Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - reasons for granting application by the Minister for a final care order.

[2015]JRC231

Royal Court

(Family)

18 November 2015

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF REBECCA AND NANCY (CARE ORDER)

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Applicant.

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

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 12^th October, 2015, the Court made a final care order in respect of Rebecca and Nancy (these are not their real names) with the consent of the respondent ("the mother").  We now set out our reasons, but the orders being consensual we will not do so at any length. 

2.        The children have different fathers and neither of them has played any part in their lives or in these proceedings.  The mother alone has parental responsibility for them. 

3.        The Children's Service initially became involved with the mother and the children in December, 2011 as a result of her attending the Accident and Emergency Service after having overdosed on alcohol and medication.  She was engaging with other agencies at that time and had the support of her parents ("the grandparents") and the case was closed. 

4.        In August, 2014 the mother formed a relationship with F, by whom she later became pregnant and was due to give birth at the end of September 2015.  The unborn child was not part of these proceedings. 

5.        In December 2014, F was charged with possession of seventeen indecent images of children and historic offences against a minor.  He pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 22^nd June, 2015, to a 12-month probation order with 2 years on the Sex Offenders' Register.  No other restrictions were placed upon him. 

6.        On 22^nd December, 2014, the mother was taken to Accident & Emergency Department following an overdose on medication and alcohol.  An initial assessment was undertaken by the Children's Service which highlighted a number of concerns raised by the children regarding the mother's level of alcohol use, her self-harming behaviour and the mental health, and domestic incidents between the mother and F.  As a result of those concerns, the children were accommodated with the grandparents on a voluntary basis on 13^th January, 2015, where they have remained ever since. 

7.        An interim care order was granted on 24^th February, 2015. 

8.        In her statement, the mother explains how she struggled to cope with the children as a single parent on top of a full-time job and it was a source of regret to her that she allowed these difficulties to get on top of her, causing her to use alcohol as an inappropriate coping mechanism.  She goes on to explain that her relationship with an inappropriate man, F, further compromised her ability to care for the children and how it was a source of great shame to her that she did not prioritise the children over that relationship.  He was a heavy drinker, which led to an increase in her alcohol consumption during the relationship (which ended in February, 2015), and he subjected her to domestic abuse in that he was emotionally abusive and controlling. 

9.        She very candidly accepted that the children had suffered significant emotional abuse, which was attributable to her parenting. 

10.      In addition to the mother's statement, the Court heard evidence from the social worker, Vanessa Marques and from the guardian, Elsa Fernandes.  It also had the benefit of reports from Dr Mair Edwards, a clinical psychologist, Dr Clive Reading, a clinical psychologist and Mr Michael Gafoor, a director of the Alcohol and Drug Service.  In the light of the evidence and these reports, it had no difficulty in agreeing with the parties that the threshold criteria under Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 were met and the Court had jurisdiction. 

11.      Turning to the welfare stage, fortunately the grandparents have been able to step in to parent the children, so that they have been able to remain within the family.  The grandparents have been approved as connected person carers. 

12.      One of the features of the mother's care of the children was that Rebecca had largely taken on the role of parenting Nancy.  She presented as very concerned about her mother's health and Nancy's long-term welfare. 

13.      There is an inherent risk of accidental physical harm to children where a parent responsible for their care is intoxicated but Dr Edwards identified a higher risk of direct physical harm to Nancy through chastisement being used (as acknowledged by the mother), which could escalate to direct physical harm. 

14.      She concluded that there was a risk of both children suffering emotional harm if they returned to the care of the mother:-

"6.9.4  The more potent risk however is the risk of emotional harm.  Rebecca has clearly identified that she had to take on a young carer role for her mother, and a parent role for Nancy, in order to keep both safe.  This has been anxiety-provoking for Rebecca, and placing her back in that situation would be emotionally harmful.  To date, Nancy has been protected to some extent by Rebecca, but even then was aware of her mother's drinking, her self-harming behaviours, and she also reported being hungry because her mother would not cook food.  Nancy's trust in her mother's ability to care for her has therefore been eroded, and placing her back in her mother's care, without clear and sustained improvements, would, in my opinion, be anxiety-provoking for Nancy, and would therefore be harmful."

15.      In her view, the breach of trust between the mother and the children was significant and would be difficult to repair. 

16.      In terms of the welfare checklist and turning to the wishes of the children, Rebecca is of above average cognitive ability and has made it very clear that she wishes to remain with the grandparents and does not wish to live with the mother again.  Based on her own experiences, she has expressed considerable concern about Nancy's long-term welfare if she were to return to the mother's care, particularly if the new child is also living with the mother, fearing that Nancy would become responsible for that child's care.  Nancy has expressed no desire to return to her mother's care either, saying that she is happy in the care of the grandparents. 

17.      Both children are in good general health with no major conditions, illnesses or disabilities.  Both are doing well at school. 

18.      The issue of the childrens' future care has been resolved in that the mother respects their clearly expressed wishes to remain with the grandparents and having considered the professional advice she agrees that it is best for them to remain with the grandparents.  Quoting from her statement:-

"10      I am trying to put my life back together after this difficult relationship, and I want to put things right for my children, and so far it's going in the right direction. I accept that I should have coped better, and I feel that if this situation were to happen again today, I would have coped better. I have made many mistakes which I would like to make right.  As part of that process, I am agreeing with a heavy heart, to what my children want, and what the child welfare experts tell me is in their best interests.  Though I find it heart rending to do so.  I  would have given anything for them to come home to me.  But I made this painful decision because I am determined to prioritise my children's best interests over my own.

11.      ....

12       I made a huge mistake when I put my relationship and myself before my children.  It was entirely my fault that I did so.  I will regret that I let down my children and myself for the rest of my life.  I love my children, and I hope that they know that.  It is my earnest wish that my relationship with Rebecca and Nancy gets stronger in time and we can work to putting all the bad things behind us and move forward together to a better, happier, future."

19.      As to the range of orders available to the Court this is a case where a residence order might well suffice; securing the children's placement with the grandparents and giving them parental responsibility.  However, the relationship between the grandparents and the mother was very strained and there was no communication.  The grandparents did not feel able to parent the children without the support of the Children's Service, especially in facilitating contact. 

20.      The Children's Service were of the view that the grandparents required the support that a care order would give, enabling the Minister to share parental responsibility and to facilitate and regulate contact.  A care order was agreed by the mother and the Court concluded that it was only right to provide that support to the grandparents by the making of final care orders in respect of both children, so as to ensure their welfare. 

21.      The Court therefore, having approved the care plan and the contact arrangements, made final care orders in favour of the Minister in respect of both children.  

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.