Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - application by the Minister for a final care order and free for adoption order.

[2014]JRC210

Royal Court

(Family)

3 November 2014

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Applicant.

Advocate C. J. Scholefield for the First Respondent.

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Second Respondent.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for a final care order and an order freeing for adoption in respect of Thomas (pseudonyms are used for all the children) who is aged 2 and is the son of the First Respondent ("the Mother"). 

2.        There is a troubled background.  The Mother was in an on-off relationship with B for many years.  The relationship was marked by allegations and counter-allegations of domestic abuse and drug use. 

3.        During the relationship, the Mother gave birth to three children, Eva who is 7, Rosie who is 4, and Thomas.  The two daughters were made the subject of final care orders in February 2011.  Eva was placed by the Minister with the maternal grandparents and Rosie with D, the mother of B. 

4.        By the summer of 2013, the family circumstances seemed to be improving and Eva and Rosie were returned to live with their parents.  However, in January 2014, the Mother and B separated and the care of the children, who remained with the Mother at that stage, deteriorated.  As a result, Eva and Rosie returned to their respective grandparents. 

5.        In March 2014, the Minister applied for a care order in respect of Thomas.  She contended that Thomas had suffered and was likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the parenting which he was receiving.  The grounds relied upon included:-

(i)        being abandoned by the Mother since 22^nd March, 2014;

(ii)       suffering from developmental delay as outlined in the report from the Jersey General Hospital;

(iii)      suffering physical and emotional harm from the Mother's association with people who are inappropriate, including a convicted paedophile and drug users as outlined in the social worker's statement; and

(iv)      suffering physical and emotional harm as a result of witnessing domestic violence between the Mother and B as outlined in the reports provided by the States of Jersey Police. 

6.        On 28^th March, 2014, the Court agreed that an interim care order should be made.  Thomas was placed by the Minister with D.  

7.        That placement appeared to be going reasonably well until 18^th June, 2014, when tests showed that B was not Thomas' biological father as had been thought.  It had earlier, in the care proceedings concerning the two girls, been established that he was not the biological father of Eva either.  The discovery about Thomas happened just as D was about to take Rosie and Thomas on holiday.  She decided that, in the circumstances, she was not able to take Thomas.  He was placed in foster care where he has remained since then.  B was devastated by the news and has not had any contact with Thomas since then.  He is no longer a party to these proceedings.  

8.        The Mother has named P as the likely father of Thomas but the Children's Service have not been able to track him down.  The Minister and the Guardian are agreed that it is not in Thomas' interests to delay resolution of his future any longer whilst further attempts are made to try and find P when there is no certainty that he is the father or that, if he is, he would be willing to play any part in Thomas' life. 

9.        The Court has been provided with a number of reports.  All of them agree that there is a risk of significant harm if Thomas is returned to the Mother's care.  To her enormous credit, the Mother recognises this.  Although she loves Thomas greatly and her decision is causing her great distress, she agrees that a final care order should be made and that Thomas should be freed for adoption. 

10.      A care order may not even be considered unless the threshold criteria set out in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 are met.  The Minister has prepared a threshold statement which has been agreed by all the parties.  It is consistent with the evidence before the Court.  We agree that the circumstances are as described in Article 24(2) with the result that the threshold is met and there is jurisdiction to make a care order. 

11.      The question then is whether it is in Thomas' best interests to do so.  In considering that issue, the Court must have regard to the welfare checklist in Article 2(3), the desirability of avoiding delay (Article 2(2)), the no order principle (Article 2(5)) and the care plan put forward by the Minister.  The care plan proposes that Thomas should be freed for adoption and should remain with his current foster carers until then. 

12.      The Minister has concluded that adoption is in Thomas' best interests.  This is supported by the reports.  The Guardian has given careful consideration to this aspect.  In particular, she has explored whether Thomas could continue to live with D together with Rosie.  However, she has in the end reached the same view as the Minister in this respect.  We would summarise the reasons as follows:-

(i) Despite agonising over the matter, D is very concerned at the prospect of looking after two children, particularly given that Thomas suffers from autism and therefore provides additional challenges.  She is not willing to apply to be a long-term carer of Thomas. 

(ii) The relationship between the Mother and D is difficult and this would lead to additional instability and the risk of emotional harm for Thomas. 

(iii) The key requirement for Thomas is no further delay and a stable permanent placement.  This would not necessarily be achieved by a delay in order to consider placement with D. 

13.      We agree that any further delay would not be in Thomas' interest.  We agree with all the reports to the effect that he needs to have a permanent stable placement as soon as possible.  We have come to the clear conclusion that the Minister, the Guardian and the Mother are all correct in concluding that the best way forward for Thomas is for a full care order to be made and for him to be freed for adoption. 

14.      We agree however with the Guardian that, given Thomas' autism, adoption may not be wholly straightforward.  We heard evidence from the social worker as to the prospects for adoption and it is clear that the Children's Service would consider adopters from the UK if local or Channel Island adopters cannot be found.  The social worker has confirmed that, in the event that adopters cannot be found in twelve months, the Mother will be informed and she will then be able to take steps to bring the matter before the Court should she be so advised.  The social worker made it clear that the Children's Service fully understands the need to progress the question of adoption vigorously and in early course. 

15.      For these reasons, we therefore ordered at the end of the hearing that a full care order should be made and that Thomas should be freed for adoption in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.  

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.