doing so. It is not a question of ordering these reports just in case they might say something which is significant.
14. We have been asked by counsel for the mother to note that the mother's relationship with Mrs Isaacs the social worker is not particularly strong. It is suggested that there are difficulties with the rapport between them. We think it is important therefore to make these additional statements.
15. The social worker has, as indeed the other members of the Children's Service have, the obligation to do what is best in the interests of the child. Mrs Isaacs cannot be blamed in any sense for bringing forward this process to Court. Furthermore, in the course of doing so, she has said many warm things about the mother and her relationship with her child. While one can understand that the mother feels aggrieved at the process which has been commenced, she must accept that she is not in a position to dictate which officers within the Children's Service should deal with which cases. There are occasions when personal relationships become so fraught that it is counter productive stubbornly to refuse to contemplate the appointment of an alternative social worker. Equally however the mother must accept that it is her obligation to make real efforts to co-operate with the social worker who has been appointed and that includes the requirement to have respect for the social worker who is, after all, having to deal with an extremely emotional and difficult situation to the best of her professional abilities in the interests of the child. This issue is a management one for the Children's Service.
16. Similar comments would go for the father. He has so far exhibited a reluctance to deal with the Children's Service. We would suggest that that approach needs to be revisited.
17. We have also made an exclusion order which excludes the father from attending anywhere at the block of flats where the mother lives. The father himself agreed that this order should be made. It is coupled with an undertaking offered by the mother that she will contact the police if the father tries to gain access to those flats in breach of the exclusion order. We have emphasised to the parents that it is important the exclusion order is complied with. It may well be that the expert reports which have been ordered will assist the parties in reaching arrangements in the future which obviate the need for the continuation of any such order. Advocate Hall very properly indicated that at some point it might be that the question of weekly supervised contact between the father and the child will need to be reviewed and other reports may be requested at that time. Accepting the present order and keeping faith with the undertaking respectively are important building blocks in establishing the trust which the Children's Service and the Court need to have if other orders are to be contemplated in the future.
18. We cannot emphasise enough to these parents that the granting of an interim care order is a serious step for the Court to take - it reflects that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the care or lack of it given by the parents. If that situation should not be capable of being remedied, the likely result with a child of A's age is that she will be taken away from the care of the mother in which she is currently to be found. Both the Court and the Children's Service would be reluctant to reach the conclusion that that is in A's best interests and it therefore really does become the obligation of the parents to accept the support which the Children's Service will be offering and to co-operate in order that, with a fair wind, that possibility of removing the child from her parents can be avoided.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.