Care proceedings - application by the Minister 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 |
B (the mother) |
First Respondent |
And |
C (the father of F, G and H) |
Second Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF THE A CHILDREN (CARE PROCEEDINGS)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002.
Advocate S. L. Brace for the Applicant.
Advocate E. L. Jordan for the First Respondent.
Mrs J. Ferguson, Guardian and Advocate H. J. Heath for the Children.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Minister for Health and Social Services ("the Minister") in respect of six children of the first respondent (together called "the children"). The current proceedings concern the same family in respect of which a Supervision Order was made by the Court on 22nd April, 2013. The Court permitted the introduction into the current proceedings of all evidence reports and documents that were before the Court in those earlier proceedings. None of the fathers or putative father of the children wished to participate in the current proceedings.
2. This case is unusual. The Minister first brought an application for an interim care order on 12th September, 2012. In fact these proceedings ultimately resulted in a full Supervision Order being made on 22nd April, 2013, as indicated above. The Minister now brings a further application for an interim care order. These proceedings were commenced on 5th August, 2013. The skeleton argument filed by the Minister categorises the reasons for the present application as the following:-
(i) Poor compliance with the terms of the Supervision Order.
(ii) Missed health and other appointments.
(iii) Concerns expressed by the children's schools regarding lateness, not arriving with appropriate clothing and general deterioration in their presentation.
(iv) Concerns expressed by the mother regarding her ability to meet all of the children's needs.
(v) The mother's recent arrest for being drunk and disorderly.
(vi) The impact on the children of the mother's new relationship with X.
(vii) The mother's ability to prioritise the children's needs over her own; and
(viii) Allegations made by H, who is aged four, that X had smacked her across her ear.
3. Whereas at the hearing in April this year there was an agreed threshold statement that the children had suffered significant harm and were likely to suffer significant harm at the relevant date in those proceedings, namely 11th September, 2012, and that that harm was attributable to the care given or likely to be given to them by the mother not being the standard of care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give, no such agreed threshold document was put before us. Accordingly, as this is a fresh application, we have had to consider the issue of threshold as at the institution of the current proceedings, namely 5th August, 2013. The evidence for us to consider in this connection consisted of all the evidence that was before the Court in April 2013 together with the evidence of the social worker, who not only set out evidence in full in her statement of 5th August, but also gave oral evidence before the Court; the evidence of the guardian, Mrs Ferguson; and a written statement from the mother.
4. As we have indicated previously in In the matter of D (Care Order) [2013] JRC 104, the Court is entitled to look at the position before the date on which the application was made in order to assess at the relevant date, namely the initiation of the proceedings, whether the child or children is or are likely to suffer significant harm in the future.
5. The threshold test before us is that set out in Article 30(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law"). We must ask ourselves whether we are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances with respect to any of the children are as mentioned in Article 24(2) of the Law. Accordingly, we must ask ourselves if we are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the child/children is/are suffering or is/are likely to suffer significant harm, and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child/children, or likely to be given to the child/children if the order were not made, not being the standard of care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent - in this case the mother - to give.
6. It is important to note that Advocate Brace, for the Minister, conceded in her closing speech that the Minister's application was not based on the proposition that any of the children are currently suffering significant harm. The application was based solely on the submission that the children were likely to suffer significant harm in the future.
7. The evaluation of this test was considered by the House of Lords in Re O and N; Re B [2003] 1 FLR 1169. In the leading judgment, with which all Law Lords agreed, Lord Nicholls referred to, and endorsed, a previous House of Lords decision in Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, and in the context of the likelihood of significant harm, said this at paragraph 16:-
"16. "Likely" does not mean more probable than not. It means a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case. This is a comparatively low level of risk. By a majority the House held that, for the purpose of satisfying this threshold level of risk in cases (such as alleged sexual abuse) in which there is a dispute over whether the child has indeed suffered past harm, the court may have regard only to harm proved to the requisite standard to have happened. Otherwise the purpose for which the threshold criteria were prescribed by Parliament could be defeated in a case where the only evidence that the child was likely to suffer harm in the future was an unproved allegation that he had suffered harm in the past. It would be extraordinary if, in respect of the self-same non proven allegations, the self-same insufficient evidence could nonetheless be regarded as a sufficient factual basis for satisfying the court there is a real possibility of harm in the future.
17. This would not be an acceptable interpretation of s 31(2). This suggests that, given the purpose of the threshold criteria, both limbs of the "significant harm" condition call for proof of facts. Like the inference that the child is already suffering harm the inference that the child is likely to suffer significant harm must be founded on one or more proved facts, as distinct from unproved allegations. Therein lies the protection Parliament intends the threshold criteria shall provide against arbitrary intervention by public authorities. This is the principal rationale for what might otherwise seem an unduly rigid approach."
8. We respectfully acknowledge and adopt that approach to our consideration of applications for interim and final care or supervision orders under the Law.
9. We start first with the agreed threshold findings in April, not because those findings establish whether the children are likely to be suffering significant harm as at the relevant date in August this year but because they may inform our assessment of whether the facts which are established as at 5th August, 2013, are such that the Court should have reasonable grounds for believing there is a likelihood of significant harm at this later date.
10. Paragraph 5 of the agreed threshold findings in April was in these terms:-
"At the relevant date the children were aged 9 years, 8 years, 5 years, 3 years, 2 years and 11 months old. During their life's (sic) they have been exposed to inappropriate and risky situations whilst in the care of [the mother] and [the father of J and K]."
11. The significant harm which the children had suffered or were at risk of suffering included serious sexual harm. The father of J and K had an allegation of sexual assault made against him in 2009 by a victim who was aged 12 at the time of the alleged assault, and F had disclosed to the mother that she had also been sexually abused by the same man. There was also a suggestion that H might also have been indecently touched by the same man. These were serious allegations. The Court noted in its judgment in April that "some credence can be given to these allegations by the fact that J's father is currently in custody in the United Kingdom, serving a 7 year prison sentence, having been found guilty in March 2013 of four charges of assault by penetration on a child under 13 years old."
12. It is clear that there were other agreed threshold findings which were before the Court in April this year, but in our judgment these were nothing like as serious as the findings which gave rise to the Court's jurisdiction to treat the children as having suffered, or being likely to suffer, significant harm as at the relevant date in relation to the earlier application. The other agreed threshold findings were that, when under stress, the mother's care of the children was such as fell into the category of neglect. Indeed, they had been placed on the Child Protection Register in July 2012 on the grounds of neglect. The examples which were agreed in April were these:-
(i) The children on occasion presented at school unkempt and without adequate lunchboxes.
(ii) The mother struggled to maintain satisfactory home conditions.
(iii) The mother had not taken H to her induction sessions at nursery and had not attended her first day there.
(iv) The mother left the children in the care of a 15 year old neighbour whilst she was having dinner with a friend.
(v) The mother had left the children in the car alone (albeit the mother maintained they were within her view).
(vi) The mother had accepted that during periods of stress she had placed the children at risk and subjected them to neglect.
13. It was also agreed in April that the children had suffered emotional harm through the parenting they had received - she appeared stressed at times and shouted at them a lot, and there was an insecure attachment with H. Furthermore they had been exposed to domestic abuse between the mother and her former husband and former partner, the fathers of F, G, H, J and K respectively.
14. Finally there were some agreed findings in relation to physical harm and the risk of physical harm, but these do not appear to us to have been significant on their own.
15. We have gone into this detail because an analysis of the present conditions, compared with the agreed threshold findings in April this year shows that most of what was then sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court no longer applies, and cannot be used to justify the likelihood of the children suffering significant harm in the future. The sexual abuse allegations are in the past, and the father of J and K, who is alleged to have caused that abuse is serving a long-term prison sentence. Furthermore the mother not only reported him to the police at the time, following her becoming aware of the allegations of sexual abuse, but also has made it plain that she has no intention of having anything to do with him. The most serious complaint which existed at the relevant date in September 2012 (in relation to the previous proceedings) no longer applies.
16. Insofar as the neglect allegations which were agreed in April are concerned, it is accepted by the Minister that there is nothing unsatisfactory about the present home conditions.
17. Insofar as the physical harm allegations were concerned, there is said to be a similarity only in relation to one of the factors which were agreed in April. In July 2012, H fell out of a moving car whilst the mother was driving and sustained a bang to her head which required an overnight stay in hospital. The mother was not charged by the police with neglect. However there is a resonance with this incident in one of the complaints which we deal with below. Otherwise there are no current allegations of physical harm which are consistent with the complaints as at September 2012.
18. The first complaint is that the mother has not complied adequately with the Supervision Order. The Supervision Order in respect of the children contained seven requirements for them, and six requirements for the mother as the responsible adult. The alleged non-compliance with the Supervision Order really amounts to these complaints:-
(i) The mother has not always kept appointments which have been made, whether for herself or for the children.
(ii) The children have not always attended or been collected from nursery or school on time, or with appropriate clothes, lunch and equipment.
(iii) The two older children have both missed one separate appointment with their respective mentors.
(iv) The mother has had problems with her car, and on one occasion K was not strapped in appropriately.
19. In her statement, the mother says that she thinks she has met the vast majority of her obligations under the present Supervision Order. She makes the point that the demands placed upon her by this order are significant and require a substantial time commitment. She acknowledges that sometimes she has been late, and that sometimes she has had to cancel and rearrange appointments. She puts this down to occasions when one or more of the children have been ill, or when she has had a recurring health problem in relation to her back pain, or her car has let her down. Finally she says that she has occasionally missed appointments which have been made by the Children's Service without checking with her whether she is available, or whether she has been double booked. An example of that was the core group meeting on 15th July, 2013, which she could not attend because it was arranged for the same time as she was meeting with the Children's Service and her Advocate. This was of particular concern to her because the minutes of that meeting which she subsequently received contained a number of negative and in her view unsubstantiated allegations, which upset her.
20. We have reviewed the schedule of significant events which is annexed to the witness statement of the children's social worker dated 5th August. We have also had regard to the statement which the mother has made, and we are conscious of the need to avoid, on a threshold finding, any concluded view of the facts. All we are concerned with is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the conditions of Article 24 are met. In summary, we think there are reasonable grounds for believing that there have been occasions when the mother has been at fault for not keeping appointments which have been made. Although there is no onus on the mother at this stage to prove anything, we can also well accept that there are reasonable grounds for thinking that on other occasions, the mother has had perfectly valid reasons for not meeting the appointments. The conclusions we draw from these findings will be discussed below. As regards concerns expressed by the children's schools, we have noted the following comments from the minutes of the core group meetings because we have little other direct evidence in this connection. The minutes of the meeting on 4th July show that that meeting was attended by the head teacher and one other teacher from the school attended by E, F and G and a teacher from the primary school attended by H. The teacher in the school of E, F and G acknowledged that the relationship with the mother had been good, although there had been a few problems in the preceding couple of weeks, which were put down to an incident involving X when K was considered by a teacher to have been inadequately strapped in the car seat. The minutes contain this reference:-
"[It was] felt that [the school] had always managed to maintain a relationship and if no lunchbox was present or the children not in the school would telephone Mum to see if help was needed.
From a staff perspective they would be sorry to see the children go when they change schools as they are fantastic children always polite, kind and caring. Their attendance is the same as the last meeting although lateness has improved as they have started attending breakfast club again.
The children are regularly picked up by a neighbour or go to kids club at the end of the day. The school has noticed that Mum picks up a lot more recently at the end of the school day.
Behaviour - all the children behave very well generally but in recent weeks there has a lot of silly behaviour in particular with F and G, as in refusing to do activities or generally trying to distract other children in the classroom. There has also been a bit more soiling from G in the last couple of weeks, this may be possible due to the change in the family circumstances.
Ongoing - there is a small concern regarding the lateness of lunchboxes but they do always come in by lunchtime."
21. The core group meeting in May contained these relevant passages:-
"E, F and G have been attending school since they have resumed breakfast club. Their clothes are clean at school.
H is bringing her lunchbox to school but the sandwiches can be too large for her and sometimes seem like they have been made by a child. H is toileting better but she can seem tired.
K's skin has improved which suggests [the mother] is treating the condition well.
There is no information to suggest the children have been exposed to inappropriate conversations or incidents recently."
22. The core group meeting on 12th June contains these relevant extracts:-
"J and K have been attending nursery and there have been no problems. Normally they like to be together but are in different age groups in nursery. K's eczema has flared again but this is probably related to sun cream. K has not seen the dermatologist about his skin. Both children are clean when they come to nursery and J is developing self-care skills. They have the appropriate equipment they need. There was an issue when [family support worker] took J and K to nursery as K's nappy had leaked quite a bit and she was not sure this had all happened in the car. The mother and [nursery representative] noted this was unusual.
...
H has been late to nursery recently and does not help her settle there. Her lunches are normally fine and her clothes normally clean. She has been coming with pen drawings on her recently.
G, E and F are normally on time for school but not for breakfast club. G has been more dirty on a Monday recently and has had pen drawings on him. E is not in his full school uniform. Lunches are not always on time [sic] but generally arrive by lunchtime. G has forgotten his book bag recently."
23. The core group meeting minutes for 15th June show these contributions from the schools:-
"[Nursery teacher] reported that H has been late almost every day to school. She was due to start at 8.45 am and does not arrive until about 9.10/9.15 am. There is no explanation given by mum for lateness. H did not attend the school on Friday and there was no phonecall or explanation from Mum for H's absence.
H has been collected late from school at 3.05 pm when they finish at 2.45 pm. There was no explanation from Mum.
H wets herself most days and there is no change of clothes provided by Mum to school. [Mother] has provided one day a pair of trousers and a pair of F's pants that were too big for H; but this does not assist when H is wetting every day. N School are trying to make/reassure H about her wetting and yet Mum comes into school at the end of each day and picks up the wet clothes saying "what's this about?" X believes H is wetting deliberately and is taking quite a stand with this view. [There was a request H be referred to the paediatrician about her wetting].
H was invited into a birthday party for the first time, and to which all of nursery class were going. Despite [mother] being told of this and reminded repeatedly, H did not go. The friend brought a present in for H given she did not attend the party and H was delighted. All of the class were talking about the party on Monday and H was the only one who had not gone."
24. An extract from the same minutes of the contribution from the school which E, F and G attended is in these terms:-
"[Teacher] has had no direct contact with mum since the case conference. [Mother] has collected from the playground one day and [teacher] sent the children over to her. Usually however they go home with .. their neighbour. On Thursday or Friday of last week [mother] had come to school with the three younger children and was playing a game of rounders with the children and [X] outside the school. [Mother] was seen running, throwing, catching and bending down. It was questioned how this fitted with her back problem.
E, F and G have all been down and very quiet since the case conference and have gotten progressively worse, E particularly so. F was at Crabbe last week and did not enjoy her time there.
F told the lady at Breakfast Club today that at the weekend she got into trouble with a stranger. F said they had gone to [X's] new house and she had gone to P's Garage with J and K; J ran into the road and a stranger had to run and get her and told F that she look after her little sister better. F was upset by this.
F was not well today and was sick in the playground. Mum was called at 12.45 pm but said she had a meeting with her lawyer and would collect F when she could.
The children will be transferring to [new school] in September. They have started the transition process. F has talked of looking forward to moving house because she will be able to go to P's Garage where there are lots of nice things.
G soiled himself twice last week and it was found he had no pants on; only trousers. Staff are now checking to ensure he has pants when he comes to school to avoid this incident reoccurring.
On Friday G and E came to M School with no lunch - they had lunchboxes but in them was only yoghurt. School found some food for the boys. There was no explanation from Mum. School did not raise this with mum that day."
25. This evidence provides reasonable grounds for thinking that there has been some lateness on occasion in the delivery of the children to school, and, on occasion, they have not arrived with appropriate clothing. Some of the extracts suggest there may have been a deterioration in their attitude and presentation. The significance of these matters is considered below.
26. The Minister's application contends that the children are likely to suffer significant harm because of the concerns expressed by the mother regarding her ability to meet all of the children's needs. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the mother has expressed these concerns from time to time.
27. On 20th July the mother was arrested and charged with being drunk and disorderly and resisting arrest. She indicates she is due to attend a Parish Hall inquiry and she intends to plead guilty to that charge. This occurred a few days after her 30th birthday when she went out to celebrate. She and X went to a nightclub and, she asserts, were aggressively detained by the door staff. She expresses regret that her birthday celebrations ended in the way they did and she acknowledges that she should have reacted in a calmer manner, as X did. She had made arrangements when she and X were out for the children to be cared for. J and K were spending the night with their paternal grandmother, F was with her maternal grandmother and the remaining three children were being looked after by her neighbour and by a friend of hers. The neighbour, whom the children knew well was to stay at the house until the children went to sleep, and the friend was to stay overnight. The Children's Service have anxiety that they had not been made aware of the identity of the friend, and although that this was not a legal obligation on the part of the mother, it was an obligation under the Child Protection Plan, as she had failed to have the friend approved by the Children's Service for the purposes of care of the children. There are reasonable grounds for treating these as facts for the purposes of our evaluation below of the Minister's application.
28. The remaining grounds upon which the Minister brings the application really relate to the new relationship with X and the consequences for the children. The Minister's position is that the new relationship with X has been the cause of the deterioration in the children's presentation and behaviour, and is indicative of the mother's inability to prioritise the children's needs over her own. There is one particular occasion when it is alleged by H that X has smacked her across the ear. This incident allegedly occurred on 28th June. H arrived at school, and made it clear that her ear was hurting her. She kept pointing to it, and it had been noted that her ear was red when she came into school. She stated that her ear hurt because X had smacked it hard with his hand. She gave the same explanation at different times to the school, to the social worker, to the police and to the police force medical examiner. According to H, she had been noisy in her bedroom with J, but she thought she had not been that noisy. X had smacked her on her bottom and her ear. H said that he had smacked J as well. He does not smack K, because K is a baby and she said he had not smacked G, F or E.
29. There is no medical evidence to support any smacking having taken place, no sign of infection, no bruising to the ear, no damage to the ear drum and no apparent neurological damage.
30. The mother does not believe X has smacked H as she has not left them alone and has not seen this. She has stated that she does not smack her children, and she does not allow others to do so.
31. H was examined by the police doctor, but no specialist child witness interview was conducted as a result of her age. It was clear when the mother and X came to collect her from the police station that she showed no fear of either of them. According to the mother, she broke away from the social worker who was with her at the time, and ran over to X and hugged him. In her evidence before us, Ms Stark said she did not recall any hug taking place but she agreed that H did not show herself to be frightened of X at all.
32. As far as this alleged smacking of H by X is concerned, we accept the submission made by Advocate Jordan in closing that the allegations are unproven. The police have taken no action and H suffered no injury. She showed no fear of X at the police station. In the light of these factors, one cannot say that there is a proven fact from which the likelihood of future harm can be deduced.
33. The Minister contends that X has been aggressive to school teachers and to the Children's Service representatives. We have not heard from X, and it is not our function today to make any findings as to whether the complaints about his conduct are or are not made out. We accept there may be reasonable grounds for believing these complaints to be established. We discuss conclusions in relation to this below.
34. Against these findings we now consider the threshold test.
35. We do not think there is any doubt that there are grounds for being concerned as to the future outlook for this family. The mother has six children, the oldest of whom is 10 years old. The pressure on any mother with that number of children would be very great. Inevitably there will be times when she feels under the greatest stress, and times when she feels unable to cope. There will be other times when she feels the greatest satisfaction at what she has been able to achieve for her children where others with fewer number of challenges seem to achieve less.
36. In this case, the problems which this particular mother faces are no doubt exacerbated by psychological traits, her past relationship experiences, and an occasional problem with alcohol and with authority. We do not doubt that the existence of the care proceedings commenced in September 2012 added greatly to the pressure and stress which this mother faced. We also do not doubt that the resurrection of these care proceedings will have added to the pressures upon her. In the course of the social worker's evidence, we did not notice any obvious empathy between the mother and the social worker. This is unfortunate, and is a matter for management consideration in the Children's Service. There is absolutely no blame cast on either of them for this. It is simply a reflection that we were not satisfied that the social interaction between the two necessarily worked in the interests of the children. We make no recommendation because our assessment may be wrong. It is made under artificial circumstances over the course of two days. It is a management matter for the Children's Service, which may wish to take account of the views which we have just expressed.
37. We completely understand the concerns of the Children's Service that, given the mother's tendency to have unfortunate relationships with men who do not look after her or her children, she may have embarked on a similarly difficult relationship with X. We understand the concerns, but there is no sufficient evidence before us to justify them and indeed we think the difficulties between the mother and the authorities, within which we include the Children's Service and the schools may have been exacerbated by a hasty - perhaps too hasty - judgment on the merits of X. We recognise that he has a previous conviction for a serious criminal assault and that he may well have demonstrated signs of aggression to the authorities. On the other hand, it was clear from what we heard in evidence that he is regarded by the mother as her partner and that he is willing and anxious to help her in the care of six children. She needs help. The prospect of a single mother caring for six children under 10 is such that anyone would recognise this. We entirely agree with the guardian that it would perhaps be better not to reach any immediate conclusions on this relationship but to allow it to develop. In that context, the suggestion that contact between the mother and X should only take place in the absence of the children appears to us to be harsh and artificial. Such an arrangement drives a wedge either between the mother and her children or between the mother and the partner who wishes to help her in looking after them. Neither he nor the mother may be perfect carers for the children but it is salutary to remind ourselves of the comments of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 which are cited with approval by this Court in In the matter of D (Care Order) [2013] JRC 104 where he recognised the statements of Lord Templeman in Re KD (A Minor Ward) (Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806 who said this:-
"The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature.
There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but undoubtedly it represents the present state of the law in determining the starting point. It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences following from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done."
38. Accordingly, while we recognise that there are concerns as to what might happen in the future, we do not think that the circumstances, as at the relevant date are such that one could say on the balance of probabilities that reasonable grounds exist for considering these children to be likely to suffer significant harm in the future. Threshold is not passed. It is true that appointments with CAHMS, with dentists, with doctors or with the Children's Service might from time to time have been missed. This is regrettable, and the mother should do better. Sometimes she no doubt has had a good excuse for missing those appointments but not always. We recognise that with six children in her care, things may simply get too much from time to time and allowance should be made for that. We do not think that this is a feature which can possibly be treated as one likely to cause these Children significant harm, not least because the missing of appointments is sporadic.
39. We think the complaint about lunchboxes is trifling. The truth is, according to school reports, that even if the lunchboxes from time to time arrive late, they generally arrive in time for lunch. There seems to have been one or two occasions where the lunchbox has not contained much by way of sustenance. We have no explanation for that. Perhaps the child in question ate the contents on the way to school, or during break. At all events, this happens so infrequently as can be disregarded for the purposes of considering whether there is a likelihood of suffering significant harm, albeit, obviously, that the lunchboxes should arrive on time and should be properly provided.
40. We do not think that a single instant of drunkenness is sufficient to constitute grounds for thinking the children are likely to suffer significant harm. Of itself, we do not think that the failure to notify the Children's Service of the identity of a carer for the children that evening is a reasonable ground for considering that the children are likely to suffer significant harm. In saying that, such a failure might, with other evidence, be part of an overall picture which leads to that conclusion. It is obviously right that the mother should comply with the conditions which are set for the protection of the child when he or she is entered on the Child Protection Register. Once again, however, this is a single incident. There is no suggestion the friend was actually incompetent to look after the children and the mother did not leave them on their own.
41. For all these reasons, we think that the threshold test is not passed, and there is therefore nothing to confer on the Court jurisdiction to deal with this family afresh at this time. We recognise the concerns, which we have no doubt are entirely genuine, and have been expressed in what is, in the view of the Children's Service, in the best interests of the children. However, we note from the papers introduced into these proceedings from that last set of proceedings, that the mother has a good attachment with five of her six children, all of whom love her and relate well to her. The only potential difficulty is with H, whose attachment to the mother appears to be uncertain, as the mother herself recognises. H, however, is part of a large family of siblings. The better course is to work on the attachment with her mother and not to contemplate circumstances which might lead to the breaking up of that family.
42. We recognise also the legitimacy of concerns about the mother's relationship with X. Not only has he a previous conviction for violence, but there have also been allegations - unproven - of domestic violence within a previous relationship of his, and as we have indicated earlier, there are allegations of aggressive behaviour on his part, not only to the Children's Service and the schools, but also of course to H. There is also an anonymous complaint that X was aggressive towards E by shouting at him. Most of these allegations are unproven but they are clearly causes for concern. Nonetheless, the relationship between mother and X is potentially a very positive relationship. At this stage, not knowing whether it will be positive or negative, every effort should, so it seems to us, be placed on encouraging the potentially positive nature of the relationship. If the authorities do that, it may well be that much of the aggression shown by X towards them will dissipate. He and the mother both need to believe that they will have support. They will need it.
43. In the course of the hearing, we were told that the mother had "massive support". That meant, support from CAHMS; the support of the family support worker who hopes to see the mother once every two weeks although that is not always possible; the health visitor who sees the mother once a month; nursery provision for J and K, funded by the Children's Service; the kids club in St Mary, which will need to be replaced with a similar service in St Helier now that the mother has moved her home to that area; the support of the paternal grandmother in relation to J and K, and the support of the maternal grandmother occasionally; the mentors who are available to E, F and G; and of course the provision of the social worker.
44. All these are indeed sources of support and we do not for one moment diminish their value. On the other hand, this is a single mother with six children. It is no support to tell her that the man with whom she had clearly embarked on a reasonably serious relationship must not appear in the large part of her life which is reflected by her children. It also occurs to us that it is a pity that the cost of many of the professional reports and services which are provided could not be diverted to helping the mother on a daily basis in maintaining the home, doing the family shopping, collecting the children from school, helping with their evening meal or putting them to bed.
45. What next? The Minister's application was originally for an interim care order, although agreement was reached that if threshold were passed, there should be an interim supervision order with various other directions. Because we have not found the threshold to be passed, this does not arise, but there is of course an existing supervision order and a variation to that order is always possible. In the context of the Minister's application, the parties had agreed, as had X, to a psychological assessment being made in respect of the mother and X, specifically focussing on the risks, if any, that X presented to the children, and the mother's ability to manage those risks. In her evidence before us, the guardian suggested that if the Court were to give directions in this connection, it should also order a drug and alcohol report on both X and the mother.
46. We think the fact that X has agreed to have reports carried out on him is a positive sign and we welcome it. Advocate Brace submitted that if the Court found that threshold were not passed, the Minister would wish to make an application for variation to the existing supervision order to achieve the changes which are set out in the draft order which was put before us. We only have jurisdiction to make the following directions if there is in fact an application for such a variation, and we invite the Minister to consider putting that expression of intention made on her behalf by Advocate Brace into practice with a formal application. If the application were made, the Court would make the following directions:-
(i) The parties should within 10 days jointly instruct Mrs Emsley to prepare a psychological assessment in respect of X, with his consent, specifically focussing on the risks, if any, that he presents to the children.
(ii) Drug and alcohol reports should also be obtained in relation to both X and the mother.
(iii) X should be invited to confirm that he would be willing to attend a parenting course at The Bridge, and that, if available, he would be willing to undertake the ADAPT domestic abuse programme.
47. In the event of any application for a variation being made, other ancillary directions might be needed in relation to health and medical records, the disclosure of police material into the proceedings, probation reports and criminal convictions.
48. In the meantime, we think that this mother and X must be allowed to get on with their lives with as much stress removed from them as possible. We think there should be no restrictions on contact between the children and X and these would only be introduced to the extent that there was sufficient evidence of their necessity. We say expressly that that evidence does not exist on what we have heard so far.
49. It will be noted that we have not suggested any further psychological report on the mother. She has already been the subject of a number of reports and assessments, all quite recent, and we do not see the necessity for any more of them. She has quite enough interviews and meetings to go to, quite apart from looking after her children.
50. There will be oscillations from time to time in the behaviour of the children. Our hope is that the mother and X will gather from this judgment:-
(i) The Court's view that evidence for a further intervention by the State is lacking at present.
(ii) That the Children's Service have legitimate causes for concern, in the interests of the children, and that the right way to respond to that is not to use aggression; rather it is to work with the Children's Service to achieve a stable and solid upbringing for each of these children.
51. In the Minister's application for an interim care order, the suggestion was made that it was time to start parallel planning, from which we understand the Minister to be contemplating removing these children from their mother. Nothing we have seen or read suggests that the harm that would be caused to these children by staying with their mother would be anything like as great as the harm which would be caused to them by removing them. The stress of further care proceedings is not helpful. In our judgment, notwithstanding the understandable concerns which the Children's Service may have, there is a considerable gap between the present circumstances and circumstances where it would be right to contemplate draconian action of that kind.
Authorities
In the matter of the A Children (Supervision Order) [2013] JRC 080A.
In the matter of D (Care Order) [2013] JRC 104.
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Re O and N; Re B [2003] 1 FLR 1169.
Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563.
Re L (Care:-Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050.
Re KD (A Minor Ward) (Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806.