Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care Order - application by the minister for a full care order in relation to D.

[2012]JRC072A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

29 March 2012

IN THE MATTER OF D (BORN OCTOBER 2000) ("THE CHILD")

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

Advocate V Myerson for the Minister.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Child.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        The Court sat on 21^st March, 2012, to receive an application by the Minister for Health and Social Services for a full care order in respect of the child.  On 10^th March, 2011, the Court had been asked to deal with the issue as to whether the threshold criteria had been passed for the making of a full care order in respect of the child and her two siblings, and the Court was so satisfied.  Reasons were given in a judgment which is dated 6^th October, 2011, although handed down to the parties earlier.  On 10^th March, 2011, the disposal of the application was adjourned pending further assessments being made.  The parents did not attend, although they had been notified of the date for the hearing.  Similarly, they did not attend the disposal hearing on 21^st March, 2012.  However, their attendance at the various preliminary hearings has been poor, and as the Court indicated in its judgment in relation to the March 2011 hearing, the only preliminary hearing which the parents attended occurred when they had been warned they might be summoned for contempt if they did not appear.  On that date, they indicated to the Court they did not wish to make any applications within the present proceedings and they left the matter in the hands of the Minister and the Court, although they added they did wish to have contact with their children in the future. 

2.        The involvement of the Children's Service with the child has been extensive.  It is fully set out in the Court's judgment delivered on 28^th December, 2011, (In the matter of the CCC Children [2011] JRC 241) in relation to an application for directions by the Guardian seeking an order that the Minister permit the Guardian to attend the Permanence Panel meeting earlier that month.  There is no need to set out that full history again.  However it is worth saying that although there is a statutory presumption in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") that delay is not in the best interests of the child, that is a rebuttable presumption and the Court has no doubt at all that in the circumstances of this case, any damage to the child caused by the delay is more than outweighed by the advantages for the child which the delay has secured. 

3.        In the Court's threshold judgment, the conclusion was reached that the child had suffered significant harm when in the care of her parents, and in particular there had been neglect of her physical wellbeing and emotionally abusive parenting.  Living conditions in the family home were disgraceful, and it was clear that the house upstairs smelt strongly of urine, the children being treated like animals.  They were all filthy, eating off the floor whilst their parents would go out.  They were all teased and victimised by their peers due to their smelling of urine and not presenting as clean at school.  They had unsatisfactory sleeping conditions - they were liable to wet the bed but little efforts were made to change the sheets.  They were not provided with clean clothing, not regularly provided with appropriate food and their medical and other needs were not prioritised. 

4.        It was as a result of this conduct that the child was first taken into care on a voluntary basis and subsequently became the subject of an interim care order.  At one stage, it was hoped that she might be placed with her sister in foster care, but it subsequently became apparent that it would be better if different foster carers were found for each sister.  In September 2009, on a voluntary basis, the child was accommodated with a foster carer, Ms G, with whom she has lived pretty much continuously since. 

5.        This placement was Ms G's first fostering experience.  She had at the outset a full time job, and no other dependants.  The arrival in her household of a nine year old child, traumatised by years of neglect and emotional abuse must have presented many challenges for her.  Her bravery in the first instance in assuming this responsibility can only be applauded.  It is very pleasing to note that the emotional rewards which Ms G appears to have gained from offering foster care to the child have been considerable. 

6.        Nonetheless, the developing relationship has been a journey both for the child and for Ms G.  Like many journeys, it has had its highs and lows.  At times, the professionals have been unsure as to whether the placement of the child, having such a complex background as she has, with a single carer who worked full time and had only recently been approved as a foster carer was appropriate.  Ms G too has from time to time wondered whether she is able to cope with a child having the needs and demands which this child has. 

7.        The Court has noted that during the last two years of this foster placement, there have been many settled periods which could last up to several weeks when the child was content - but these could be followed by periods when she could be very controlling, and seek negative attention ending in being physically abusive.  However, the Court has also noted that there has been none of those outbursts since June 2011. 

8.        Much of the delay since the hearing in March 2011 was because there was a breakdown of the placement in April of that year.  Ms G felt that she was experiencing pressure from her employer and was overwhelmed by the assessment processes which are adopted by the Children's Service to attempt to minimise an unsuitable placement.  For a few days, the child was placed with other foster carers, although Ms G visited her each day because she did not wish the child to view the change of accommodation as a rejection.  The Court has been told that Ms G found the time of separation useful.  She realised that she missed the child immensely and she came to the conclusion that she did not want the foster placement to end, and that she positively wanted to be considered as the child's long term foster carer.  In short, she has developed a very close bond with the child, which is reciprocated as is clearly set out in the report of the Guardian. 

9.        The threshold criteria having been established, the Court is really faced with three options:-

(i)        Make no order;

(ii)       Make a full care order and approve the care plan which has at its core the placement of the child with Ms G on a long term fostering arrangement, with a couple of refinements which we will come to in a moment;

(iii)      Adjourn the application leaving the interim care order in place with a view to the Minister revisiting the care plan and coming up with some alternative. 

10.      Although the Court is bound under the Law to have regard to the possibility of making no order, that does not seem to us to be a reasonable proposition in this case.  This child, like her siblings, has effectively been abandoned by her parents.  That is not to say that her parents do not love her in their way, or have feelings for her.  It is simply to say that they are incapable of providing for her care, as is apparent from their inability or unwillingness to participate in these proceedings. 

11.      The third option is that we adjourn the matter for the Minister to come up with another care plan.  If we had thought it right to do so, we would not have hesitated to follow this option despite the fact that it would have resulted in greater delay in the disposal of the application.  We do think it is important that the child has some certainty in her life and that the delay in concluding these proceedings must have had some adverse effect upon her; but nonetheless it may sometimes be right to defer taking a decision upon the basis that the only other decisions one could take would not be in the best interests of the child. 

12.      This is not one of those cases.  The Court is pleased to note that the Guardian has concluded that the approach of the Children's Service in assessing whether Ms G is a suitable foster carer for the child has been professional and robust.  The Court can well understand the fluctuations in the early days in Ms G's approach to this foster placement but all the evidence which we have had put before us suggests that there is a genuine bond between foster carer and child, and that the child is making good progress with her. 

13.      There are two refinements which she mentioned earlier which seem to us to be important.  The first is that we note that the child's paternal aunt has been approved as a respite carer for her, and will have care of her one weekend a month and at such other times as the paternal aunt and Ms G might agree.  The two ladies get on well, and have the child's best interests at heart.  We do not doubt that the provision of respite care will add greatly to the proposed arrangements not only because there is a kinship relationship, and the child's wish to be aware of her birth parentage and family should be encouraged, but also because the relationship between the child and her foster carer will be improved by the foster carer, who is single and therefore has no other support in the child's care, having time for herself. 

14.      Ms G has had a full time job but has made other arrangements which have had some financial impact upon her.  As we have indicated, this is her first foster placement, and apart from any financial assistance, she will undoubtedly need continued support from the Children's Service as the child moves through adolescence to adulthood.  We note that the Minister has given an undertaking in the following terms:-

"... the applicant [the Minister] shall provide [the child's] long term foster carer [Ms G] with ongoing financial support by way of an enhanced financial allowance, subject to review in light of [the child's] identifiable needs.  It being noted that, the enhanced allowance is crucial to the success of [the child's] placement with [Ms G] and that the applicant therefore commits to this undertaking for as long as it is deemed to be in the interests of [the child]". 

15.      The Guardian has clearly placed considerable reliance upon this undertaking, and in being satisfied with the care plan as proposed by the Minister, it is right that we should make it plain that the Court relies on this undertaking too. 

16.      Accordingly, the Court reaches the conclusion that the Minister's care plan can be approved not in any negative sense as being the best of a series of bad options, but as a positive approval of the arrangements which have been put before us. 

17.      In the circumstances the Minister's application for a full care order is granted. 

Authorities

In the matter of the CCC Children [2011] JRC 241.

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.