Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - application by the Minister for an interim care order.

[2015]JRC070

Royal Court

(Family)

13 April 2015

IN THE MATTER OF HARRY (CARE ORDER)

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

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the First Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 3^rd February, 2015, the Court granted the Minister an interim care order in respect of Harry, who is 7 years old, ("the child") and approved a care plan for his removal to foster carers pending the outcome of assessments.  It was not in contention that the threshold under Article 30 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") had been met and that an interim care order should be made.  However the first respondent ("the father") did not agree to the child's removal from his care.  

2.        The Children's Service has had extensive involvement with the child and his half-sister.  The child's case has been opened to the Children's Service for his entire life, excluding a period in 2013 when his case was closed for two months. 

3.        Historical concerns in relation to the two children were around the mental health of the second respondent ("the mother"), substance misuse on the part of both parents, their parenting ability and financial concerns, such that on 2^nd May, 2008, the Court granted the Minister's application for an interim care order in respect of both children.  On 1^st March, 2010, the Court made a final care order in respect of the half-sister and freed her for adoption.  On 27^th July, 2010, the Court granted a residence order in respect of the child in favour of the father supported by a family assistance order for a period of six months.  The child has resided with the father under his care ever since. 

4.        The mother has not been consistently available for the child since his birth.  She was "sectioned" under Article 6 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969 six days after the child was born and she has been admitted to Orchard House on a number of occasions since his birth.  On 16^th November, 2008, she received a custodial sentence of 18 months for assaulting (biting) a police officer and refusing to give a blood sample to identify if she had any blood-borne infections.  She was released from prison on 25^th September, 2009, and since then has had only sporadic contact with the child.  

5.        The mother had been given notice of the proceedings but informed the Children's Service that it was not her intention to attend.  Pursuant to Article 17 of the Children Rules 2005, the Court was satisfied that the circumstances of the case justified proceeding with the hearing in her absence. 

6.        The father has had a high level of ongoing support, including intensive work in respect of his parenting.  Advice has been given about boundaries and supporting the child with his educational needs and advice has also been given in relation to substance misuse and unsafe adults being present in the home.  In the view of the Children's Service, the father had not implemented the advice and support and the child continued to experience significant harm. 

7.        In his position statement, the father accepted that in 2014 his parenting was not good enough and he was placing his needs in front of the child's needs.  He accepted that he took substances in order to black out the difficult issues in his life and 2014 had been a very difficult year for him.  He had separated from his partner of several years at the end of 2013 and had financially and otherwise become overwhelmed by small problems that were taken out of proportion.  He accepted that he had failed to respond to the advice that was given to him by the Children's Service but he was not in a good place.  He accepted that as a consequence, the child had suffered significant harm. 

8.        The concerns which brought the matter to a head can be summarised as follows:-

(i)        The father attended the Magistrate's Court on 18^th June, 2014, and was convicted of postal importation of cannabis substitutes, for which he was fined and bound over for 6 months. 

(ii)       The father's cannabis use, which went back to when he was a teenager, escalated in 2014 but he minimised that use and the impact on the child, refusing to access the Alcohol and Drug Service. 

(iii)      On 23^rd December, 2014, during a routine home visit by the family support worker, the father was found asleep on arrival on the sofa bed in the lounge and the child and his cousin (aged 12) were playing on a game console.  The father appeared to be under the influence of substances and drug paraphernalia such as cigarette papers, cigarette (roll up) end and a pack containing an unknown substance were found in the lounge.  The duty officer was called and the father initially agreed for the child to be placed with his paternal grandmother until the hearing before the Court, but that agreement was subsequently withdrawn. 

(iv)      On 6^th January, 2015, the father attended a Review Child Protection Conference at which it was felt he was under the influence of substances.  He became very aggressive and had to be asked to leave. 

(v)       The child has shown sexualised behaviour with three incidents being reported of him behaving in an inappropriate manner in 2014. 

9.        There was also concern on the part of the Minister over what was felt to be a lack of supervision by the father of the child.  The father had spoken of locking the child in his room for periods of time and the child had disclosed physical abuse at the hands of the father. 

10.      The court heard evidence from Jenna De Freitas who had been the allocated social worker since September 2014 and who was very concerned about the child.  Although there had been positive reports in 2010 from the adult psychologist Ruth Emsley and the child psychologist Dr Bryn Williams, which had led to the residence order in favour of the father (when the child was, of course, that much younger) the situation had deteriorated and it would seem that the father was taking drugs in the presence of the child.  In essence, the child had been exposed to drugs for most of his life.  The visit to the home on 23^rd December, 2014, was a planned visit and despite this, the father was under the influence of drugs. 

11.      Although the father had now agreed to give undertakings, in particular to attend upon the Alcohol and Drugs Service (which he had failed to do during 2014) and to comply with any treatment recommendations, there was nothing to indicate that such undertakings could be relied upon and if not, there was a real risk of exposure to significant harm on the part of the child. 

12.      Eleanor Green had been appointed as guardian shortly prior to the hearing but she was unavailable to attend.  She had had a previous involvement in the matter and Jane Ferguson, the manager and team leader of the Jersey Family Court Advisory Service Staff had spoken to her and on the basis of the papers before the Court, supported the proposed removal of the child from the care of the father as an interim measure, principally because of the father's drug taking.  She questioned why the child had not been removed on 23^rd December, 2014, by way of an Emergency Protection Order. 

13.      Advocate Haines, for the father, raised the potential emotional harm to the child in being removed, against his wishes, from the father's care.  Such a move, he said, was disproportionate.  The father had looked after the child appropriately for over five years.  Dr Williams had been impressed by the father's warmth towards the child (paragraph 10.8 of his report of 10^th May, 2010,) which he said provided the child with emotional attunement of a very sound and good quality.  As recently as October 2014, the headmaster of the child's school had said that they had a good working relationship with the father, who engaged with the school and with whom they could hold frank and open discussions.  He went on to say that the relationship between the father and the child was a very close one. 

14.      The care plan was to place the child with carers who were known to him (one of them being employed at his school) so he would not be going to complete strangers, but Advocate Davies, for the Minister, submitted that the prime duty was to keep him safe and it simply could not be said that the child was safe with the father as matters stood. 

15.      We were referred to the judgment of Scriven, Commissioner, in the case of In the matter of QQ [2010] JRC 217E, from which it was clear that the removal of the child from the natural parents can be ordered as an interim measure if the child's safety demands it.  Quoting from paragraph 15 of the judgment:-

"In relation to the issue of H's removal from the parents we also have in mind the guidance of Thorpe LJ in the case of LA (Children)(Care: Chronic Neglect) [2009] EWCA Civ 882 at paragraph 7 when he restated the proposition expressed in earlier cases that separation is only to be ordered if the child's safety demands immediate separation or, put slightly differently, that '...at an interim stage the removal of children from their parents is not to be sanctioned unless the child's safety requires interim protection'.  We bear in mind the fact that when considering whether a child's welfare requires immediate removal, safety should be regarded in a broad sense which may include psychological welfare as well as physical harm Re B (Care Proceedings: Interim Care Order) [2010] 1 FLR 1221.

We also take into account that where the issue is whether or not the child should be removed from home during the interim period, the risk of harm is a "two-sided coin" and the Court must have regard to the detriment in being separated from the home as well as the risk of harm remaining there Re M (Interim Care Order: Removal) [2005] EWCAS Civ 1954; [2006] 1 FLR 1043".

16.      It was clear to the Court that the father had a long and deeply embedded history of drugs misuse which he admitted had led to the child suffering significant harm in 2014 and notwithstanding his very belated promises to cease drug taking and engage with the Alcohol and Drugs Service, the Court had no doubt that the child could not safely be left in his care, even though that was his current wish. 

17.      Having applied the well-established principles summarised in paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of In the matter of F and G [2010] JCA 051, the Court made an interim care order in favour of the Minister, approving the care plan and contact arrangements and giving a number of directions which were not in contention. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969.

Children Rules 2005.

In the matter of QQ [2010] JRC 217E.

In the matter of F and G [2010] JCA 051.