Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Kerley and Milner |
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
A (the mother) |
First Respondent |
And |
B |
Second Respondent |
And |
Megan, Jasmine and Jake (acting through their Guardian Eleanor Green) |
Third Respondents |
And |
C (the father) |
Fourth Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF MEGAN JASMINE AND JAKE (CARE PROCEEDINGS)
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant.
Advocate M. P. Boothman for the First Respondent.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Fourth Respondent.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 10th December, 2014, the Court found the threshold under Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") had been met but made no order. It dismissed the applications of the fourth respondent for parental responsibility and contact with the two younger children of whom he is the biological father.
2. The second respondent, who is the biological father of the eldest child, had indicated that he did not wish to play a part in the proceedings and signed a disclaimer to that effect on 10th November, 2014. His legal representative was excused from attending the hearing.
3. The Court dealt firstly with the fourth respondent's applications in respect of the two younger children. For convenience we will hereafter refer to the fourth respondent as "the father". Having made those applications, he then disengaged from the process by failing to attend appointments with his legal representatives and failing to give them instructions despite their best efforts to encourage him to do so. He did not attend the hearing and in the circumstances, the Court dismissed his applications and determined to continue with the hearing pursuant to Rule 17(4) of the Children Rules 2005.
4. The children are currently aged 8 years, 1 year and 9 months. On 13th March, 2014, the father pleaded guilty to three common assaults upon the mother committed in November 2012, March 2013 and May 2013, and was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment. He was released immediately, because he had already served that time facing a charge of grave and criminal assault upon the mother which had to be withdrawn because the mother declined (on the eve of the trial) to give evidence against him. She was at that time pregnant with the youngest child. In granting an interim care order on 10th April, 2014, Sir Michael Birt, Bailiff, made it clear that there was no suggestion that the children should be removed from the care of the mother, who on the evidence then available was a good mother doing her best in difficult circumstances to look after the children. The reason for making the order was the concern that she was not able to safeguard the children from the risk of witnessing domestic violence because of what had happened in the past, because of the father's character and because she had not then fully accepted the damage that can be caused to children by witnessing domestic violence, even if they do not suffer it themselves.
5. The Bailiff went on to say that if the mother was able to demonstrate over the ensuing period that she understood the risks of harm that could be caused to children by witnessing domestic violence, and that she was really able to ensure that the father did not have any contact with the children, other than that agreed in supervised contact by the Children's Service, there was every possibility either that the Minister herself would decide it was not necessary to seek a final care order or the Court would rule that that was the case. In other words, if she could show how well she could do over the next few weeks and months, the whole matter might go away and indeed that is what has transpired.
6. The Minister and the mother have signed a threshold document dated 4th December, 2014, agreeing that at the relevant date (3rd April, 2014, when the Children's Service first intervened) the children were suffering or were likely to suffer significant harm being attributable in the case of the eldest child to the care given or likely to be given by the mother, and in the case of the younger two children, to the care given or likely to be given by the mother and the father.
7. It is not necessary for the purpose of this judgment for us to set out the evidence in detail, but in summary, the Minister and the mother agreed that:-
(i) The children had been exposed to emotional harm and risk of physical harm as a result of a history of domestic abuse. The most significant incident took place on 22nd July, 2013, as a result of which the father was charged with the grave and criminal assault referred to earlier and withdrawn as a consequence of the mother declining to give evidence against him. The history of domestic abuse is readily evidenced by his pleading guilty to three common assaults going back to 2012.
(ii) The children were at risk of neglect and emotional harm as a result of the mother's past drug taking behaviour and the father's drug taking, which was current at the time of the interim care order.
(iii) The children were at risk of neglect and emotional harm as a result of the parents' inability to prioritise the children's needs above their own. In this respect, the mother had minimised concerns in respect of the father and domestic violence. She had allowed him into the family home having agreed not to do so and after signing a written agreement that she would not do so.
8. Although there is an overriding judicial duty to investigate the parties' agreed threshold findings, that investigation should reflect the fact that there is consensus between the parties, particularly where the parties include a public authority with statutory duties and a guardian on behalf of the children (see Devon County Council v S and others [1992] 2 FLR at page 247. We heard evidence from the current social worker, Tanja Maria Tinari and from the guardian, Eleanor Green and taking into account the documentary evidence before us, including the record of the father, we agreed that the threshold under Article 24(2) of the Children Law had been met.
9. Turning to the welfare stage, the mother had responded exceptionally well to the very considerable input she had received from Tanja Tinari, the social worker, Carly Lucas, the domestic violence adviser, Dr Williams, the child psychologist, and Dr Briggs, the adult psychologist. She had accepted that she had been in a domestically abusive relationship which had put the children at risk and that the father had been physically and emotionally abusive towards her. Most importantly, she had significantly changed her lifestyle and her parenting to ensure that she and the children are safe from harm. At paragraph 3.1.29 of her report, Tanja Tinari said it was remarkable how selfless the mother now is as a parent for all three children. She had always made the right decision in the best interests of the children. There was no evidence now of any of the children exhibiting behavioural difficulties and academically and developmentally all were thriving and achieving or indeed exceeding expectations.
10. Whereas the mother was previously an inconsistent and behaviourally challenging parent, all three children now benefit from a consistent, nurturing and kind parent which enabled the eldest child and the mother to repair their relationship and for the younger two children to enjoy safe and secure attachments to her. The mother had overcome her own feelings of helplessness and isolation and worked very hard at building on previously fragile relationships with friends and family to foster a wider network of significant people for all three of her children. She had not tested positive for any illicit substances throughout these proceedings and is very stable in her treatment programme. The Drug and Alcohol Service had not raised any concerns in regard to the mother.
11. The outcome of all this was that the Minister did not require an order to continue to work effectively with the family. The mother had engaged throughout the process and was willing to work with the Children's Service and other agencies until such time as the case was closed. As she was choosing to work with the Children's Service voluntarily, there was no order required.
12. Eleanor Green, the guardian, informed us that the mother had engaged incredibly well with the Children's Service and she supported no order being made. In fact, she had had little to do.
13. The Court had regard to the welfare checklist (assisted by the reports of Tanja Tinari and Eleanor Green) and was in the happy position of agreeing that it was in the best interests of the children that no order be made.
14. The evidence before us showed that the father had serious power and control issues. He engages with the agencies when he wants to but he was very unpredictable and poses a significant risk to the children. If he were to seek contact with the children in the future through private law proceedings, then it seemed to us that he must be drugs free and sober and must demonstrate, through positive engagement with the Children's Service and with the successful completion of the parenting assessment, that he would be safe to be with the children.
15. In conclusion and for these reasons the Court made no order.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Children Rules 2005.
Devon County Council v S and others [1992] 2 FLR 247.