Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - final care order and free for adoption order granted.

[2014]JRC015

Royal Court

(Family)

20 January 2014

IN THE MATTER OF E (CARE ORDER)

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

Advocate S. L. Brace for the Applicant.

Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.

Advocate L. V. Marks for the Second Respondent.

Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Third Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 4^th November, 2013, the Court granted the applicant ("the Minister") a final care order in relation to the third respondent ("the child"), who is aged 2, and freed her for adoption. 

2.        Both orders were made with the informed consent of the first respondent ("the mother") and the second respondent ("the father") and with the support of the guardian.  It is not necessary therefore for this judgment which gives our reasons for making those orders to go into the evidence in any great detail. 

3.        In a document entitled "Agreed Threshold Findings", the parties agreed that at the relevant date, namely 15^th April, 2013, which was the date upon which the child was received into voluntary care and since when protective measures have been continuously in place, the child was suffering significant harm and was likely to suffer significant harm, that harm being attributable to the care given or likely to be given to her by the mother and the father, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.  

4.        The child had been placed on the child protection register on 14^th December, 2011, when she was four months old and at the relevant date had been on the register for sixteen of the twenty months of her life. 

5.        By way of summary and in terms of neglect, there were concerns over the regularity and appropriateness of the child's food.  The parents were unable to manage their finances during the course of their relationship such that on occasion they were unable to provide for the child's basic care needs, such as milk, nappies and electricity for the home.  On at least six occasions during the child's life, the parents have ended and subsequently resumed their relationship, with the mother on each occasion leaving the family home with the child, resulting in her experiencing an unstable and inconsistent home environment. 

6.        In terms of emotional harm, when the child was approximately six weeks old, the mother left Jersey taking an older child (who is aged 4) by an earlier relationship with her but leaving the child in the care of the father (who has learning difficulties making it difficult for him to prioritise the child's needs) with support from the child's maternal grandfather and step-grandmother (who for convenience we will refer to as "the Jersey grandparents").  The mother was away for some six weeks.  

7.        On 21^st March, 2013, when the child was aged 19 months, she was assessed as being globally delayed, which was attributable by the medical professionals to lack of stimulation rather than to any underlying physical cause. 

8.        On 30^th/31^st March, 2013, the mother again left Jersey in an unplanned move, leaving the child in the care of the Jersey grandparents who by then had the care by way of a residence order of the older child and apart from one occasion, has not returned since. 

9.        With the child's name on the child protection register, both parents had multi-agency support and intervention to promote their capacity to work with the child protection plans and to promote and sustain change.  However, the mother did not effectively work with the professionals or take on board advice and implement that advice into her parenting approach. 

10.      The pre-proceedings process was initiated in July 2012 in which it was clearly set out for the parents the Children's Service's concerns, the expectations for change and the support that would be available to them to make the necessary changes.  Despite a lengthy period the mother and to a lesser extent the father were not able to make the necessary changes and concerns remained for the child's welfare. 

11.      The Minister was granted an interim care order on 24^th May, 2013.  The care plan at that time provided for the child to remain in the care of the Jersey grandparents, whilst a kinship assessment was undertaken to determine their suitability to care for her on a long-term basis.  Alongside this consideration was also given as to whether the father could be involved in shared care arrangements. 

12.      The mother was living in England with her mother and step-father.  The mother sought a parenting assessment which gave rise to a number of practical difficulties which the Court felt that the mother had brought upon herself by choosing to leave the Island and the Court was not prepared therefore to order a parenting assessment.  

13.      In June 2013 the Jersey grandparents, who had been struggling in their care for the child, reached the conclusion that they could not meet the child's long-term needs and the father similarly confirmed that he was not able to put himself forward for consideration as a sole carer.  Accordingly, the child was placed with foster carers on 27^th June, 2013. 

14.      A developmental assessment was undertaken on 1^st October, 2013, which showed that she had made very considerable progress.  Her cognitive abilities' score was on the 1st percentile in March 2013, moved up to the 5th percentile in July 2013 and by 1^st October, 2013, was at the 25th percentile, which was within the low normal range.  Such gains were found to be surprising in such a short period of time with the minimal intervention from professionals and were attributed to the change in her environment. 

15.      On the evidence before the Court and in the light of both parents accepting that the child had suffered actual harm in this case, the Court had no difficulty in finding the threshold criteria in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 met. 

16.      The principles applicable in respect of the welfare stage are set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051 as follows:-

"For this purpose it is well established that:-

(i)        The child's welfare is the paramount consideration (Article 2(1) of 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)).

(iii)      The Court must have regard to the seven matters ("the welfare checklist") set out in Article 2(3).

(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))

(v)       Before making a care order the Court must scrutinise the care plan prepared by the Minister for the child including scrutiny of the Minister's proposals for contact, and invite the parties to comment on them (Article 27(11))."

17.      The Court had regard to those principles.  The parents and the Jersey grandparents had accepted that they were unable to meet the child's needs but as Miss Sarah Jenner, the social worker, said in her report of 14^th October, 2013, consideration needs to be given to the viability of any family members to act as permanent carers for the child before a decision to recommend adoption can be reached.  As made clear in her report, that exercise has been conducted thoroughly and there were no known viable kinship carers. 

18.      The father had been consistent in his view, in what Miss Jenner commended as a reflective and child focused approach, that it was in the child's best interests for her to be adopted.  The mother had considered carefully the expert evidence and the advice of the guardian prepared for the final hearing and on 1^st November, 2013, changed her position, making the very difficult decision of agreeing with the care plan and to the child being adopted.  The guardian expressed her great sadness in relation to the mother who she said was the product of a deeply dysfunctional background and who had considerable needs of her own.  Adoption was supported by the guardian and by the child psychologist, Dr Bryn Williams.  Miss Jenner comprehensively addressed all of the options in her report and her evidence and in short it was clear that nothing else but adoption would do. 

19.      In terms of the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961, we had regard to the duty to promote the welfare of the child, pursuant to Article 3.  Article 12(1) provided that where the Court is satisfied in the case of each parent of the child that the person "freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agrees generally and unconditionally to the making of an adoption order", then "the Court shall make an order declaring the infant free for adoption" (our emphasis).  We were so satisfied.  The mother was legally represented and had given her consent in writing in a moving and carefully written final position statement.  The father was also legally represented and was assisted by Miss Byrne-Shore of the Self Advocacy Project who had attended all relevant meetings.  Miss Marks confirmed to us that despite his learning difficulties, he was able to give instructions and she was quite satisfied that he had a full understanding of what was involved. 

20.      Concerns had been raised by the parents over an on Island adoptive placement and the possibility of interference here by members of the extended family.  Those concerns had been commented upon by Dr Bryn Williams, who felt that if there were any doubts about interference in the child's new life in Jersey then serious consideration should be given to her being adopted in the United Kingdom or perhaps Guernsey. 

21.      We heard evidence from Mrs Emmy Lindsey, the manager of the Fostering and Adoption Team, who advised that the risks were manageable.  There had in fact been no interference in the foster placement in Jersey and an off Island adoptive placement would cause both delay and very considerable disruption in terms of the team that had got to know and support the child.  

22.      Since 2008, all adoptions in Jersey had been on Island as there was now a better understanding of the significance to a child of his or her place of birth.  In the matching process, the Fostering and Adoption Team would look at and carefully consider all of the risks but she was confident that the child could be placed on Island. 

23.      These were not matters for this Court but what did surprise the Court was that the Fostering and Adoption Team clearly had little knowledge of what would be involved in seeking to place the child off Island in say the United Kingdom, other than what had been gleaned through the media.  In this case, one set of prospective adoptive parents had been earmarked for the child out of a total of only three.  Bearing in mind the child's special needs, there was a possibility that she may not be matched here and it may therefore be necessary for the Children's Service to look further afield. 

24.      There was some discussion about the possibility of direct post-adoption contact between the father and the child which again was not a matter for this Court and which would, in any event, require the involvement of the prospective adopters.  However, the Minister had amended the relevant section of the final care plan to make it clear that she was prepared to explore the possibility of direct contact as part of the matching process with the prospective adopters, although the priority would always be achieving the best possible match for the child.  There were a number of considerations which would need to be borne in mind and ultimately it would be the adoptive parents' decision. 

25.      Despite the sadness of the situation for the parents, this was a case where both had managed to put the child's interests above their own in making what must be an agonizing decision to agree to the child being freed for adoption.  It was quite clearly the right decision for the child, who will now be found permanence in a new family, but perhaps in years to come she may look back and appreciate that notwithstanding the difficult early years, her parents ultimately had her best interests at heart. 

Authorities

Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051.

Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.