Care Order - application for an interim care order.
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Crill. |
Between |
Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
A (The Mother) |
First Respondent |
And |
B (The Father) |
Second Respondent |
And |
Jane Ferguson (Guardian ad Litem) |
Third Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002.
AND IN THE MATTER OF E (CARE ORDER)
Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Minister.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
Advocate L. V. Marks for the Second Respondent.
The Guardian ad Litem appeared in person.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Minister for an interim care order in respect of E, now nearly two years old ("the child"), who is the child of the first and second respondents. All parties agreed that not only was the threshold required by Article 30 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") passed, because there were reasonable grounds for believing that the child had suffered or was likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the care given to her by her parents, but also that it was appropriate that an interim care order should be made. In those circumstances, the Court did not make a full investigation into all the facts, but we did hear from Ms Sarah Jenner, the social worker, whose report dated 20th May, 2013, stood as her evidence in chief and provided more than sufficient confirmation that the child had suffered significant emotional and neglectful harm.
2. The child was registered on the Child Protection Register under the category of neglect at the age of four months and this continued until 18th April, 2013, when the category of registration changed. The basic care needs appear to have been neglected. There were serious questions raised as to whether the child was fed consistently and with an appropriate amount of food and with a varied diet. She was left in a sodden or soiled nappy when it should have been changed on more than one occasion actually witnessed by the social worker. The evidence from the social worker was that the child had a need for stability, security and consistency in her home environment and care giver, which needs were neglected. In particular, with each relationship breakdown, the mother has left the family home with the child and moved in with her father and step-mother, Mr and Mrs C, and on one occasion has moved to Causeway. The mother's last move to her father and step-mother occurred in November 2012 when the relationship between the first and second respondents ended again. The concern for the child's care is exacerbated by the fact that the mother appears not to have paid her any appropriate attention - neither talking to her, playing with her, nor promoting her ability to play or engage with child-focused and age-appropriate activities. Indeed generally, it was apparent during the first three months of 2013 that the mother seemed unable to provide any degree of stimulation or engagement for her daughter. Furthermore, the mother has not consistently engaged with Support Services which have been offered to her. On 31st March, 2013, the mother left the Island to live with her mother in the United Kingdom, leaving the child in the custody of Mr and Mrs C. The mother's contact with the child since then has been inconsistent. It is apparent that although she has expressed her wish to speak on the telephone with the child every day, she has not in fact done so regularly. Between 3rd May and the date of the hearing on 24th May, the mother had no telephone contact with her daughter at all. We were not able to investigate fully the reasons for the lack of contact over this period, but of course it has to be recognised that telephone contact with a girl aged 21 months whose speech is not as advanced as it should be, is bound to be difficult and liable to cause frustrations.
3. The child has been in the voluntary care of the Minister since 15th April, and under that agreement has continued living with her grandfather and step-grandmother. The mother has indicated that she would be coming to Jersey in August and at Christmas, and hoped to see her daughter on each of those occasions. However when discussions were taking place between the mother and the social worker as to whether the mother would attend this hearing, Ms Jenner asked the mother whether she would wish to see her daughter then and was told that she would not.
4. On the other hand, it came to the attention of the Children's Service on 3rd May that the mother had asked the father to bring the child to the mother in the UK. This was clearly not in the child's best interests having regard to previous history, and both the father and Mr and Mrs C were concerned at the mother's request. Indeed it was that request which emphasises to the Court this is not a case where the Court should consider at any length making no order, because it is so clearly in the interests of the child that she should have some security and stability.
5. The Minister's care plan involved the child remaining with Mr and Mrs C while consideration was given to her long term care. In that connection the first and second respondents have been ordered to provide the Minister with names and contact details of any persons whom they wish to be considered for a viability assessment, such names to be provided by 7th June, 2013.
6. In the event, the only matters which were argued before us concerned whether there should be a formal order for contact, and whether there should be a direction given for a further parenting assessment on the mother. The Minister proposed no formal order for contact upon the basis that under the Law it was the Minister's responsibility to promote contact if possible, and the suggestion of a further parenting assessment was rejected by the Minister essentially on the grounds that the mother, having left the child to go to England, could not easily be assessed and the proposal was therefore not practical.
7. Neither of the respondents chose to call evidence in relation to either of these matters. The father supported the position of the Minister. There was however some evidence from Ms Jenner on these points. Ms Jenner agreed that the mother had blamed Mr and Mrs C for being threatening when she spoke to them over the telephone and that this may have been the reason why attempts to contact the child had become less frequent since she left Jersey at the end of March. Ms Jenner also told us that the mother had told her that she wanted to have the child back in a few years' time. If this is so, this emphasises to us what little understanding there is of the needs of the child. It is neither fair nor practical to expect others to have care of your child during the early years, and then reappear in her life some years later and expect all to be well.
8. Ms Jenner was of the view that, the Minister having a duty to promote contact, there was benefit to flexibility in this respect in the care plan. The Court agrees. We do not think that the mother's actions over the last nine months make it possible to find a contact order which would be in the best interests of the child, and it is better to leave some flexibility, given the Minister's statutory obligations.
9. As to the question of carrying out a parenting assessment, the Court cannot help noting that the mother has had two years of care of the child to demonstrate her parental capacity and her abilities in that respect. The lack of care demonstrated in the social worker's statement is such that we do not feel immediately sympathetic to the mother's application, but our reasons for finding against it are more pragmatic. As we understand it, the parenting assessment is carried out over a period of some three months and involves an assessment of the mother independently of the mother's treatment of the child, as well as reviewing the care of the child in the surroundings in which the mother is expecting to conduct that care. None of this is possible in this case. It was floated with us that it would be good enough for the purposes of an assessment if the mother came to Jersey once every four weeks or so for a full day; and indeed it was urged before us that the mother should have the cost of these visits to the Island funded by the Minister because she had no financial ability to pay herself. First of all, Ms Jenner expressed her reservations as to whether it was sensible to anticipate a satisfactory assessment could be made in this way even in finance were not an issue and we agree with those. Secondly, there has been no evidence of financial need put before us, neither has there been any evidence of the apparent financial difficulties which are said to have driven the mother to leave the Island at the end of March. When Advocate English was asked why there had not been an application for taking the mother's evidence by video, he told us that it had not been possible, to motivate the local Council in England to provide this service at short notice. The answer to that would have been either to adjourn the application so that further enquiry could be made as to provision of the costs necessary to enable a video link, or indeed an application for directions from the Court as to providing the cost of the mother's visit to the Island. We regret to say that on the information currently available to us, we think that the mother has chosen to leave the Island, and therefore to leave her daughter, and that she has thereby brought all these difficulties upon herself. At this stage we are not prepared to order a parenting assessment.
10. The proposal that the Minister should pay for the mother's contact was, it appears, a rather last minute suggestion, and Advocate Robinson complained that he had not had the opportunity of taking instructions upon it, nor had due consideration been given to it. It would clearly be an expense for the Minister to take on this responsibility. In that connection we note from In Re X Children [2009] JLR 66 that the Minister does not have an absolute duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children irrespective of financial considerations, and that the Law imposed a general duty with a discretion as to how that duty should be fulfilled. It was clear that the Law could not be enacted without reference to the reality of finite public funds, and it was and is rational to take financial considerations into account. Clearly if this question of providing financing to the mother for her to return to the Island is to be raised again, the Minister must be given due notice of any such application so that the possibility of providing that funding goes into the mix with all other considerations which are then relevant to the course of action which is proposed to be followed.
11. For these reasons the directions which have been given do not include any provision for a parenting assessment on the mother, nor do they make provision for any formal order for contact.
12. There is liberty to apply.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.