Care Order - final care order granted by the Court on application by the Minister.
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Fisher and Nicolle. |
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
A |
First Respondent |
And |
K |
Second Respondent |
And |
Mr and Mrs E |
Third Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF K (CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate S. L. Brace for the Minister.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Second Respondent.
Mrs E appeared in person.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 10th February, 2014, the Court granted the Minister a final care order in respect of K (aged 3) with the support of the guardian Ms Gill Timmis and K's maternal grandmother and step-grandfather (Mr and Mrs E) who have been caring for him since March 2013. In view of the status of Mr and Mrs E in K's life and because it was in K's interests that they should have sight of all of the reports and documents filed in this case (which they understood should remain confidential), it was felt appropriate for them to be made parties to the proceedings.
2. The background to the case is set out in the Court's judgment of 14th October, 2013, ([2013] JRC 199) and we adopt the definitions used in that judgment. We will not set out that background again which is to be taken as read.
3. Sadly the mother has continued in a downward spiral. Adapting the words of Mr Gafoor of the Alcohol and Drugs Service in his report of 23rd September, 2013, she has remained immersed in the local drugs scene and continues to engage in high risk behaviours such as overdoses and injecting fentanyl, which is 100 times stronger than heroin. The police reports show unstable and irrational conduct and indeed the mother was in custody at the time of the hearing.
4. The mother's ability to commit to structured contact with K has deteriorated to the point that she has stopped attending, the last supervised contact taking place on the 23rd September, 2013. She had failed to instruct Mr English who had been appointed to represent her. She had not filed a position statement or responded to the threshold document or attended any of the hearings since the interim care order was granted. Mr English attended the commencement of the hearing but as he had no instructions he was released from the Court.
5. As the mother had been given full notice of the hearing, the Court was satisfied, pursuant to Rule 17(4) of the Children Rules 2005, that the circumstances of the case justified proceeding in her absence. The Court had given consideration at a directions hearing on 9th January, 2014, as to whether the mother's presence should be compelled pursuant to Article 69 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") but in the light of her profound difficulties it was not felt to be in K's interest for her presence to be compelled. She had participated in the interim care order hearing and was clearly fully aware of the final hearing.
6. Although the mother had failed to engage in the proceedings, Ms Rosena Connor, the social worker, had been able to meet her on 16th January, 2014. At that meeting the mother confirmed that she agreed that K should remain in the care of Mr and Mrs E. She expressed disagreement over the restrictions on contact but had not contacted the Children's Service in order for assessments of her wellbeing to be made for the purpose of determining whether supervised contact should resume.
7. K's father, who resides in England, does not have parental responsibility for him, plays no part in his life and was not a party to the proceedings.
8. A psychiatric report on the mother had been prepared by Dr Trevor Friedman and a psychological report on the mother and K by Dr Carritt-Baker. Both these experts, together with Mr Gafoor, concluded, not unsurprisingly, that the mother could not in the foreseeable future provide safe care for K. They were stood down from attending the hearing.
9. Despite the desperately worrying situation in respect of the mother, K has thankfully continued to live under the loving care of Mr and Mrs E both of whom have been very positively approved as kinship carers. Mrs E's two daughters aged 17 and 27 respectively also live at home and their support was recognised as hugely beneficial to K. In all we were given a picture of a very happy and stable home in which K had been claimed and was thriving.
10. The Court had no difficulty in finding that the threshold under Article 24 of the Children Law had been met namely that at the relevant date (being the 9th July, 2013, the date from which protective measures have been continuously in place) K was likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to him if no order was made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to K. In terms of the threshold stage we were guided by the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in In the matter of F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051.
11. The only real issue for the Court was the non-intervention principle in that a residence order in favour of Mr and Mrs E might suffice to safeguard K. However Mr and Mrs E wanted the support and assistance of the Children's Service that a care order would provide for the same reasons that they supported the interim care order.
12. Mrs E faces a most distressing predicament in that on the one hand she loves and is committed to K (whom she told us was her priority) but on the other hand she loves and was desperately worried about her daughter (the mother). With the Minister having parental responsibility through a final care order it would be made much easier for her to impose a contact regime upon the mother which was in K's interests; in a sense deflecting some of the mother's anger away from her to the broad shoulders of the Children's Service who, thankfully, were content to be placed in that position. As Miss O'Connor told us, it would not be in K's long-term interest to be a child in care and the intention is that in due course the care order will be replaced by a residence order. Mr and Mrs E would be very much involved in the timing of that change.
13. The current care plan and the proposals in relation to contact, which Mr and Mrs E and the guardian Ms Timmis supported and which we approved, provided that given the concern surrounding the mother at the current time no contact should take place between her and K until the Children's Service had been able to assess her wellbeing and put into place a formal contact plan.
14. For all these reasons the Court determined that it was appropriate to make a final care order in favour of the Minister.
Authorities
In the matter of K (Care Order) [2013] JRC 199.
Children Rules 2005.
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.