Care proceedings - application by the Minister for a free for adoption order.
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner and Jurats Clapham and Liston |
|||
Between |
Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
J (the mother) |
First Respondent |
|
|
And |
Dylan, Logan and Sienna (acting through their Guardian Ad Litem Elsa Fernandes) |
Second Respondents |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF DYLAN LOGAN AND SIENNA (FREE FOR ADOPTION ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Minister.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 9th March, 2015, the Court freed the second respondents ("the children"), who are aged 8, 4 and 3 respectively), for adoption with the consent of the first respondent ("the mother") who withdrew her application for contact.
2. The history of this case is set out in the judgment of the Court dated 21st February, 2013, (In the matter of A B and C (Care order) [2013] JRC 040), but in very brief summary, the mother had a dire childhood. Her father left before she was born and her alcoholic mother died when she was 7. She was then brought up by her elderly grandfather and [step] grandmother the latter of whom was cruel and verbally abusive towards her. She developed a heroin dependency from the age of 16. The older child and the two younger children have different fathers, both of whom have abandoned any responsibility for them, placing all of that upon the mother. Neither father has parental responsibility. Matters came to a head on 26th May, 2011, when the Children's Service attended the flat of the mother where she was being arrested in relation to the finding of a commercial amount of heroin on the premises. The condition of the accommodation was unfit for anyone to live in, regardless of age, and it became apparent to the Children's Service that the two older children (the mother was then pregnant with the third child) had experienced chronic neglect of their global needs whilst in her care. They were placed in foster care.
3. The mother detoxed in prison and was determined to fight for the opportunity to care for her children. She was released on bail on 9th September, 2011, into accommodation provided by the Freedom for Life Ministry, who played a very supportive role and the youngest child was born on 22nd September, 2011. On 14th October, 2011, (AG-v-J [2011] JRC 203) the sentencing court, as an exceptional act of mercy, imposed a non-custodial sentence upon her for the drug offences to enable the two older children to be rehabilitated back to her care, an aim shared by the Children's Service.
4. Suitable accommodation was found and the two older children were successfully rehabilitated to the mother's care with a very high level of support from the Children's Service and other agencies that support being gradually reduced over time. Given the short period of time involved, there remained an understandable concern over the possibility of a relapse into drugs use and for that reason, a final care order was made in favour of the Minister, on the basis that the children would be cared for by the mother but with the Children's Services being able to step in to protect them should there be a relapse.
5. By January 2014 matters were going well enough for the Children's Service to consider applying to revoke the care orders, but sadly, the mother then relapsed into drug use. She was stopped by Jersey Customs at the airport after spending a weekend away in Liverpool with her then partner (in whose hands she appeared to suffer domestic violence) because her luggage smelled very strongly of cannabis, and she admitted that they had spent the weekend on a "blow-out" on drugs, taking cannabis, heroin and crack cocaine, together with other substances.
6. The children were placed with foster carers and following a care plan meeting, the mother was informed that the care plan would be permanence by way of adoption or fostering. At that stage, the mother supported the children being placed outside of her care on a long-term basis, given her difficulties in caring for them. Given that long-term plan, she initially accepted that frequent contact between her and her children would not be in their best interests, although the children should have frequent sibling contact. She last had contact with them in April, 2014.
7. Following this, the mother became inconsistent in her wishes regarding the long-term care of the children, stating that she did not wish them to think that she "did not fight for them". On 8th December, 2014, she filed an application for contact with the children and Dr Bryn Williams, the consultant clinical psychologist, and Dr Tanya Engelbrecht, consultant psychiatrist from the Alcohol and Drugs Service were jointly instructed to advise. In his report of 2nd March, 2015, Dr Williams concluded that it was not in the children's best interest to have ongoing and regular contact with the mother. In his view, she was unable to parent the children and all three of them "desperately and most urgently need permanency and sustainable parenting relationships". He supported adoption for all three children, with contact only being for the purpose of a permanent separation for the opportunity of there being a ritual to say good-bye.
8. On 4th March, 2015, the Minister filed an application for the children to be freed for adoption.
9. The mother filed a very moving statement dated 5th March, 2015, explaining why, despite her love for the children, she had decided to consent to their being freed for adoption. She felt let down by the Children's Service during the period when she was in prison, because she said that during that six months period, the two older children were moved no less than seven or eight times. She felt the constant changing of their placements impacted upon them, so that when they were rehabilitated back into her care, the bond she had with them had been greatly and negatively affected. She felt as if they would not let themselves become attached to any carer any more, which she found heart-breaking. At the same time, she accepted no one else was to blame for her time in prison other than herself. She expressed her great gratitude to the family support worker, Pauline Picton, for all the help that she gave her during the time that the older children were being rehabilitated into her care. She said that Pauline Picton had taught her how to cook different dishes for the children, given her advice on anything she asked and that she would never forget her for that. She said this at the end of her statement:-
"20 As I have told the professionals involved, I cannot guarantee I will never have a break down or relapse. It would be irresponsible of me to make such a claim. I have to accept that I could have a relapse or breakdown in which the parenting of my children would be compromised. My children would suffer if I did. I have messed up, and I want my darling children to be in a safe loving environment, where they can grow up to be amazing adults, that are strong enough to endure the tests of life, unlike me.
21. All I want is their happiness; I love them enough to let them go. I want them to be brought up by people that do a better job at it than me. I realise that it would be selfish of me to try and patch up my relationship with my children, as it would place them at risk of my failing them yet again, if I have a break down or a relapse. I love my children too much to risk this happening to them again. They need stability. I love each of my children so very much. It will sound so very corny, but when I think of them, I actually get a pain in my heart, and I am overwhelmed in sadness, that I have despite my best efforts, let them down once again.
22. Not one day will go by in my life where I will not think about them, wondering how they are, what they are doing, and how much are they growing. I hope one day they will be given information, that will show them that I loved them dearly, that I tried my very hardest to bring them up, but that in the end, I did what I knew was best for them, not for me. This was to allow them to be brought up by other parents, who can provide them with a better upbringing than I can give them. I hope they can forgive me in time, and understand that I have done this because I love them, and because I believe this is the best thing for them.
23. I will answer any question they have for me should they choose to seek me out later on in their lives. My life has a gaping hole where my children have been, I really don't know how I will cope, but all I can do is to pray for my children's happiness, and trust the States of Jersey not to fail my children again, as my children have been through enough heartache because of me already. They deserve so much more."
10. The Court heard evidence from the social worker Ceri Owens and from the guardian, Elsa Fernandes and had the benefit of the reports from Dr Williams and Dr Tanya Engelbrecht. Under Article 3 of the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961 the Court has to give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children throughout their childhood and shall in so far as practical ascertain the wishes and feelings of the children regarding the decision, having regard to the children's age and understanding. The youngest child was too young to understand the concept of adoption and of the three of them she had been the least disturbed. According to Dr Williams, she had normal attachment behaviours. It was very clear to the guardian that she did not want to leave her foster carers. The oldest child wanted no contact with the mother and blamed her for not being able to look after them. The middle child would only agree to see the mother if he was with his elder brother. Both wanted to stay with their foster carers.
11. It was clear to the Court that all three children needed permanency and secure and sustainable parenting relationships, as advised by Dr Williams, the guardian and the social worker and that the mother was unable to provide that for them. There was no one in the immediate or wider family who could care for them and their welfare therefore required them to be freed for adoption; nothing else would do. Pursuant to Article 12(1) of that Law, we were satisfied that the mother freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed generally and unconditionally to the making of an adoption order and with reference to Article 12(7), we were satisfied that neither father had an intention to apply within the next six months for parental responsibility or for a residence order and if they did, it would be likely to be refused.
12. We therefore freed the children for adoption and the mother withdrew her application for contact.
Authorities
In the matter of A B and C (Care order) [2013] JRC 040.
AG-v-J [2011] JRC 203.
Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.