Child access - Application by the father for parental responsibility.
[2012]JRC039A
Before : |
Vincent James Obbard, Registrar., Family Division, sitting alone. |
Between |
B |
Applicant |
And |
C |
Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF A
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr C. Hillier, Ecrivain., on behalf of the Applicant.
Advocate L. J. Glynn on behalf of the Respondent.
judgment
the registrar:
1. B, the father, has applied for contact with his 2 year old son A and for parental responsibility.
2. I have a JFCAS report which recommends that a contact order be made, but that parental responsibility should be deferred and addressed at a further hearing in 6 months' time. My decision was simple as regards the contact. An order was made by consent. However, the matter of parental responsibility needs further thought.
3. In summary, the report describes A as quiet, possibly shy, and that he may display some attachment difficulties. His language is said to be significantly delayed. He has been referred to a paediatrician and to CAMHS for assessment. A may have witnessed "significant domestic violence between his mother and father".
4. A was referred to the Children's Service in December 2011. The Service held a "Child in Need" meeting and will continue to provide support.
5. The father is presently serving a prison sentence. He was also, at the time of A's birth, serving another prison sentence. During A's short life, the father has only been living in the community with A's mother, C for seven months. Domestic violence may well have occurred during this 7 month period.
6. One of the charges for which he is presently serving a sentence of imprisonment is that he was producing (i.e. cultivating) cannabis plants. Whilst I have no knowledge of any harm that can come of a child living in close proximity to cannabis plants, some of the cannabis which the father was cultivating was being grown in a tent in A's bedroom. The JFCAS Officer comments that this "shows a clear disregard by the father for A's safety and security".
7. On the good side, the JFCAS Officer recognises that the father does have a bond with his son and seems genuinely committed and motivated to parenting him.
8. I find these cases concerning parental responsibility difficult because they can involve extensive detail about the care shown, or not shown, by any particular parent. At what point is any parent good enough (or not good enough) to be rewarded with parental responsibility? Does (a) the severity of the crime or (b) the length of time spent at liberty with the child and parenting the child each have a scale in points which counteract each other?
9. In support of this idea, the Bailiff in L.S-v-N.S [2007] JLR N 37, decided that, on an application by an unmarried father for parental responsibility, the Court should consider inter alia, the degree of commitment he has shown towards the child; the degree of attachment between him and the child; and his reasons for applying.
10. In the case of In the matter of N [2011] JRC 075A, a father who was serving a prison sentence for a serious offence was given parental responsibility for his child. In that case he had shown commitment and there was attachment. The Court accepted that his reasons for applying were genuine.
11. How does this case differ?
12. It is true that the father has shown commitment by what he has said to the JFCAS Officer. However, he only lived with A and the mother, C, for approximately 7 months before his sentence for another offence.
13. The degree of attachment is in some doubt. Because of the possible domestic violence whilst the parties were together, the child A may have been affected and the assistance of a paediatrician and CAMHS has been requested. The JFCAS Officer contends that "when his parents lived together, they did place him at risk of harm, through exposure to violence, drug use and arguably, emotional/physical neglect."
14. The reasons given to the JFCAS Officer by the father for applying are given as strongly wanting to play as large a part in A's life as he can. He wants to know what decisions are being made for his son. He states that he would not use this to obstruct or to be malicious, but simply wants his status as A's father to be recognised.
15. This desire as expressed in the JFCAS report, led one to ask at the hearing what difference it will actually make if I were to award parental responsibility immediately as opposed to deferring a decision as recommended.
16. Even without parental responsibility, he will still have contact with the child. The child is only 2, so there are no educational reports for him to see. There will be reports from the paediatrician and from CAMHS, which, unless there is some objection, he will be entitled to see in the course of these proceedings, even if they are adjourned to a date in 6 months' time.
17. In the case of In the Matter of N, I awarded parental responsibility to the father. However, in that case, the father and mother had been living with the child as a family for a substantial period before the father's incarceration. My attention was not drawn to any attachment difficulties with the father. The child was not suffering from any disability. The offence committed did not have any relevance on impact on or show any irresponsibility towards the child, whereas, in this case, the cannabis plants were growing in the child's bedroom.
18. On balance, my decision is, therefore, to follow the advice of the JFCAS Officer and adjourn the case for 6 months.
19. This delay will allow time for the father to address his aggressive tendencies at a "core programme" and an anger management course on the recommendation of his probation officer. Hopefully more will also be known by then about any attachment difficulties and/or learning difficulties and their cause and treatment, if any.
20. As a postscript, I wonder for how long the law in Jersey will remain at odds with the law in the UK where parental responsibility is awarded to unmarried fathers so long as they have their name on the child's birth certificate. I understand that in the UK the change was brought about by a change in the law, which has not yet happened in Jersey. However, it might only be a matter of time before that occurs. I do not believe that it can be fair for a father to arrive from the UK with parental responsibility for his child (recognised in Jersey) and have an advantage not enjoyed by a Jersey resident father.
Authorities
L.S-v-N.S [2007] JLR N 37.