Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - application by Mr A to be joined to the proceedings and to be considered as long-term carer of the child.

[2015]JRC247

Royal Court

(Family)

30 November 2015

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF IMOGEN (CARE PROCEEDINGS)

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Applicant.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the First Respondent.

Advocate L. K. Helm for the Second Respondent (the Mother).

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Guardian of the Third Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        This is an application by Mr A to become party to these care proceedings and for a full assessment to be carried out of him as a potential carer for Imogen (this is not her real name).  We have to say that we have considerable sympathy with Mr A in relation to this application.  It is not his fault that the application has been brought as late as it has - the final hearing is fixed for January.  On the contrary, the reason that this application has been brought late, the fault for it, lies in our judgment entirely at the door of the Children's Service.  First they pursued one solution, which involved Imogen possibly going to live in England.  They then changed their mind, apparently on the basis of a change in social worker; having changed their mind they appear to have neglected to keep informed all those who are putting themselves forward as potential carers; and it has to be recalled that Ms B, Mrs C and Mr A are all people who wish to do their best for Imogen and are willing to put themselves forward.  They deserved to be well treated.  We have to say on the evidence before us that they were not.  So, having neglected to keep them informed as to what was happening, salt was added to the wound by the fact that it was apparently more difficult then for Mr A to continue to have his contact with Imogen.  He appears to have met with silence from the Children's Service.  And that is not just his evidence; it clearly is also the experience of Mrs C, from her statement, and even Ms B has been encountering problems with the Children's Service. 

2.        So if sympathy were to determine this application it would not be a difficult application to decide.  But we have to consider what is in Imogen's best interests.  We have concluded that her best interests are served by not allowing this application.  In the first place, although there was an initial assessment, it would be wrong to describe its outcome as positive.  It was not negative in the sense that it was highly critical of Mr A, far from it.  But it was not positive because it raised a number of concerns and therefore, at that stage, the Service did not go on to carry out the full assessment which was envisaged if one had a positive initial assessment.  Secondly, we think it unlikely that Mr A would be able to overcome the concerns expressed.  They relate to the fact that he is a single man, his life style, he has not been a parent before, and he has not had Imogen living with him.  There are a number of issues which are raised in the initial assessment which will continue to be a concern.  Thirdly, and most importantly, any full assessment would lead to delay in the conclusion of this matter.  It would seem, from the evidence before us, that one cannot be assured that any assessment would be completed before the end of February.  The Minister would then need at least a month, it seems to us, to consider the assessment and consider what his care plan is going to be.  So that would realistically probably be the end of March.  The other parties would then realistically need at least a month to consider their position and decide what their approach was, which means one would be looking at a final hearing in May or even June; so that would be a four to five month delay.  Now there has been too much delay already.  Imogen needs to know what her future is.  We think continued uncertainty is likely to be very damaging to her and we bear in mind the provision in the Children's Law which says that a court should act on the basis that delay in reaching a final conclusion is damaging. 

3.        So for all those reasons, with considerable reluctance and, as will have been seem, we have taken some time to consider this, we are going to reject the application both to become a party and for a final assessment.  But we wish to add this.  We have already made it clear that in our view the Children's Service has failed dismally in its duty to communicate with people.  We are delighted to hear there is going to be a meeting of advocates this week.  That must take place.  The Children's Service must up its game and now do what it should always have done, which is to keep these good people, who wish to do their best for Imogen, fully informed as far as they can.  This should be an inclusive and transparent process so far as possible, not one which keeps people at arm's length and makes them feel that they are being ignored. 

4.        The second aspect is that in relation to contact we have seen reference in the papers, although we have not heard any evidence about it today, to its being suggested on behalf of the Children's Service that contact needs to be supervised with Mr A.  If that is so we cannot begin to understand it.  Mr A has had contact with Imogen, so far as we are aware, in an unsupervised capacity for a long time.  Imogen has been with him to visit his mother and stay with his mother in England.  Contact should continue as it has always been and should be unsupervised.  And we expect the Children's Service to facilitate and make sure that contact takes place. 

5.        So that is our decision. 

No Authorities