Care Order - application by the minister for child to reside with kinship carers.
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Clapham and Nicolle.
|
|||
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
The Mother |
First Respondent |
|
|
And |
The Father |
Second Respondent |
|
|
And |
Anthony Williams, (the Guardian appointed under Article 75(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002) |
Third Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF EEE (CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Minister.
Advocate C. Hall for the Mother.
Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Father.
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Guardian.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 15th September, 2011, the Court granted the Minister's application for a care order in respect of EEE ("the child") who was aged 6, pursuant to Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") and gave its approval for the child to live outside Jersey with her maternal aunt and her husband ("the kinship carers) and this pursuant to Article 4 of Schedule 2 of the Law.
2. It was agreed by the parties that the threshold criteria under Article 24(2) of the Law had been satisfied. Initially, the mother opposed the care plan and did not give her consent to the child living outside Jersey, but having heard the evidence of the experts, she made what must have been an agonising decision to support it, and to give her consent so that there was, in the end, consensus on the orders the Court should make. The Court was thus able to proceed with a limited investigation in order to discharge the duty imposed upon it to investigate the proposals advanced by the parties (see Devon County Council-v-S & Others (1992) 2 FLR 244). The Court heard evidence from Mr Michael Gafoor and Ms Eve Bowers of the Alcohol and Drugs Service, Mr John Castleton, chartered psychologist, Dr Bryn Williams, consultant clinical psychologist, Ms Irene Hansford, senior social worker, and Mr Antony Williams, the guardian.
3. The mother has four children in all, the older three being from an earlier relationship. She has been known to the Children's Services since November 2001. Both she and the father drank heavily and the relationship was stormy and on occasions violent. During 2006, for example, the police were called to the family home some thirteen times when the children were present. The father left the family home in 2006. The mother's excessive drinking continued and all four children were made the subject of interim supervision orders in October 2007 and June 2008. In July 2008, the two older sons moved to live with their father and paternal grandmother in England, leaving the child and her older sister with the mother. In November 2009, the mother was convicted of being disorderly on licensed premises, assaulting the police and resisting arrest. On 18th March, 2010, she was convicted of child neglect when intoxicated (in relation to the elder daughter) and numerous other drink related offences. She was ordered to complete 180 hours' community service and placed on one year's probation. On 26th July, 2010, she was convicted of two further charges of child neglect when intoxicated, in breach of the Community Service and Probation Orders. She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The child and her older sister were placed in emergency foster care, the older sister going to live permanently with her father in England. The child has remained in foster care in Jersey.
4. This recital of the mother's convictions leaves out the numerous drink related incidents which have come to the attention of the Children's Service, but it suffices to show how the Court had little difficulty in determining that the threshold criteria had been met.
5. The mother was released from prison in November 2010 and an interim care order granted in respect of the child on 7th January, 2011. Mrs Hansford, in her report of 21st December, 2010, stated that she would be greatly concerned if a decision was made to return the child to the mother's care in terms of her accommodation at the time (she then shared a one-bedroom flat with her boyfriend) let alone all the other issues concerning her alcohol misuse and her lifestyle. The mother had given ambivalent messages in relation to her drinking, indicating on the one hand that she had stopped drinking altogether and on the other that she was maintaining drinking to a moderate level. In Mrs Hansford's view, she had not yet proved that she could offer the child any kind of stability or security. The child had been enjoying a stable and good routine in foster care and was thriving in her foster care environment.
6. The maternal grandmother in Jersey had put her name forward to be assessed as a kinship carer, but after careful consideration, decided not to proceed, while wishing to remain involved with the child as her grandmother and helping where she can. The father put forward his sister and her husband, Mr and C, who live in Bolton as kinship carers. The child has been visiting Mr and Mrs C over the last year and they have built a stable and good relationship demonstrating that they are capable of parenting her well. The child has a good attachment with Mrs C and is comfortable and happy in her care. Mr and Mrs C were assessed as kinship carers and approved on 30th March, 2011. The care plan envisaged that the child would be placed with Mr and Mrs C in Bolton.
7. Dr Williams did not believe that the mother required parenting education or work; his primary concern was that her own needs made it difficult, if not impossible, to provide the reparative parenting role that the child needed to repair the damage that had been done. It was essential for the mother to carry out the drug and alcohol treatment and psychological therapy advised by Mr Castleton.
8. The father's own concerns as to his drinking behaviour and psychological needs made it difficult for him to take the parenting role.
9. As Dr Williams explained, there would be losses in the child moving to Bolton, including regular contact with the mother, father and maternal grandmother and the loss of her school and friends. However, in his opinion, what she would gain by reparative parenting experience with her aunt would be extremely important and valuable. He had been to Bolton in August 2011 and seen the child with her aunt and paternal grandmother and came away with a very positive view of it. It was clear to him that the aunt would give no preferential treatment to the father (her brother) and wanted to include the mother in the child's life. Dr Williams supported the care plan.
10. The Guardian had also visited Mr and Mrs C and the child in August and was impressed by the attitude and commitment to promoting and facilitating contact between the child and in particular the mother. In his view, the C's understood the challenges ahead of them and were committed.
11. Assessing the wishes of the child this young is a difficult and sensitive task but the thrust of the answers she gave to his carefully crafted questions was that given a choice, she would live with her uncle and aunt in Bolton. Mr Williams concluded that neither parent had any significant or reliable prospects to afford the child the level of support she needed. She could not languish in foster care, becoming an "administered child" and the only other alternative would be adoption, a view with which Mrs Hansford concurred.
12. Mrs Hansford has also visited Mr and Mrs C and the child in Bolton.
13. Both Dr Williams and Mr Williams were clear that with Mr and Mrs C becoming the primary carers, any decisions about contact between the mother and the child would need to be judged against the mother's commitment to supporting the care plan in order to meet her daughter's needs. The mother's decision during the hearing to support the care plan and the constructive proposals put forward by Miss Hall on her behalf for the parties to work together on the supportive message to be given to the child in her "goodbye" contact with the mother augured well.
14. The care plan envisaged a two month period in which there would be no face to face or telephone contact between the child and the parents, in order to allow the child time to settle into her new home. The child's 7th birthday fell within this period and in addition to cards and presents via the Children's Service, the Minister had no objection in principle to the parents telephoning. Any telephone calls would, certainly initially, be on speakerphone, so as to ensure that the parents were not seeking to undermine the placement. Contact with the parents and maternal grandmother (supervised initially in the case of the parents) would take place in Jersey with Mr and Mrs C bringing the child over three times a year and visits could be made by the parents to see the child in Bolton. The child would be able to have contact with her half siblings, who lived in a bordering county.
15. The Court approached the welfare test in accordance with the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051 where Beloff JA said this at paragraphs 7 and 8:-
"7. If the threshold criteria are not satisfied, the Court will make no order. If they are satisfied, the Court must then consider whether such an order should be made.
8. For this purpose it is well established that:-
(i) The child's welfare is the paramount consideration (Article 2(1) the 2002 Law).
(ii) Any delay in determining a question with regard to the upbringing of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child (Article 2(2)) (ditto).
(iii) The Court must have regard to the seven matters ("the welfare checklist") set out in Article 2(3) (ditto).
(iv) The Court must not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order (Article 2(5) (ditto).
(v) Before making a care order the Court must scrutinise the care plan prepared by the Minister for the child. Before making a care order the Court must scrutinise the proposals for contact in the care plan and invite the parties to comment on them (Article 27(11) (ditto)."
16. Given the history of the mother's excessive drinking and associated neglect of the child, culminating in the mother's imprisonment for six months, the proposed placement with Mr and Mrs C was manifestly in the child's interests. It was a placement within the wider family, with relatives she knew and liked, who were committed to providing the reparative parenting which she needed. That placement could not be securely achieved without a care order. It would constitute a considerable change in her circumstances, but it accorded with her wishes and provided the best opportunity for her physical, emotional and educational needs to be met. The parents were not capable of meeting her needs, but Mr and Mrs C clearly were. The Court therefore determined that the care order should be made.
17. The Minister required the approval of the Court for the child to live in Bolton, pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of Schedule 2 of the Law. Article 4(2) provides that the Court shall not give its approval under sub-paragraph (1)(a) unless it is satisfied that -
"(a) it would be in the child's best interests to live outside Jersey;
(b) suitable arrangements have been, or will be, made for the child's reception and welfare in the country in which the child will live:
(c) the child has consented to living in that country except where -
(i) the court is satisfied that the child does not have sufficient understanding to give or withhold his or her consent, and
(ii) the child is to live in the country concerned with a parent, guardian or other suitable person; and
(d) every person who has parental responsibility for the child has consented to the child living in that country except for a person whom the court is satisfied cannot be found, is incapable of consenting or is withholding his or her consent unreasonably."
18. For the reasons set out above, it was in the child's interests to live in Bolton. We were satisfied that suitable arrangements had been made for the child's reception and welfare in Bolton, both with Mr and Mrs C and Bolton Social Services. The child had not been asked to give her consent to live in Bolton, although it accorded with her wishes. We were satisfied that she did not have sufficient understanding to give or withhold her consent in view of her age and that she was to live in Bolton with suitable persons, namely Mr and Mrs C.
19. Finally, the mother and father, who both have parental responsibility consented to her living in Bolton. We therefore gave our approval.
20. In her closing submissions, Miss Hall applied for minimum contact orders to be made between the mother and child pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Law, something which the guardian supported. The Minister and the father resisted the application, stressing the need for flexibility. Noting the statutory obligation upon the Minister to allow reasonable contact between the child and her parents pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Law and the very positive approach to contact both on the part of the Children's Services and Mr and Mrs C, we did not think it was right to lay down rigid contact arrangements, even if set at the minimum, at the very outset of this new placement. Whilst such an order might, as the guardian said, boost and assist the mother, we could not see that it was in the child's interests to have such an order. Much depended upon the mother's support of the placement. She retained the locus to make an application for a contact order if in the future she felt it was in the interests of the child to do so.
21. We approved the care plan, with the exception of the following in relation to the detailed contact arrangements:-
(i) In our view, Mrs Hansford should inform the child of the outcome of these proceedings as soon as possible and that this should be before the mother sees the child. The meeting with the mother and the child should then take place as soon as possible thereafter, an agreed message to be given to her in the presence of Mrs Hansford and the guardian if requested. Thereafter, we thought it was reasonable for the mother to have a further contact with the child before she left Jersey. It was proposed that the father would have one contact with the child before she leaves, at which the agreed message would again be given.
(ii) In terms of the child's birthday, we thought it was in her interests to receive a telephone call from her mother and father - on speakerphone - unless there were compelling reasons for that not to happen. We also agreed that it would help the child to receive a letter from each parent once a month after the initial two month period.
(iii) In terms of contact thereafter in Jersey with the parents, maternal grandmother and others, we agreed with the guardian that three full days, excluding travel time, should be planned and this three times a year but the arrangements at this stage should be flexible.
22. Before the mother's change of position, the Court heard evidence about her from Mr Gafoor and Ms Bowers, her key worker from the Alcohol and Drugs Service and from Mr Castleton, the chartered psychologist. In view of her change in position, it is not necessary to go into detail as to their evidence, save to this extent. Mr Castleton advised that the mother has a history of depression, anxiety and behavioural difficulties. She has presented as aggressive and violent, particularly when she has been drinking heavily. She has personality characteristics common to substance misusers, such as poor impulse control, impatience, poor frustration tolerance, resentment and difficulty deferring gratification, which have contributed to her difficulties. She has underlying characteristics that are associated with symptoms of depression, feelings of shame, guilt, hopelessness, worthlessness and low self-esteem. She has limited insight into her difficulties, including the significance of her substance use. She has been enmeshed in a lifestyle where alcohol is used as part of her relationship/social behaviour and to manage her emotional state, for so long that anything and everything has become associated with substance misuse or other difficulties. Resolving this will require fundamental and comprehensive change in life skills, beliefs and attitudes. She thus has complex needs and should engage with psychosocial interventions for the next two years, at least to support her in making fundamental changes to her thinking, attitudes and behaviour. The Alcohol and Drugs Service will not be able to deliver all of these services, and therefore coordination was central to achieving positive outcomes for her.
23. The core work required was in "relapse prevention" work that would be undertaken by the Alcohol and Drugs Service. Mr Gafoor advised that another six months was required for this work. Mr Castleton advised that the mother would benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy, Solution Focused or Motivational Interviewing approaches to assist her to manage her emotions (including impulsivity) more effectively and feel more in control in the here and now. She would also benefit from longer term counselling that is directed at a deeper level to assist her with the distress she feels around her past and to enable her to develop strategies to achieve and maintain stability in her emotional wellbeing. To achieve significant benefits from any treatment will require commitment from her both in energy and time.
24. In these proceedings, the child welfare is our paramount concern, but it is clear that it is in the child's interests that her mother addresses these issues which she can only do with the coordinated support of the relevant agencies in Jersey, which we trust will be forthcoming.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Devon County Council-v-S & Others (1992) 2FLR 244.