Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - application by the Minister for a full care order.

[2014]JRC181

Royal Court

(Family)

25 September 2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY AND HELENA

Advocate S. L. Brace for the Minister.

Advocate A. T. H. English for the Mother.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Father.

Advocate H. J. Heath for Anthony and Helena.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        This is the judgment of the Court on the application by the Minister for a full care order in respect of Anthony and Helena.  The care order was granted on 1^st May, 2014, and this judgment contains the reasons for that decision. 

2.        Anthony and Helena are not the real names of the children involved - these names have been given to them for the purposes of publication of this judgment so as to protect their anonymity.  Anthony is aged nine and his sister Helena is now aged four.  They appear in these proceedings through their guardian, Ms Gill Timmis. 

3.        The children are subject to an interim care order granted by this Court on 20^th August, 2013.  The judgment of the Court on that application was not published but was issued for the parties only. 

4.        When these proceedings were listed for hearing, there was included within them an application by the father for parental responsibility in respect of the children.  Before us, Advocate Hillier sought leave on behalf of the father to withdraw that application, and that leave was granted. 

5.        Both the parents and the guardian agreed with the Minister that threshold was passed as at the relevant date, namely 8^th July, 2013, that being the date on which the children were accommodated into voluntary care, and since when protective measures have been continuously in place.  It was agreed that the children have been exposed to significant emotional harm and risk of physical harm as a result of a history of domestic abuse suffered by the mother at the instance of the father.  The police report dated 8^th January, 2014, records that there have been 31 reported incidents of domestic abuse involving the mother and the father, and 11 of those incidents have taken place in the previous six months.  The father was convicted in April 2013 of a common assault on the mother and was imprisoned for two weeks as a result.  Anthony has told his social worker that he had seen his father hit his mother before both with an open and a closed hand; and indeed the mother admitted to a social worker on 17^th July, 2013, that the children had both observed verbal and physical arguments between their parents.  In addition, during one incident in July 2011, Anthony was pushed during the course of the altercation between his father and another man and he was described as scared and frightened and immediately after the incident he soiled himself. 

6.        Both parents have also a history of substance abuse.  In 2004 they were convicted of possession of heroin and assisting others to retain the benefits of drug trafficking.  The mother was convicted of possession with intent to supply.  In 2007 the mother presented for treatment at the Alcohol and Drugs Service, reporting that she injected significant amounts of heroin each day.  The mother has a further conviction for possession of a controlled drug in 2009, and the father for possession of cannabis in 2010.  The treatment records of the Alcohol and Drugs Service show the mother to have used heroin on four occasions whilst pregnant with Helena. 

7.        The making of the interim care order unfortunately has not enabled the parents to improve.  The last three drug tests on the father proved positive for illicit drugs.  In November 2013, the mother reported that the father had sold her some white powder with which she had subsequently injected herself.  In February 2014, the mother reported to staff at the Women's Refuge that she had multiple injuries but she did not know how these had been sustained as she could not remember what had happened in the preceding four days.  She told a police officer that she was at that time still injecting heroin. 

8.        In the decision of this Court on the application for an interim care order in this case, the Court said this:-

"There are two particular features of the evidence that we have heard which are relevant for the future treatment of this case.  The first is the evidence of domestic violence within the house.  It is well known that domestic violence has a very dramatic effect on children.  Even though they themselves do not personally suffer any violence, they are affected because those who are close to them are seen to suffer, and it affects the very structure and integrity of their world.  It is absolutely essential for their wellbeing that they are not exposed to this sort of risk in the future.  The second feature of what we have heard is the obvious concern about misuse of drugs by the parents and we have noted the Mother's statements through her lawyer that she has not misused drugs at least since December last year and that all she has been taking is the prescribed methadone.  Our future consideration of this case is going to be very much influenced by the extent to which the Court is satisfied that the domestic violence threat has been reduced and also satisfied that the drug taking is not as might be feared."

9.        Unfortunately, it is clear that those two problems have not been adequately addressed.  In all the circumstances we are entirely satisfied that threshold has been passed and that the Court has jurisdiction to make a care order.  That leads us on to consideration of the welfare test in accordance with the principles set down in the 2002 Law and by the Court of Appeal in In the matter of F and G (No. 2) [2010] JCA 051. 

10.      At the time of the previous hearing in August 2013, Anthony and Helena were not with the same foster parents, and as we said then, that was clearly unfortunate.  Fortunately, that position changed in January 2014.  The guardian reports that the current foster carers are committed to the long term care of the children and are providing a very high standard of attentive and loving care.  According to Ms Tandy, the social worker in the permanence planning team of the Children's Service, who gave evidence before us, the children are much more settled since the two of them have been in the same foster placement.  The foster carers have a good relationship with the mother and with both children.  Indeed Helena positively seeks them out, and snuggles up to them.  She has told the social worker that she likes living with the foster mother, and she likes living with her brother.  Anthony also accepts that where he is currently living is the right thing for him.  He recognises that his mother cannot look after him at the moment although he would have wanted her to be able to look after him if possible.  He is an anxious child and he worries a lot.  He has had a lot of responsibility at home, and there is no doubt that he has suffered some emotional damage as a result of his parents' treatment of each other and of themselves. 

11.      In the circumstances, the Court is entirely satisfied that it would be wrong to make no order.  These children need to have some permanence in their lives and they need to be free from the stress of an abusive relationship between their parents and from the drug culture to which regrettably the parents seem to be inexorably wedded. 

12.      Having considered the welfare checklist in Article 2(3) of the 2002 Law, we have no hesitation in concluding that the children's best interests are served by making a full care order.  In reaching that conclusion we have had regard to the guardian's report which we add warmly endorses the diligence and sensitivity of Ms Tandy the social worker, who has remained patient and calm and treated the parents with great respect despite their difficulties.  We have also had regard to the evidence of the experts - Mr Gafoor, the Drug and Alcohol Service Director, in his report dated 31^st October, 2013, concludes that the mother is unlikely to overcome her drug dependency without long-term and intensive support in a residential setting; and in his November 2013 report concludes in relation to the father that he struggles to comes to terms with painful aspects of his past and that his desire for illicit drugs remains largely undiminished.  These views are supported by toxicological reports from Trimega Laboratories in February 2014 on both the mother and the father. 

13.      We have had regard to the report of Dr Bryn Williams the clinical psychologist.  Dr Williams' concludes that Anthony and Helena urgently require permanence and reliable handling by long-term carers.  In his addendum report, Dr Williams notes that Anthony is hyper-vigilant to his mother's difficulties and worried about her needs.  He describes Anthony as an "anxious and deeply distressed little boy".  

14.      Finally we have had regard to the report of Mr Castleton in February 2014 which indicates that there is a toxic combination of parents with their own emotional difficulties as a result of their damaged backgrounds, parents with chronic misuse of substances, and parents with violence within their relationship.  This is particularly damaging to individual and family functioning. 

Care plan

15.      The Minister's care plan recommends long-term foster care for both Anthony and Helena.  There are no plans for their reunification with their birth parents or to extended family members either now or in the future. 

16.      We were informed by Ms Tandy in her evidence that she expected that the Children's Service would be considering questions of adoption over the next 12 months.  It is clear to us that while that may be more obvious a possibility with regard to Helena, it may be that such a course would require careful scrutiny in the case of Anthony. 

Contact

17.      In the care plan dated March 2014, Ms Tandy reported that the mother was having once weekly contact of an hour and a half, and that in theory the father had the same amount of contact although he had not in fact exercised that contact since January 2014.  In the addendum care plan dated 10^th April, 2014, Ms Tandy expressed a change of view.  Although initially recommending that Anthony should have contact with his mother every other month, Ms Tandy now recommended that the contact be reduced to four times per annum.  This she thought would be in Anthony's best interests because the mother had not been able to be consistent in attending contact and this had led to disappointment and anxiety for her son.  She indicated that the frequency of contact would be reviewed regularly as part of the looked after child reviews, and might be increased or reduced in accordance with his best interests from time to time.  Ms Tandy made the same suggestion in relation to Helena. 

18.      As to contact with the father, the recommendation in March 2014 was that there should be no contact until a further assessment was made as to the father's motivation for seeking such contact.  In particular there was concern that he might undermine the stability offered by the foster carers.  Once again a slightly different view was expressed in April.  Ms Tandy had visited the father in the La Moye prison on 4^th April, 2014, and the father at that stage felt that Anthony and Helena should not be returned to his care or the care of the mother, and that they should remain with their current foster carers.  He requested contact with the children but he expressed no interest in an update of the children's wellbeing and he continued to express negative comments about the mother.  The father was informed that his assistance might be needed to obtain citizenship and a passport for each child but he certainly took no immediate steps to discuss that further with the Children's Service representatives.  Before us therefore Advocate Brace submitted that we should include, as part of our order, an approval of the Minister's proposal that there should be no contact between the father and the children, subject of course to that being reviewed for both children as looked after children, and changes being introduced by the Minister at a later stage if the Minister was then satisfied about his motivation, and about the arrangements which were being made to prepare the children for such contact. 

19.      The Court is satisfied that it is right to make the full care order for the reasons which we have given and the care plan, including approval of the Minister's proposal for no contact between the father and the children, is approved.  In reaching this conclusion, we would like to recognise in particular the bravery of the mother in making the decision which she has made to support the Minister's proposal.  In the statement which she has made before us, she has said how difficult she has found it to be apart from her children, and how her problems with the Second Respondent have left her at times feeling very vulnerable.  She expresses her sadness that she has been unable to make the progress she would have wished for since the commencement of the proceedings but, as she puts it, "it is with a heavy heart that I must admit that, currently, I am not in a position to provide the care my children deserve." 

20.      We have mentioned already that Anthony recognises that his mum is not able to look after him although he would have wished that she could.  If he should at some point come to read this judgment, then he should also recognise that on her side, his mother has not in any sense abandoned him, and wishes that she could look after him as well.  Her bravery in recognising that she cannot do so, and that his best interests lie in long-term foster care is something we are pleased to recognise in this judgment. 

21.      It is also particularly helpful that the foster parents are sensitive to facilitating if possible the arrangements for contact even though they are being reduced.  Advocate English contended before us that the mother recognised that it lay with her to address the concerns of the social worker if she were to see more of her children.  We agreed that she must engage with the Drug and Alcohol Services, and she must commit to a lengthy detoxification process with counselling.  Furthermore she must learn to stay away from the father.  Contact with him appears to cause a deterioration in her ability to stay away from drugs.  Ms Tandy, who gave evidence with great sympathy, said that she had nothing positive to say about the relationship between the parents, but she added that she had no concerns about contact other than the mother's drug problems and her relationship with the father. 

22.      The Court is reassured that the questions of contact will be reviewed given that the children are looked after children, and of course we recognise that things are likely to change from time to time.  We endorse the views expressed by Ms Tandy in her evidence, and in particular we emphasise that when contact is fixed, the mother simply must ensure that she is fit for it, and she must keep to it.  There is likely to be little worse than not showing up for contact, particularly because Anthony is liable then simply to worry that his mother is ill. 

23.      We were asked by the Minister to grant leave to disclose the Court documents that have been filed in the proceedings to the Independent Safeguarding and Standard Service for the purposes of the children's care planning.  We give such leave, although we emphasise that it is being given for the purposes of the children's care planning.  This is not therefore leave which falls in the same category as another case currently pending where there is an application to disclose court documents to the Independent Safeguarding and Standard Service for the purposes of a serious case review, and which is not directly connected with the children's care plan. 

24.      We also grant leave to disclose the children's care plans, Dr Williams' assessments of 2^nd February, 2014, and 21^st April, 2014, and the guardian's report to the children's foster carers and to any therapists appointed to work with the children. 

Authorities

In the matter of F and G (No. 2) [2010] JCA 051.