Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2016]JRC081

Royal Court

(Family)

11 April 2016

Before     :		Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Fisher and Sparrow
Between	Minister for Health and Social Services		Applicant
And	The Mother		First Respondent
And	Imogen (acting through her Guardian Gilliam Timmis)		Second Respondent
And	Mrs C		Third Respondent
And	Mrs B		Fourth Respondent
And	Mr D		Fifth Respondent
And	Mr A		Sixth Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF IMOGEN (CARE ORDER)

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Minister.

Advocate L. K. Helm for the First Respondent.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Second Respondent.

Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Third Respondent.

Advocate M. R. Godden for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents.

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Sixth Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for a final care order in respect of the Second Respondent ("Imogen") (this is not her real name) who is aged 8.  Although the parties have of course been referred to by name throughout the proceedings, we propose to refer to them by descriptive expressions in this judgment.  That is because, in accordance with normal practice, an anonymised version of this judgment will be published in due course and proceeding in this manner will ease the process of anonymisation. 

2.        The parties are agreed that the threshold for making a care order is met and that the key issue before the Court is with whom Imogen should live and what arrangements for contact there should be. 

3.        The Minister has varied in his approach over the course of the proceedings, although he has been consistent in believing that a care order is necessary.  In the summer of 2015 he planned to place Imogen with the Third Respondent in England; in January 2016 he proposed that she be placed in long-term foster care in Jersey; and he is now proposing that Imogen live with the Fourth and Fifth Respondents in Jersey.  

4.        We propose to refer to the First Respondent as "the mother", the Third Respondent as "the step-grandmother", the Fourth Respondent as "the godmother", the Fifth Respondent as "the godmother's partner" and the Sixth Respondent as "the step-father".  We should emphasise that the step-grandmother's application is made with the full support of her partner and the godmother's application is made with the full support of the godmother's partner.  Any placement of Imogen would be with the relevant couple.  Nevertheless, in order to avoid unnecessary repetition and because the primary relationship has in the past been with the step-grandmother or the godmother, as the case may be, we shall for convenience not include references to the relevant partner unless it is essential to do so.  Thus, if we refer to a proposal to place Imogen with the godmother, it is in fact a proposal to place Imogen with the godmother and the godmother's partner.  The same is true in relation to the step-grandmother. 

5.        At the conclusion of the hearing on 18^th March, the Court announced its decision to make a final care order and to approve the care plan (as amended).  The Court therefore approved the proposal that Imogen should be placed with the godmother as a connected person carer.  We now give our reasons for reaching that decision. 

Background

6.        The mother is 34.  She herself was brought up in the care system from the age of 7 and sadly experienced considerable abuse as a child.  She has had four children.  The older two sons have been adopted and the third lives with his father in the UK.  She does not see any of them.  Imogen is the youngest of her children.  

7.        The Children's Service has been involved for substantial periods since Imogen's birth.  She has been placed on the child protection register under the category of neglect on three separate occasions.  She was removed from the register in June 2014 although she remained as a 'child in need'.  Nevertheless, prior to the incident on 28^th January, 2015, referred to below, professionals supporting the family were becoming increasingly concerned about the deterioration of the mother's parenting of Imogen, particularly in relation to Imogen's emotional development. 

8.        On 28^th January, 2015, the mother attended at the Accident and Emergency Department of the General Hospital with Imogen.  It transpired that Imogen had an abrasion on the right side in the groove between the labia majora and the labia minora (being the outer fleshy lip and the inner fleshy lip respectively of the vagina).  There was no bruising and the hymen appeared intact.  The hospital called in a specialist and on 31^st January, 2015, Imogen was examined by Dr Love.  Her opinion is described in more detail at paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of the Court dated 5^th March, 2015, reported at In the matter of Imogen (Emergency Protection Order) [2015] JRC 051A ("the EPO judgment").  Suffice it to say for present purposes that Dr Love considered that sexual abuse was the most likely cause of the laceration.  She considered a number of possible explanations put forward by the mother but was of the opinion that these were inherently implausible.  

9.        Faced with this evidence and given the previous background to the case, the Minister applied for an emergency protection order on 9^th February while Imogen was still in hospital.  On that day, having heard evidence from Dr Love amongst others, the Commissioner granted an emergency protection order. 

10.      On 9^th March, 2015, the Court granted the Minister's application for an interim care order.  Since the emergency protection order, Imogen has been in foster care.  She was initially with one set of foster carers but she has been with her current foster carer ("the foster carer") since the end of March 2015.  

11.      It is convenient at this stage to outline the relationship of the various parties to Imogen. 

12.      Imogen's birth father has played no part in Imogen's life or in these proceedings despite being made aware of them. 

13.      The step-father lived with the mother and Imogen for approximately two years until just before Imogen was 3.  When his relationship with the mother ended, he continued to see Imogen regularly and the mother agreed to Imogen spending time with him.  Imogen knows the step-father as 'Daddy' and believes that he is in fact her father.  

14.      The step-grandmother is the step-father's mother.  She took on the role of step-grandmother to Imogen when her son became involved with the mother in 2009.  She lives with her partner of 15 years in Manchester.  She continued in the role of step-grandmother after her son's relationship with the mother ended.  Imogen has spent several holiday periods with her in Manchester and she has maintained contact with Imogen via Skype on a regular basis and on visits to Jersey.  She has been assessed and approved as a prospective connected person carer for Imogen. 

15.      The godmother is described as Imogen's godmother although it is not clear whether Imogen has in fact been christened.  She has been a close friend of the mother from their school days and has seen Imogen on a very regular basis.  At times in the past the mother has asked the godmother to look after Imogen as described in more detail below. 

16.      On 2^nd June, 2015, the Court ordered that the Minister should carry out an initial viability assessment on each of the godmother, the step-father and the step-grandmother as potential carers and that such initial viability assessments should be completed by 5^th June.  It was further ordered that if any of the initial viability assessments was positive, a full viability assessment should be carried out by the Minister on the relevant person(s) and such assessment should be completed by 24^th July, 2015. 

17.      The initial assessment on the step-grandmother was positive and a full assessment was subsequently prepared.  This too was positive.  The initial assessment of the step-father raised sufficient concerns as to whether he was in a position to act as a full-time carer such that no full assessment was subsequently carried out.  There was an initial assessment of the godmother but no full assessment was carried out at that stage.  It is clear that this was because the social worker then allocated to Imogen ("the original social worker") had already formed the view that it was likely to be best for Imogen to move to live in England with the step-grandmother.  She therefore concentrated only on obtaining a full assessment of the step-grandmother. 

18.      It seems clear that her view was unchanged following receipt of the full assessment in relation to the step-grandmother.  Thus in a form C2 filed by the Minister on 7^th September, 2015, it was stated that it was the Minister's intention at the final hearing to make an application for a final care order and for leave to place Imogen out of the jurisdiction in the care of the step-grandmother.  The final hearing had in fact been fixed for 14^th September but that was adjourned because police checks on the step-grandmother had not been completed.  It was further stated in the form C2 that the approval of the Fostering and Adoption Panel ("the Panel") had not yet been obtained and this was to take place on 22^nd September.  However we have been informed that that was incorrect and that in fact the Panel had approved the step-grandmother and her partner as connected person carers on 11^th August.  

19.      At about this time the original social worker left on long-term sick leave.  At a directions hearing on 16^th September, the Guardian expressed concern that the godmother had not also been fully assessed.  It had been agreed between the parties shortly before the directions hearing that such a full assessment would be carried out and would be presented to the Panel on 12^th January, 2016.  The Act of the Court also noted that the Minister (a) would endeavour to confirm which social worker would be dealing with the case going forward by 25^th September, (b) would confirm to the parties who would be carrying out the life story work with Imogen and when, (c) would confirm the contact arrangements with the step-grandmother and the other parties, and (d) would keep the step-grandmother and the godmother regularly informed of relevant developments in the proceedings.  Sadly that does not seem to have occurred in respect of (d) as described later in this judgment.  In respect of (a) - (c), the newly appointed social worker left the Children's Service shortly after being allocated to the case. 

20.      On 30^th November, for the reasons set out in a judgment reported at In the matter of Imogen (Care proceedings) [2015] JRC 247, the Court rejected the application of the step-father to become a party to the proceedings and for a full assessment of him as a potential carer to be carried out.  The essential grounds for that decision were first, that the initial assessment of the step-father had not been positive and secondly, the carrying out of a full assessment would mean that the hearing date fixed for 11^th January, 2016, would be lost.  The Court was anxious that there should be no further delay in the matter.  The Court did in its judgment express criticism of the lack of communication by the Children's Service with the step-father and step-grandmother in particular but also to an extent with the godmother. 

21.      On 9^th December, the Court gave leave for the step-grandmother to become a party to the proceedings.  

22.      In early December, the assessment of the godmother and the godmother's partner was completed.  It recommended that they were suitable to act as connected person carers for Imogen.  Despite this recommendation, on 15^th December the Panel rejected that recommendation, which decision was upheld by the Agency Decision Maker, Ms Margaret Dennison.  This meant that the Children's Service could not recommend a placement with the godmother.  Accordingly, in the care plan dated 16^th December (the next day), the Children's Service proposed that a final care order should be made and that Imogen should be placed in long-term foster care in Jersey with the foster carer. 

23.      Unfortunately, the Guardian was ill and unable to attend when the Court convened for the final hearing on 11^th January.  Given the various changes in position and the fact that the step-grandmother was applying for Imogen to live with her, the Court was anxious to hear the views of the Guardian and accordingly it became necessary to adjourn the case.  A second reason for the adjournment was that the Court was troubled by the fact that the papers before it gave no explanation for the Panel's decision to reject the godmother as a possible carer.  Accordingly the Court did not know why the possibility of placement with the godmother under a care order had been ruled out.  It asked for fuller information to be provided prior to the resumed hearing, which was fixed for five days commencing 14^th March. 

24.      The godmother appealed to the Panel to review its decision and on 2^nd February the Panel changed its mind and approved the godmother as a connected person carer.  That decision was in turn upheld by the Agency Decision Maker. 

25.      In the light of this decision the Minister prepared an addendum care plan dated 12^th February, 2016, and it is that care plan (amended further on the matter of contact as described later) which is before us.  It recommends that Imogen should be placed with the godmother and the godmother's partner as long-term carers under a care order. 

The legal test

26.      The test for making a care order is well established and was authoritively stated in Re F and G (No2) [2010] JCA 051 in the judgment of Beloff JA at paragraphs 5 - 9.  We bear all the matters set out in those paragraphs in mind.  The Court must consider first whether the threshold criteria set out in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the 2002 Law") are met.  If they are not, no further order can be made.  If they are met, the Court must then consider whether a care order or a supervision order should be made having regard to the welfare of the child.  Relevant considerations when considering welfare are set out at paragraph 8 of the Court of Appeal's judgment.  

Threshold

27.      We turn first therefore to consider whether the threshold criteria are met in this case, namely whether the Court is satisfied that Imogen is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that such harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to her or likely to be given to her if a care order is not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give her.  

28.      The mother and the Minister are agreed in this case that the threshold criteria are met and the Court has been provided with an agreed document summarising the grounds for that conclusion.  Having read the document together with the reports and evidence in this case, we are quite satisfied that the criteria in Article 24(2) are satisfied.  In the circumstances it is not necessary to descend into any detail.  Suffice it to say that it is clear that the mother has deep-seated difficulties of her own and often blames Imogen for these difficulties in Imogen's presence.  This has caused emotional harm to Imogen by damaging her confidence and self-esteem.  The issues go much wider than this and were conveniently summarised at paragraph 5.1.2 of the report of Dr Mair Edwards, clinical psychologist when she stated:-

"The risk in this case is primarily associated with the significant attachment difficulties between mother and daughter, which stem from mother's own attachment difficulties from her childhood. The degree of difficulties in the mother-daughter relationship means that an effective parent-child relationship has not been established, and Imogen's emotional needs, and her need to have consistently applied safe boundaries, are not being met."

29.      She goes on to say that Imogen is severing from her emotional responses, and is not processing her psychological distress.  Although she is only presenting behavioural problems at the moment in her interactions with her mother, there is a risk that they will generalise to other settings in the near future if her circumstances do not change. 

Welfare

30.      Having found that there is jurisdiction to make a care order or a supervision order, we now go on to consider whether that is the right thing to do in Imogen's best interests.  As already stated, the key issue is with whom Imogen should reside.  The Minister's care plan proposes that she should live with the godmother, who supports that application.  The mother wishes Imogen to live with her under a care order.  She therefore invites the Court to request the Minister to reconsider the care plan.  The step-grandmother wishes for Imogen to live with her under a care order.  She therefore also asks the Court to request the Minister to reconsider the care plan so as to place Imogen with her.  If the Minister were to refuse to reconsider the care plan, she would wish the Court to make a residence order in her favour.  

Evidence

31.      The evidence in this case has ranged far and wide.  However, in the interests of brevity, we propose to confine our summary to the key evidence necessary to explain our decision. 

(i) Ms Lesley Baddeley

32.      Ms Baddeley was allocated as the social worker in the Children's Service responsible for Imogen on 19^th October, 2015.  In the earlier part of the proceedings it had been the original social worker although there had been something of a hiatus between her departure and the appointment of Ms Baddeley.  Ms Baddeley prepared a report dated 16^th December, 2015, for the anticipated hearing in January together with further addendum statements dated 22^nd January and 10^th February, 2016.  Much of her evidence (and indeed of other witnesses) was taken up with questions of proposed contact arrangements depending on the Court's decision as to residence.  However, we propose at this stage to concentrate on the evidence relating to where and with whom Imogen should live before turning later to consider questions of contact. 

33.      In her reports, Ms Baddeley summarised some of the history of the mother's past care.  She referred also to the reports from Dr Briggs and Dr Edwards to which we shall refer shortly.  She was in no doubt that Imogen had suffered emotional harm whilst in the care of her mother.  The mother viewed Imogen as a difficult and challenging child and had repeatedly been critical and negative towards her.  Although the mother had received therapeutic treatment from Dr Posner of CAMHS and from the Women's Refuge in recent months, Ms Baddeley did not feel that placement with the mother was a realistic option.  On 26^th October, 2015, the mother had walked away from a contact session with Imogen stating that she 'can't be bothered anymore'.  This was after the mother had attempted to engage Ms Baddeley in conversation about the care plan whilst in a contact session.  When Ms Baddeley had asked the mother not to discuss these issues in front of Imogen, the mother had become more hostile and had refused to engage in any meaningful way with the contact session, resulting in Imogen becoming distressed and tearful.  Contact with the mother had been taking place weekly until that time but the mother then decided to stop contact for a few weeks because she was unhappy with what she understood to be the Minister's plan.  Contact had since been resumed and had been positive for Imogen.  Nevertheless, Ms Baddeley was of the clear view that it would not be in Imogen's interest to place her back with her mother even under the auspices of a care order. 

34.      As to a choice between the godmother and the step-grandmother, Ms Baddeley accepted that both loved Imogen and would do their best for her.  They had both shown great interest in and support of her.  Nevertheless she was of the view that, now that the Panel had approved the godmother, the best choice was that Imogen should be placed with the godmother. 

35.      First and foremost this would not involve a move from Jersey.  Jersey was where Imogen had spent all her life and where important people in her life such as the mother, the step-father and the godmother all lived.  Furthermore, her school played an important part in her life.  The school had been extremely supportive, in particular the head-teacher and her form teacher.  They were aware of Imogen's special needs.  Ms Baddeley had attended Imogen's school nativity play with the mother on 11^th December and it was clear that Imogen enjoyed herself immensely and had a lot of support from her peers and teachers.  She was very comfortable in her school environment.  

36.      If she remained in Jersey, Imogen would also be able to continue to access the services of Dr Posner at CAMHS, where they were well aware of her history.  In so far as Imogen had expressed her wishes and feelings, she had said that her first wish was to live with her mother but failing that she wished to live with the godmother.  She had said that she did not wish to move to live in Manchester.  

37.      Ms Baddeley accepted that the step-grandmother was not working and therefore was available full-time as compared with the godmother, who would be working and also that Imogen would have her own bedroom with the step-grandmother whereas she would have to share a bedroom with the godmother's 15 year old daughter in Jersey.  However, the godmother had agreed to reduce her hours so that she would be available to pick up Imogen from school and she and her partner had applied to the Housing Department for a three-bedroomed property should Imogen be placed with them.  She believed that the godmother's daughter E would be regarded as an older sister and was accepting of the possible arrival of Imogen.  

38.      She was pressed on whether, because of the long-standing close friendship between the godmother and the mother, there was a risk that the godmother would not be able to put firm boundaries in place and might be manipulated by the mother into allowing greater contact etc. than was permitted by the Children's Service.  She said that she was confident that the godmother would be able to exercise control. 

39.      She said that if the Court approved the placement with the godmother, the transition from the foster carer to the godmother would take place over the Easter period.  There was some confusion over who would be responsible for this and we shall touch upon that at the end of this judgment.  However, the final arrangements put forward were that Ms Baddeley would be responsible for supervising and handling the transition to living with the godmother and thereafter Andrea Davison, a social worker from the Permanence Planning Team would take over.  

40.      A further relevant factor was that Imogen believed that the step-father was her biological father and that therefore the step-grandmother was her real grandmother.  There was strong advice from Dr Edwards that this misconception on Imogen's part had to be corrected in early course.  This would be done by way of life story work.  Although it was hoped that learning the truth would not disrupt or damage the relationship between the step-grandmother and Imogen, this could not be guaranteed and there could be no question in any event of any placement with the step-grandmother before the necessary life story work had been done and Imogen had had an opportunity to absorb and process the information.  

(ii) Dr Briggs

41.      Dr David Briggs is a forensic and clinical psychologist.  He was jointly instructed to prepare a report on the mother's psychological functioning and its relevance to her parenting ability.  

42.      His report is dated 23^rd June, 2015.  It is extremely detailed.  He concluded in summary that the mother presented with many characteristics of a personality disorder (page 62).  In terms of the impact of her psychological well-being on her ability to parent, he said this at pages 32-33 of his report:-

"It is often said that one of the better predictors of future behaviour is past behaviour. The mother's history is of concern for the difficulties she has evidenced in sustaining healthy parenting of children in the past. She has not generated confidence in her ability to respond well to therapeutic interventions or to respect the concerns of those professionals who have been encouraging of her healthy parenting of her children. Whilst the mother may have shown periods of good enough care of Imogen, sadly the overall picture of her as a mother is reported to be a depressing one. ....

The likelihood is that the mother will have significant difficulties sustaining the prioritisation of Imogen's emotional needs and well-being in the future. There is a significant risk that Imogen will suffer emotionally neglectful parenting in its broadest sense on occasions were she to remain in the mother's care."  [Original emphasis and we have substituted 'the mother' for the mother's name in all quotations from this report and, indeed, Dr Edward's report.]

Later at page 35 he said:-

"In any event I am not sure [alcohol use] is the key issue in this case. I believe the more fundamental issues relate to the mother's personality and the difficulties she has even when sober in regulating her emotions sufficient to sustain a focus long-term on Imogen's needs."

43.      When asked to comment on whether the mother understands the risk that adults convicted of or suspected of child sexual abuse pose to Imogen and whether she is able to protect Imogen from such individuals, Dr Briggs said this at page 38:-

"The mother has some understanding of the nature of risk though her own needs have drawn her to unsuitable and risky relationships with adults. The evidence of this interview is that of us being unable to rely upon the mother to sustain and promote the protection of Imogen when in her care at all times. The mother evidences the capacity to form relationships with intimate partners who would abuse and maltreat her. I worry for Imogen that she will be exposed to the uncertainty and chaos of her mother's adult relationships."

44.      As to the mother's capacity to change, he said this at 32:-

"I am also mindful in this case of the difficulties the mother appears to have had in sustaining relationships with professionals from the mental health services and other agencies who have attempted to help her in the past. Whilst she can make promising starts and express a willingness to change, she struggles to cope with the discomfort of the change process and the demands put upon her to reflect on her behaviour and emotions. ..."

And at page 37:-

"Given the mother's history I am unsurprised that Dr Shobbrook had attempted a course of DBT in the mother's case and indeed I believe this would have been appropriate treatment for her. What is also clear is that the mother had struggled to engage with this intervention. Given the reports of her struggles with DBT, and also given the history of her previous lack of engagement with other therapies, the prognosis in this case seems poor. I cannot offer the Court any reassurance that the mother will respond swiftly to any form of psychological therapy or treatment offered or that change will be sustained."

45.      In cross-examination by Advocate Helm, it was put to Dr Briggs that the mother had now undertaken 16 cognitive behaviour sessions with Dr Posner and had also attended a course on domestic abuse at the Women's Refuge.  Dr Briggs acknowledged that this was a positive development and that these courses would start to help the mother.  However, he emphasised that it was a lengthy process to change and that the mother was at the early stages of a very long process.  He had read all the papers currently available and had not seen anything to change his views as expressed in the report. 

(iii) Dr Edwards

46.      Dr Mair Edwards is a clinical psychologist who specialises in the area of parental mental health, child development (including emotional and behavioural development) and parenting skills.  She assessed both the mother and Imogen. 

47.      As to the mother, she concluded at para 2.15.2 that it was clear that the mother had experienced a highly chaotic, neglectful and physically, emotionally and sexually abusive early childhood.  Even after being placed in care, her life continued to be unstable with frequently placement moves and no sense in any part of her narrative of being able to identify any one person who provided her with a sense of security and belonging.  Given the history, it was therefore not surprising to find that the mother had disorganised and, in Dr Edwards' opinion, debilitating attachment strategies which have had a serious impact on most aspects of her functioning in adulthood.  

48.      As to the nature of the relationship between the mother and Imogen, Dr Edwards said this at para 2.15.12:-

"In relation to the mother's abilities to put in place appropriate boundaries on Imogen, and maintain those boundaries, then the attachment difficulties are again causing significant problems. One of the mother's core beliefs is that she is unlovable, and therefore will always be rejected which then sets up a complex response to fear of rejection and abandonment. ... For a parent with a fear of being rejected the child's response triggers the core beliefs about the self being unlovable, leading to high levels of distress. In order to reduce the distress, a parent may therefore act in a way to reject the child, before the child has the opportunity to reject the parent - thus setting up further attachment difficulties. Over time, the child learns which responses are most likely to be effective to meet their wants (but not necessarily need) leading to a coercive pattern of interaction between the child and the parent. This then allows the parent to blame the child for being defiant and oppositional, reducing personal responsibility and viewing the problem as being within the child, rather than within them as the parent.

2.15.13 It is my opinion that this pattern is clearly seen in this case, and the psychometric assessments, in combination with the assessment overall, point to dysfunctional parent-child relationship, where Imogen is identified as a 'difficult child', and where the attachment relationship is in extreme difficulties."

49.      At paragraph 3.6.7, Dr Edwards pointed to the evidence that Imogen does not always recognise appropriate boundaries on her affectionate behaviour towards others, and will also be 'in your face' (ie inappropriately physically close).  It is reported that she will hug random people and say 'I love you' to people she has just met.  She has also approached professionals to request a kiss.  

50.      As to the suspected sexual abuse (linked to the injury in January 2015) Dr Edwards concluded at para 3.12.8 that she could not conclude one way or the other whether Imogen had been sexually groomed or abused but she was confident in stating that she had been traumatised in some way, and that this was most likely to be associated with the clinically insecure attachment strategies which had not allowed Imogen to feel secure and safe whilst in her mother's care.  She concluded at 5.1.2 that Imogen's emotional needs and her need to have consistently applied safe boundaries were not being met by reason of the significant attachment difficulties between mother and daughter.  In her opinion the mother did not have the capacity to provide Imogen with the consistent, stable and secure parenting that she required and could not meet Imogen's significant emotional needs.  She felt that the mother had already emotionally harmed Imogen and, if Imogen were to remain in her care, she would pose further risk of emotional harm to Imogen.  

51.      She said at 5.2.2 that although Imogen was at present only displaying behavioural problems with the mother, there was a risk that they would generalise to other settings in the near future if the circumstances did not change. Imogen was severing from her emotional responses and was not processing her psychological distress. That would leave her vulnerable to mental health problems in later life.

52.      As to the effect of intervention, Dr Edwards opined at 5.8.1:-

"Over the years, the mother has been offered a level of psychological service from the professionals on Jersey that has impressed me. Drs White, Shobbrook and Posner have shown immense 'stickability', recognising the mother's difficulties, and trying to demonstrate through their consistent responses that they were willing to invest in her. They have offered appropriate interventions - including CBT, DBT, and now CAT. Unfortunately, to date, very little progress has been made, as the mother has struggled to engage."

53.      In her oral evidence, she maintained the view that if Imogen were placed with the mother, there would be a high risk of repetition of the sort of behaviour which had caused difficulties in the past.  Imogen was unable to express her emotions openly for fear of adverse reaction and therefore tended to say what she thought people wanted her to say.  In the long term that could be very damaging.  It would be positive if the mother supported any alternative placement as in general, children tended to do better if the adult supports them in their placement.  She felt that CAMHS had been doing good work in Jersey and she knew from experience that it could be difficult to access CAMHS in England unless the psychiatric problems being suffered were extreme.  Her only concern with the proposed placement with the godmother was that, because of the longstanding relationship between the godmother and the mother, the godmother might find it difficult to stand up to the mother.  However it was clear that the godmother had been an important part of Imogen's life and had stepped in to care for her when necessary.  

54.      She was most concerned at the (as she put it) 'deception' over whether the step-father was Imogen's biological father and therefore the step-grandmother was her biological grandmother.  This should have been rectified earlier and needed to be rectified as a matter of urgency.  If Imogen were to be placed with the step-grandmother, the life story work would need to be undertaken first.  Dr Edwards would allow a minimum of three months to see how Imogen responded to being told the true facts so that there would in all likelihood be a period of some three to six months before Imogen could move to live with the step-grandmother. 

55.      She accepted that there could be difficulties with the natural children of a carer when a foster child was placed with them.  However, an older child who accepted the position could be helpful to the child being placed.  She agreed that difficulties could arise from sharing a bedroom and it would be preferable if each could have their own room.  Young people needed space.  As to the mother exerting undue influence, she was comforted by what she had read in the full assessment of the godmother and her partner. 

(iv) Laura Cardinal

56.      Ms Cardinal is a social worker in the Fostering and Adoption Team of the Children's Service.  She prepared the assessment of the godmother and her partner.  Her assessment was in the papers available to the Court, as was the assessment of the step-grandmother and her partner.  

57.      The assessment had concluded that the godmother would provide a suitable placement for Imogen but the godmother was rejected initially by the Panel.  The godmother appealed and there was another meeting of the Panel on 2^nd February at which the godmother, her partner and Madison attended.  Following that meeting, the Panel approved the godmother as a potential carer. 

58.      We were provided with an addendum prepared by Ms Cardinal as to the events since the initial rejection by the Panel.  It appeared from that document that the concerns of the Panel in December related to the ability of the godmother (and her partner) to understand and meet Imogen's complex needs, to the role of the godmother's partner within the family, to the effect on the emotional health of Madison and to uncertainties such as the godmother's ability to take time off from employment, their housing situation (with only one bedroom for both children) and the demands on the godmother as a result of the illness of her father. 

59.      Ms Cardinal said that these were all addressed at the appeal hearing and she was confident that the godmother could provide a suitable placement for Imogen.  She was further confident that the godmother could maintain firm boundaries in relation to the mother.  The godmother had shown understanding of Imogen's attachment difficulties and had worked well with professionals.  

(iv) The Step-Grandmother

60.      The step-grandmother produced a statement dated 22^nd December, 2015, for the planned hearing in January 2016 and a further statement dated 21^st February for the present hearing.  She also gave oral evidence.  

61.      In addition, we have listened to a recording of a Skype conversation on 28^th February, 2016, between the step-grandmother in Manchester and Imogen (in the presence of the foster carer).  That recording was made unknown to the foster carer or indeed anyone else.  The fact that it was made in this way initially raised issues of trust between the various parties.  The step-grandmother has apologised for what she did and has formally undertaken never to do it again.  She has explained that it was done out of desperation because none of the professionals had seen her in the presence of Imogen and she felt that the depth of her relationship with Imogen was being underplayed.  She should not have done what she did but we can understand what drove her to do so.  In the light of her apology and undertaking, we think the incident is best forgotten and it has not affected our consideration of the matter.  We have however listened carefully to the Skype conversation.  

62.      The step-grandmother is 53 and has lived with her partner (aged 57) in Manchester for 15 years.  She has an adult son and her partner has an adult daughter, neither of whom live with them any longer.  Their home is a two bedroomed house and Imogen would accordingly have her own bedroom.  The step-grandmother worked for 15 years in a children's home as a general assistant and has also worked part-time as a cleaner in a school for 22 years.  In the children's home she came into contact with children with difficult and challenging behaviour.  Although she was not directly responsible for their care, she had considerable involvement with them and believes that she has learned from watching and listening to the professionals dealing with those children during that period.  

63.      She first met Imogen when she was 2, at which time her son, the step-father, was living with the mother and Imogen in Jersey.  They all came to stay that Christmas.  Since then Imogen has been on many occasions to stay with the step-grandmother at her home in Manchester and she and her partner have also come to Jersey regularly, sometimes looking after Imogen on those occasions but invariably seeing her regularly.  The full details of the time Imogen has stayed with her are set out in the step-grandmother's statement and in the Guardian's report of 6^th January, 2016.  The step-grandmother's relationship with Imogen has continued notwithstanding the ending of the step-father's relationship with the mother in late 2010.  On occasions Imogen has visited the step-grandmother in Manchester either with her step-father or her mother but on other occasions she has been there on her own.  In 2013, Imogen stayed for a total of six weeks in Manchester with the step-grandmother.  The step-father was there for the first week and the mother joined her daughter for the last two weeks.  In effect there have been regular staying visits over a lengthy period.  Before the split between the step-father and the mother, all of them went on a family holiday to Turkey.  Quite apart from these staying visits, there has been very regular Skype contact between Imogen and the step-grandmother. 

64.      It is quite clear that the step-grandmother is devoted to Imogen and will do anything for her.  Imogen has a strong relationship with her.  

65.      When the incident in January 2015 occurred and an interim care order was made, the step-grandmother wrote to the Children's Service asking to be considered as a carer for Imogen should she not return to her mother.  Subsequently, she was fully assessed by an independent social worker, Gwen Justice and, as already stated, that assessment was positive.  She was approved as a connected person carer by the Panel on 11^th August, 2015.  

66.      She understood from the original social worker that the recommendation would be that Imogen should come to stay with her with a view to making the placement permanent if all went well.  To that end she researched local schools, she looked into locally based children's therapy services for Imogen, and she painted the bedroom, bought a new wardrobe and bought various items of clothing.  However, close to the date when Imogen was supposed to travel to stay with her, she did not hear from the original social worker or from anyone else at the Children's Service.  

67.      After some unsuccessful attempts to contact someone who would respond at the Children's Service, she called the Guardian and it was only then that she was informed that Imogen would not be coming to stay with her because the Children's Service needed to do an assessment on the godmother before making a decision about Imogen.  She was of course very sad to discover that and was also disappointed that she had only heard this information from the Guardian on making her own enquiries rather than from the Children's Service.  

68.      The first she heard from the Children's Service was when she received a visit from Louise Hollick on 18^th September.  Ms Hollick apologised for the lack of communication and explained that there were three significant persons in Imogen's life who needed to be considered, namely the godmother, the step-father and the step-grandmother. 

69.      She said that after that conversation there was a long period of silence with no communication from the Children's Service.  There were changes in social worker and she could not obtain any information.  The next proper conversation she had was with Ms Baddeley on 24^th November when Ms Baddeley said she could not give any clear information at that time.  Two days later she spoke to her social worker on the Fostering and Adoption Team who advised that Ms Baddeley wanted to keep Imogen on the Island.  That was the first real indication she had from the Children's Service that they were thinking differently and might not want Imogen to live with her in Manchester after all.  It was not until 3^rd December that she was told via her advocate that she no longer had the support of the Minister.  No one from the Children's Service had spoken to her to explain the reasons for any change of position.  

70.      The poor communication continued at the time of the January hearing.  It had been agreed in e-mail exchanges between her lawyer and the lawyer for the Children's Service that contact with Imogen would take place in Jersey over the weekend before the hearing.  She was to receive a telephone call from the Children's Service with details of when and where that contact would take place.  She says that no telephone call ever came and accordingly when she came to Court on the first day of the hearing, contact had not taken place as promised.  It was eventually arranged for the afternoon of Monday 11^th January, as the Court had adjourned that morning but even then there was some confusion over the timing of both the start and end of the contact session. 

71.      The step-grandmother explained that both she and her partner loved Imogen very much and considered her to be their grand-daughter.  The step-grandmother had not taken on employment because she had thought Imogen would be placed with her.  That would continue because she wished to be available to Imogen if she moved to live with them.  She agreed that Imogen needed boundaries, discipline, stimulation, love and attention and said that she was well placed to provide these.  She was aware that Imogen had experienced trauma and that there were risks to her emotional well-being as a result of what she had been through.  She understood what was involved and the troubles that they might face in the future but she loved Imogen unconditionally and wanted to give her the best future possible.  She felt that the various reports underplayed the depth of her connection with Imogen.  She had read her bedtime stories and nursery rhymes over the telephone and calmed her down over the telephone on many occasions when the mother felt she could not cope.  They had done their best to offer consistent support and love over the years. 

72.      She accepted that Imogen needed to be told the truth in relation to the step-father and therefore her own relationship.  She would be happy to be part of that process.  She would work with the Children's Service and have any 'attachment training' suggested.  She would also be happy to encourage contact with the mother, the godmother and the step-father as recommended by the Children's Service.  While she accepted that the godmother also loved Imogen and had played an important role in supporting the mother, she felt that she (the step-grandmother) was in a better position to provide a home because she would not be working, there were no other children in the home, Imogen would have her own bedroom and the distance from Jersey would make it easier to prevent any undue influence or intrusion by the mother.  She accepted that a move to England would initially be disruptive but felt that one should take a long term view.  Children often moved for one reason or another.  Imogen was adaptable and the step-grandmother would give her lots of reassurance.  She agreed that the life story work was an issue if Imogen was placed with her but disagreed that no such placement should take place before the work was done.  She would work with the agencies in engaging with the life story. 

73.      In short, she loved Imogen, wanted to do her best for her and put herself forward as being able to provide a stable, loving and secure environment for Imogen. 

The mother

74.      The mother produced a statement and also gave oral evidence before the Court.  She emphasised how much she loved her daughter and how much she had missed her since she was taken into care.  She believed Imogen was also missing her.  

75.      She accepted that there were concerns about her parenting prior to the interim care order but the Children's Service had not taken any steps to remove Imogen from her care until the intimate injury came to light in January 2015.  It was accepted by all parties that she had not caused that injury and indeed she did not know how it had occurred.  

76.      She emphasised that she had taken steps to address her parenting and the issues surrounding domestic abuse.  In the first place she had undertaken a course with the Women's Refuge and we were shown letters dated 13^th August, 2015, and 5^th January, 2016, which confirmed this.  She had been offered a tailored course which combined the LIFE and Free to Be Mum courses offered by the Refuge.  The LIFE course aimed to explore what is abuse, the tactics used by perpetrators, the consequences for survivors and their families, and how to move on following abuse.  The Free to Be Mum programme explored the impact abuse can have on a mother, the impact upon children and the different behaviour children may display as a result of experiencing domestic abuse, how to manage such behaviour and manage safety and well-being for parent and child.  This work had been completed and the mother had expressed her wish to continue doing all she could to understand the needs of her daughter. 

77.      The mother explained that she had also undertaken work with Dr Posner at CAMHS.  This was supported by a letter dated 1^st September, 2015, from Dr Posner.  She had been offered and completed 16 sessions of cognitive analytic therapy (CAT).  The intention was to enable the mother to promote her well-being and her capacity to think about her relationship with her daughter.  Dr Posner considered that the mother had become more skilful at reflecting upon her relationship with her daughter.  In that letter, Dr Posner indicated that the mother would next be undergoing the Decider programme but an e-mail dated 10^th February from Dr Posner says that the mother has had so much anxiety in relation to the court case that it had been hard to focus her and accordingly she had not done the structured work with the mother in terms of the Decider programme that she had hoped to do when she wrote in September.  She had however done a lot of work on looking at attachment based behaviours with her and encouraged the mother to focus on how she felt calmer and better able to handle difficulties without taking a controlling position.  The mother said that she was also taking part in a course at The Bridge about parenting and keeping children secure. 

78.      In short, the mother said that she felt that she was better placed now to provide a safe environment for Imogen.  She felt that with the help of all the various agencies, she could put into practice and maintain the skills she had learnt since Imogen had been taken into care.  She spoke of how she had attended Imogen's nativity play before Christmas with Ms Baddeley and how Imogen was really happy to see her. 

79.      She said that if it was not possible for Imogen to be placed with her, she would support placement with the godmother.  This would avoid the disruption for Imogen of leaving the Island where she has always lived.  She also said that she would not ask the godmother to act contrary to the Children's Service in relation to contact.  She knew the godmother had Imogen's best interests at heart and she did not think she could manipulate the godmother as had been suggested by the step-grandmother.  She trusted the godmother to look after her daughter. 

80.      She was questioned about the various observations in the reports of Dr Edwards and Dr Briggs, some of which we have referred to above.  She accepted that these were critical of her but said that she was seen by Dr Briggs and Dr Edwards before undertaking the work with Dr Posner and the Women's Refuge.  She felt that she was now in a much better position to understand what she had done wrong previously and to provide better parenting in future.  

The godmother

81.      The godmother and her partner provided a joint statement and the godmother gave oral evidence.  She is 34 and partner is 41.  She said that they had been together for some 14 years but he has only moved in to live with her and her daughter Madison some two years ago.  Madison is aged 15 and is her daughter by a previous relationship.  

82.      The godmother has known the mother since their schooldays and they are best friends.  The godmother has been involved with Imogen throughout her life.  When Imogen was a few weeks old it was agreed with the Children's Service that she should be placed with the godmother and this lasted about three months.  Since then there have been regular placements with the godmother by arrangement with social workers and there have been other placements informally at the mother's request.  When Imogen has been residing with the mother, there has been regular and frequent contact with the godmother and her family.  The godmother made applications to be assessed as a carer both in 2008 and 2012 but they were not progressed at that stage.  

83.      When Imogen was placed in the care of the Minister under the interim care order in March 2015, the godmother and her partner offered for Imogen to be placed with them.  This was not possible at the time because of the ongoing police investigation.  She badgered the original social worker to be assessed.  She was told that someone would be in touch but heard nothing and did not realise that there had in fact been an initial viability assessment.  There was no communication from the Children's Service in July and August and she then heard from the step-father that Imogen was going to be placed in Manchester with the step-grandmother because the Children's Service did not want Imogen to come into contact with the perpetrator of the sexual abuse upon her.  However she was then informed that she would be assessed and the full assessment was undertaken by Laura Cardinal.  This took place between September and December 2015 and they understood that the recommendation was that they should be approved as carers.  It was devastating to them when the Panel rejected this recommendation on 15^th December.  They appealed and explained in detail why they wanted Imogen to live with them.  Together with Madison, they had attended the Panel on 2^nd February and were delighted when they were approved.  They were fully supportive of the Minister's proposal that Imogen should be placed with them under a care order.  They wanted to offer Imogen a home where she knew she was part of the family.  They fully understood that Imogen has complex needs and they were ready as a family to adapt their lives for Imogen.  They understood that continuing work would be necessary with the Children's Service and CAMHS and were fully supportive of that.  

84.      The godmother said that she was fortunate enough to work for her aunt and had arranged that, should Imogen be placed with them, she would reduce her working hours so that she was always able to pick up Imogen either from school or from her after school activity.  As to school holidays, she would take her own holidays during such periods, Imogen would attend school club (as had Madison) and, should it be felt that Imogen could go and stay with the step-grandmother, this could also take place during the school holidays.  She also had a strong family network to help.  

85.      They understood that there would be changes as a result of Imogen's arrival.  They had applied for new accommodation from the Housing Department with the support of Laura Cardinal and understood that they were placed at level 2 priority for three-bedroomed accommodation if Imogen was placed with them.  Until then, Madison and Imogen would have to share a bedroom.  However, they planned to divide the room as far as possible.  Madison was approaching her GCSEs and if she needed to work or have privacy, she could use the godmother's bedroom or go to her father's.  She saw him frequently and the godmother and he had a very good relationship.  Madison often spent weekends with the father and his new partner.  Madison regarded Imogen as a little sister and vice versa.  Madison was also very aware of Imogen's character traits.  She was supportive of the placement.  

86.      As to the suggestion that she might find it difficult to say no to the mother or would be manipulated by her, the godmother said that she fully understood the importance of respecting the Children's Service rules.  She had done this in the past when Imogen had been placed with her.  Her priority would be Imogen's welfare and she would work closely with the Children's Service and with CAMHS to address Imogen's needs.  She was aware of the element of 'stranger danger' in that Imogen would chat to anyone as if she had known them all her life and could be susceptible to the wrong type of stranger.  She agreed that the step-grandmother had been a stabilising influence and was an important person to Imogen.  She would be supportive of continued contact with the step-grandmother and understood why the step-grandmother was upset at the initial suggestion by the Minister of only having Skype contact six times a year.  

87.      In short, she felt that she and her family had played an important part in Imogen's life so far and would be able to provide a loving and stable home for her, which they very much wished to do.  If it was felt that she should give up employment, she and her partner had worked out that they were in a position for her to do so financially for up to a year whilst Imogen settled. 

The Guardian

88.      The Guardian was appointed shortly after the emergency protection order was granted.  She explained in evidence that, she had been troubled that over the course of the summer of 2015, a full assessment had only been carried out on the step-grandmother and not on the godmother.  It was clear, she said, that the original social worker was firmly of the view that Imogen should move away from Jersey.  She acknowledged that, with the benefit of hindsight, she should have pressed more firmly at the time for a full assessment of the godmother.  However, immediately prior to and at the hearing on 16^th September she had pressed for such an assessment, which had been agreed.  Following the change of social worker, the anticipated plan at that stage was, she said, that Imogen should be cared for by the godmother provided that her assessment was positive.  The assessment was positive but the Panel did not agree.  The Guardian's report of 6^th January, 2016, prepared for the proposed January sitting of the Court, considered only the option of continuing in foster care (as recommended by the Minister) or being placed with the step-grandmother.  On balance, for the reasons set out in the report, the Guardian came down in favour of long term placement with the foster carer.  She said in the report however that, if the godmother's application as a connected person carer had been successful, she would have considered placement with the godmother and her partner to be better for Imogen than long term foster care. 

89.      The Panel has now reversed its decision and the Guardian's addendum report supports the Minister's proposal to place Imogen with the godmother.  The Guardian was clear that it was too risky to place Imogen back with the mother.  As to the choice between the step-grandmother and the godmother, she was in favour of Imogen remaining in Jersey.  If she moved to Manchester, she would lose her settled links in Jersey, including her school and her comfortable knowledge of the local environment.  She would lose the opportunity to see her mother regularly and would not so easily maintain her relationships with the godmother and even the step-father.  There was also the issue of how she would react when she was told that the step-father is not her father. 

90.      The school had been particularly supportive.  The staff have known Imogen and the mother for a considerable period and they can manage Imogen's behaviour.  She said that Imogen was a sparky, appealing and delightful 8 year old but she had experienced erratic and inconsistent care with her mother and had developed coping strategies including the tendency to take charge and to be evasive when she did not want to face something.  She could endanger herself through the enthusiasm with which she launched herself at anyone she finds interesting whether they be known to her or not.  The Guardian felt that Imogen would struggle to settle in a new school and the new school might well struggle with her.  

91.      She also felt that it was important that Imogen's carer had a benevolent view of the mother so as to assist in maintaining a relationship with the mother.  The godmother was well placed to do that. 

92.      She had considered the risk of the mother seeking to influence the godmother but she had confidence in the godmother and her partner.  The process of assessment had been a demanding one but it had helped them see the issues clearly.  She was not concerned that they would do anything which had not been agreed with the Children's Service.  It also helped that the mother was supportive of a placement with the godmother if Imogen could not live with her. 

93.      She accepted without reservation that the step-grandmother was absolutely devoted to Imogen and wished to do her best for her.  However, she felt that a placement with the godmother in Jersey was preferable.  

94.      At the Guardian's request we met with Imogen in chambers.  As all the papers suggest, she is a delightful, chatty and appealing child.  With the concurrence of the Guardian, we did not think it appropriate to burden her with any questions about with whom she would wish to live but we found it helpful, as well as being a pleasure, to meet her. 

Discussion

95.      None of the parties argued that there should not be a care order.  We agree.  It is clear that Imogen has attachment difficulties caused by the erratic nature of her upbringing in the past and she will need professional help as she grows older.  It is, in our judgment, vital that the Minister has parental responsibility so that important decisions can be taken for her benefit. 

96.      The issue then is with whom Imogen should reside under such an order.  We begin naturally by considering whether she could be placed with the mother.  We accept without reservation that the mother loves Imogen and wishes to do her best for Imogen.  She herself had a terrible upbringing and this has undoubtedly been a very substantial contributing factor to her difficulties.  Since the interim care order, she has taken steps to try and overcome her difficulty in being a consistent parent by attending the courses with Dr Posner of CAMHS and the Women's Refuge referred to earlier.  

97.      We commend her for what she has done and urge her to continue with the additional work recommended.  However, it is clear from the evidence that she is in the early stages of addressing her problems and that there is still a long way to go.  Her issues are not something which can be resolved overnight.  It is the unanimous view of Dr Briggs, Dr Edwards, the Children's Service and the Guardian that it would be extremely risky to return Imogen to the care of her mother because there is still a high risk of the mother being overcome by her own issues at times and then being unable to put Imogen's best interests ahead of her own feelings and emotions.  It is that which has caused the emotional harm in the past and would do so again in the future should it occur.  It is clear that Imogen needs a stable and secure environment and we cannot be satisfied that this would be available if she lived with the mother. 

98.      Advocate Helm made the point that the Children's Service was content to leave Imogen in the mother's care until the incident of suspected sexual abuse in January 2015 and that there was no suggestion that the mother had been responsible for that injury.  However, that is to ignore the psychological and other evidence which we have now heard.  Furthermore, the fact that the Children's Service did not intervene prior to the incident in January does not mean that Imogen was not suffering significant emotional harm.  Thus the view of the Guardian as expressed in para 7 of her report of 6^th January, 2016, is as follows:-

"7.1 Children's Service has been involved in Imogen's life since she was born. The concerns as to the adequacy of care provided by the mother to Imogen have reverberated throughout the eight years since Imogen's birth.

7.2 Children's Service could have acted much earlier. The chronology would indicate there should certainly have been proceedings in 2013 when the mother's mental health appears to have impacted seriously on the care Imogen received."

99.      In the light of the evidence before us, although we understand the strength of the mother's desire to look after Imogen, we cannot agree that it would be in Imogen's best interests for this to occur.  

100.   No one suggested at this hearing that it would be best for Imogen to remain in long-term foster care and accordingly the choice lies between a placement with the step-grandmother in Manchester and one with the godmother in Jersey.  It is quite clear that both the step-grandmother and the godmother (and their respective partners) are devoted to Imogen and wish passionately to do their best for her by offering her a safe and secure home where she would be loved.  Imogen is indeed fortunate to have two women who love her and who have offered such support in the past and are willing to continue to do so in the future.  But we have to make a decision as to which placement would be better for Imogen. 

101.   We have come to the conclusion that the Minister and the Guardian are correct to recommend a placement with the godmother in preference to one with the step-grandmother.  We would summarise our reasons for so concluding as follows:-

(i)        Imogen has spent her whole life in Jersey.  It is the environment with which she is familiar.  A move to a new home within Jersey would, we feel, be less stressful and traumatic for her than a move out of the Island to Manchester.  

(ii)       If she were to move out of the Island, whilst we have no doubt that the step-grandmother would do her best to facilitate contact, it would in reality be far more difficult to maintain regular and direct contact with the important people in her life such as the mother, the step-father and the godmother.  Conversely, if Imogen stays in Jersey, appropriate contact with these individuals can be maintained and we have no doubt that the godmother would also facilitate contact with the step-grandmother in accordance with any recommendations of the Children's Service.  

(iii)      It is clear from the evidence that Imogen's school is very important to her and has taken great time and trouble to get to know her and her problems.  All relevant witnesses spoke exceptionally highly of the head teacher and Imogen's form teacher.  It is clear that they understand Imogen's issues.  We think it would be disruptive for Imogen to lose that important support and familiarity.  We agree with the Guardian that, given her character and issues, it would be challenging for Imogen to move to a new school at the same time as moving to a new home and equally it might be quite challenging for the school to provide the necessary support for Imogen. 

(iv)      Dr Edwards was of the clear view that the necessary life story work - particularly in relation to the fact that the step-father is not the biological father and therefore the step-grandmother is not the biological grandmother - should be done before any move to live with the step-grandmother.  We agree.  Whilst it is earnestly to be hoped that Imogen takes the information disclosed in the life story work in her stride, there must be a risk that she will not.  As Dr Edwards said there is a risk of a child losing trust in adults who have not been truthful about such an issue along the lines of "what else have you been untruthful about?"  It would in our judgment be quite wrong to place Imogen with the step-grandmother in circumstances where such a risk exists.  Dr Edwards thought that one should allow at least three months to see how Imogen reacts to the disclosure and possibly up to six months.  It would follow that there would be a considerable delay before any move to the step-grandmother could take place.  There has been enough delay in this case. Imogen is expecting a decision and we do not think it would be in her interests for a move to Manchester to be hanging over her for a period of some months whilst she stays in foster care acquiring ever deeper roots in her foster care placement.  Imogen needs to move to her permanent new home promptly. 

(v)       Imogen has been deriving considerable support from the work done with CAMHS.  She has clearly built up a relationship with practitioners there such as Dr Posner.  It would seem beneficial that the work with CAMHS should continue with people with whom she is familiar and who are familiar with her.  Whilst we can make no finding on the evidence before us, it was of note that Dr Edwards expressed some reservation as to whether, given the pressures in England, CAMHS in Manchester would be able to offer a similar service. 

(vi)      Whilst Imogen is only 8 and her wishes and feelings cannot therefore be determinative, they are nevertheless to be considered.  The Guardian, whose responsibility it is to ascertain such matters from an independent stance, says that until fairly recently, Imogen has consistently said that, if she cannot live with the mother, she would like to live with the godmother.  More recently she has begun to say that, if she cannot live with the mother, she would like to stay with the foster carer.  This is only to be expected given the unfortunate delays which have taken place so that the placement with the foster carer has continued longer than one would wish.  It is clear that the foster carer has provided a very loving and secure environment for Imogen.  Whilst we do not doubt the step-grandmother's evidence that Imogen has on occasion said that she would like to live with her, we think this is likely to be attributable to Imogen's strong characteristic of wishing to please the people she is with and say what she thinks they wish to hear.  We therefore place more reliance on what she has said to the Guardian as an independent person.  Imogen is familiar with the godmother's home and has stayed there in the past as well as visiting often.  We believe that she will settle quickly once the move takes place. 

(vii)     It is not unimportant that, if Imogen cannot be placed with her, the mother supports a placement with the godmother.  She is not supportive of a placement with the step-grandmother.  Given the relationship between Imogen and the mother, there is clearly scope for the mother undermining a placement and causing tension, conflict or uncertainty in Imogen's mind if she (the mother) is critical or negative about the placement.  That would be damaging for Imogen because she needs to be settled and confident in her placement.  We think the risk of this type of undermining is less with the godmother than with the step-grandmother.  

(viii)    Similarly, in reverse.  We agree with the Guardian that it is important that Imogen's carer should have a benevolent view of the mother and be supportive of Imogen's relationship with the mother.  It is clear the godmother would be so. It is less clear that the step-grandmother would be able to be positive about the mother.  Our assessment as she gave evidence was that, although she would try hard to be supportive, she essentially does not think highly of the mother and blames her for what she has done to Imogen.  We think that, however hard the step-grandmother tried, Imogen would pick this up and this would not be in her best interests. 

(ix)      We have not ignored the possible concerns about a placement with the godmother as referred to by the step-grandmother and also by the Panel at its first sitting.  These relate for example to the risk of the mother manipulating the godmother or otherwise interfering with the placement, to the fact that Madison and Imogen will have to share a bedroom, to the pressures that the arrival of a child with issues may bring on Madison at a time when she is sitting her GCSEs, to the fact that the godmother works whereas the step-grandmother is available full time, and to the issue of the depression which the godmother had after the birth of Madison.  However, we have been much comforted not only by the clear statements of confidence in the godmother expressed by the Guardian and by Laura Cardinal (who carried out the assessment) but also by our assessment of the godmother when she gave evidence.  We share the views of the Guardian and Ms Cardinal that the godmother fully understands the importance of not allowing the placement to be undermined and of enforcing clear boundaries with the mother as advised by the Children's Service.  As to accommodation, we agree that it would be preferable to Madison and Imogen to have their own bedrooms.  We urge the Children's Service to do all they can to support the godmother's application for three bedroomed accommodation.  However, we are satisfied that the position can be managed in the meantime.  As to the remaining concerns, we have considered them but we do not think that they lead to a tipping of the balance against a placement with the godmother. 

(x)       We accept that the step-grandmother has a sense of grievance in that neither the Children's Service nor the Guardian have seen Imogen in her company whereas they have seen Imogen with the godmother.  She says that has placed her at a disadvantage.  We wish to make it clear to her that this aspect has not played a part in our decision.  We accept without reservation that the step-grandmother has a strong and loving relationship with Imogen who in turn loves her step-grandmother.  As can be seen from the reasons we have given above, our decision does not turn on any conclusion that Imogen has a better or more loving relationship with the godmother than the step-grandmother, other than very indirectly by reference to Imogen's expressed wishes as to where she should live. 

102.   For these reasons we endorse the recommendation of the Minister, supported by the Guardian, that Imogen should be placed with the godmother and her partner under a care order. 

Contact

103.   In the care plan dated 15^th February prepared for the present hearing, the Minister made some fairly fixed proposals for contact. 

104.   In relation to the mother, he proposed direct supervised contact four times a year during school holiday periods for four hours duration.  Such contact would initially take place at a venue within Children's Service although it could be transferred into the community later with supervision.  There would be no initial telephone contact but this could be reviewed as Imogen grows older. 

105.   Contact with the step-father would be unsupervised but it would also be four times a year for four hours in school holidays or weekends. 

106.   Contact with the step-grandmother and her partner would be via Skype six times a year.  If there was to be any direct contact, this would have to take place in Jersey. 

107.   Not surprisingly, all three of these individuals objected to such a dramatic reduction in contact and the issue took up a substantial proportion of the hearing. 

108.   The Minister modified his approach after hearing the evidence of Dr Edwards.  Whilst she was keen to emphasise that contact with the mother should not be at a level which undermined any placement and that Imogen should have time to settle, Dr Edwards expressed the view that flexibility must be shown.  Severing contact would increase Imogen's anxiety about her mother's welfare.  She thought that contact only four times a year for the mother was less than she would have expected; she thought something more along the lines of every six weeks would be appropriate.  As to contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother, this depended on how the life story work went.  But if it went well, flexibility should be shown as to the appropriate level.  In particular, she could see no difficulty in the step-grandmother having fortnightly Skype contact (as at present) if this went well after the life story work. 

109.   As a result, the Minister subsequently produced two further versions of the care plan in relation to contact during the course of the hearing, culminating in that dated 17^th March.  That plan suggests a gradual reduction in the supervised contact with the mother over a five month period as set out in paragraph 3 of the addendum care plan.  Thereafter it is suggested that the mother will have supervised contact on approximately a six weekly basis to take place in the school holidays taking in to account Imogen's commitments.  Appropriate indirect contact can take place. 

110.   As to contact with the step-grandmother, in accordance with the recommendation of Dr Edwards, direct contact is to be suspended until the life story work has been carried out.  There will however be a LAC review within 28 days of the placement to consider how the placement is progressing and to review all aspects of the care plan, including contact and life story work.  

111.   Once the life story work has been done - in particular disclosure of the fact that the step-father and the step-grandmother are not biologically related to Imogen - and Imogen has had time to process this information, the Minister will be proactive in enquiring of Imogen as to whether she wishes to resume contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother and if so, of what nature.  As soon as Imogen wishes to recommence contact with either of them, then an urgent care planning meeting will be convened within two weeks and appropriate proposals for direct contact will be considered and implemented, with a starting point of monthly Skype contact with the step-grandmother.  Indirect contact will be permitted at all times.  The Minister also commits in the care plan to keep the step-grandmother and the step-father informed in a timely way of all developments in respect of contact and the outcome of the LAC review via e-mail and telephone call on at least a fortnightly basis.  

112.   We are content to approve the care plan amended in this way.  In particular, we accept that direct contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother has to be put on hold pending the life story work and assessment of Imogen's reaction to that work.  

113.   However we wish to express a clear view that, assuming the life story work goes well and that Imogen continues to express an interest in seeing the step-father and/or the step-grandmother, the Minister should show flexibility in his approach.  It is quite clear from the evidence that Imogen has derived great pleasure from seeing both the step-father and the step-grandmother and has benefitted from her contact with both.  They are important people in her life. In our judgment, the Minister should keep a very open mind as to the frequency and nature of the contact with them.  We accept that, given the number of important people in her life, Imogen must not be flooded with occasions of contact with different people to the prejudice of her placement with the godmother.  But conversely, the Minister must show flexibility in seeking to maintain these important relationships at a meaningful level if possible.  For our own part, we see no reason why - possibly not this year for the reasons given by the Guardian but in future years - Imogen should not go to spend a week with the step-grandmother in Manchester as she has done in the past.  It is clearly something she has enjoyed and we see no reason why she should not continue to do so assuming a positive reaction to the life story work. 

114.   The same approach is equally important for contact with the mother.  In her closing submission, Advocate Helm suggested monthly contact.  We make no ruling on that as it would be a matter for assessment as time progresses.  The key message which we wish to send out is that the Children's Service should not become wedded to a certain regularity of contact but should be willing to adjust it as necessary - and possibly at short notice - if this is in Imogen's best interests; and on the basis of the evidence before us, it is likely to be in Imogen's best interests to maintain meaningful relationships with the mother, the step-father and the step-grandmother (assuming always that that is something Imogen wishes to do). 

Postscript - lessons to be learned

115.   We appreciate that from what we have heard in this and other cases, there have been a number of changes of personnel over the recent period in the Children's Service and that may explain some of what has occurred in this case.  Nevertheless, we have concerns about the performance of the Children's Service in this case and we propose to set them out, not in order to criticise, but in order that these matters are brought to the attention of senior management so that lessons can be learned for the future.  

116.   We would summarise our concerns under the following four headings, (i) the events of summer 2015; (ii) lack of communication; (iii) last minute change of plan; and (iv) ill-considered transitional arrangements. 

(i) Events of Summer 2015

117.   As stated at para 16 above, on 2^nd June, 2015, the Court ordered that the Minister should carry out initial viability assessments on each of the godmother, the step-father and the step-grandmother as potential carers.  It was further ordered that if any of these assessments was positive, a full viability assessment should be carried out by the Minister on the relevant person(s) by 24^th July, 2015. 

118.   An assessment is a preliminary step.  It is aimed at establishing whether the person being assessed is capable of providing appropriate care for the child.  Only once you know how many potential satisfactory carers are available can you consider which of them offers the best prospects for the child.  This was clearly the purpose of the Court's order.  It wished to know what options were available in time for the final hearing, which at that stage had been fixed for September 2015.  Ms Wise-St Leger, interim head of Children's Service quality assurance confirmed that this was the purpose of assessments when she gave evidence before us in the circumstances described below. 

119.   The difficulty in this case is that the Children's Service did not comply with the Court's order described above and used the assessment process for the wrong purpose.  As outlined earlier in this judgment, the only person to be fully assessed in the summer of 2015 was the step-grandmother.  We have now seen the initial viability assessments and it is clear that the original social worker did not decide that the initial viability assessment of the godmother was not positive.  She decided not to proceed with a full assessment of the godmother but to go ahead with only a full assessment of the step-grandmother because she had already come to the conclusion that a placement outside Jersey was to be preferred.  With respect to her, this was to muddle up the purpose of an assessment with the later process of deciding which potential carer should be preferred. 

120.   The consequence of not complying with the court order of 2nd June and misapplying the purpose of the assessment process was most unfortunate.  Whereas everyone had been working to a final hearing date in September 2015, this had to be put off until January 2016 because the Guardian and the Court were not happy that a full assessment had not been carried out on the godmother.  If the Children's Service had complied with the court order, that assessment would have been carried out over the summer and the Court would therefore have been in a position in September (or very shortly thereafter) to reach a decision as to whether Imogen should be placed with the step-grandmother or the godmother (assuming no placement with the mother).  The actions of the Children's Service have therefore led to delay, which has not been in Imogen's best interests because she has had to remain in foster care throughout this period.  She has naturally put down roots in that placement and therefore a move at this stage will be more traumatic for her than a move in the autumn of last year would have been. 

121.   It may be said that the responsibility for this error lies with the original social worker.  But who was supervising her?  If management were not aware of the fact that she was failing to comply with a court order and misunderstanding the assessment process, it should have been.  If it was aware of what had happened, it was complicit in the errors which she made.  Either way, it should not have happened.  

(ii) Lack of communication

122.   It is to be recalled that each of the godmother, the step-grandmother and the step-father is a person who has put themselves forward as a possible carer for Imogen.  They are all good people who wish to do their best for this delightful little girl whom they all love.  They deserve to be treated by the Children's Service with respect and with careful attention.  Sadly this had not happened. 

(i)        The godmother gave evidence, which we accept, that she badgered the original social worker to be assessed after the interim care order was made in March 2015.  She was told that someone would be in touch, but heard nothing.  She did not in fact realise that there had been an initial viability assessment.  She heard nothing from the Children's Service in July or August.  She then heard indirectly via the step-father that the plan was for Imogen to be placed in Manchester with the step-grandmother.  It is clear to us that there was a complete lack of communication by the Children's Service with the godmother during this period.  

(ii)       As to communication with the step-grandmother, she said that following the meeting of the Panel on 11^th August, she understood from the original social worker that the plan was that Imogen would come to stay with her with a view to making the placement permanent if all went well.  To that end, she went to the trouble of researching local schools and looking into locally based children's therapy services.  She painted the bedroom, bought a new wardrobe and bought various items of clothing for Imogen.  However, as the date when Imogen was supposed to travel to stay with her approached, she did not hear from the original social worker or from anyone else at the Children's Service.  She tried unsuccessfully to contact someone who would respond at the Children's Service.  Eventually in desperation she called the Guardian.  It was only then that she was informed by the Guardian that Imogen would not be coming to stay with her because the Children's Service needed to do an assessment on the godmother before making a decision about Imogen.  It was quite unacceptable that the step-grandmother had to learn this via the Guardian and that the Children's Service had not kept her informed of this major change in policy on their part.  Although she received a visit from Louise Hollick of the Children's Service on 18^th September, who apologised for the lack of communication, she then heard little further.  This was despite the fact that, as described at para 19 above, the Court had on 16^th September noted that the Minister would keep the step-grandmother and the godmother regularly informed of relevant developments in the proceedings.  It was only in late November that the step-grandmother learned via her social worker on the Fostering and Adoption Team that the Children's Service wanted to keep Imogen on the Island.  No one from the Children's Service at any stage spoke to her to inform her of this change of policy or explain the reasons for the change of position.  That poor communication continued at the time of the January hearing.  As summarised at paragraph 70 above, although the Children's Service had said that they would telephone her with details of when and where she could have contact with Imogen, no telephone call ever came.  She had to take the matter up when she arrived in Jersey. 

(iii)      As described in the judgment of 30^th November, 2015, the step-father was similarly kept in the dark and found it difficult to get a response from the Children's Service over the autumn period and indeed to arrange contact with Imogen.  

123.   We consider it highly unsatisfactory that these three people, who wished to do their best for Imogen, were left wondering what was going on at various stages of the process because of the lack of communication and responsiveness on the part of the Children's Service.  Telephone calls and enquiries should be responded to promptly. 

(iii) Last minute change of plan

124.   We have some sympathy with the Children's Service on this aspect.  It is clear that following the positive full assessment of the godmother, the Children's Service were in favour of placing Imogen with the godmother in Jersey under a care order.  However, the Panel refused to approve the godmother as a connected person carer.  This decision took place on 15^th December.  The Children's Service had to file its care plan the very next day.  This stated that Imogen should be placed in long-term care with the foster carer.  When the matter came before the Court in January, this was still the proposed plan despite the fact that the godmother was appealing the Panel's decision.  There was no suggestion by the Children's Service that a short adjournment would be appropriate in case the Panel were to allow the appeal.  The Court was in effect being requested to proceed with what was clearly the Children's Service's second best option with no explanation in the papers before the Court as to why the preferred option was rejected by the Panel.  In many ways it was fortuitous that the Guardian was ill so that the case had to be adjourned, but the Court was troubled at the time at the last minute change of plan and the lack of explanation as to the reasons for it.  It directed that this aspect should be addressed at the adjourned hearing.  We accept that we were not party to any discussions in the Children's Service at the time, but the impression given is of a very last minute decision to go for a placement with the foster carer without measured thought as to whether a short adjournment for the appeal against the Panel's decision to be heard would be preferable. 

(iv) Ill-considered transition plan

125.   Under the care plan put forward for the present hearing, the proposal was that Imogen should move to live with the godmother over the Easter period and the following week.  This was clearly going to be an important and potentially difficult move after she had settled so well with the foster carer.  It was therefore of fundamental importance that Imogen be given the maximum support by the Children's Service in connection with the transition.  The care plan stated at paragraph 22 that Ms Baddeley would oversee the transition.  Initially, during her evidence, this seemed to be confirmed although it was understood that it would be a social worker from the Permanence Placing Team who would take the matter forward after the transition and, in particular, would carry out the life story work.  

126.   Much to the Court's surprise, it emerged on the third day of the hearing that Ms Baddeley was leaving the Children's Service to return to England and that this would occur before the Easter weekend and therefore before the move to the godmother's home.  Ms Baddeley explained that another social worker Ms Tinari would supervise the transition from 21^st March onwards.  Ms Tinari was away on leave at present and was only returning in time for that date.  It followed that, although Ms Tinari had apparently met Imogen some time ago, she had not been introduced to Imogen recently or been able to play any part in the lead up to the transition. 

127.   The Court was dismayed by this turn of events.  The care plan being put forward by the Children's Service therefore envisaged that, at this very difficult time in Imogen's life when she would need the maximum amount of support, the social worker with whom she was familiar (Ms Baddeley) would depart, a new social worker whom she hardly knew would be introduced to supervise the transition itself, but she would then leave the scene and be replaced by a new social worker from the Permanence Planning Team who would have the task of breaking the news to Imogen about the step-father not being her father as she thought.  Thus in the space of about four weeks at the time of these two very important events in her life (the move and the life story) she would have three different social workers allocated to her, with only one of whom she was very familiar. 

128.   It was in those circumstances that the Court required a senior member of the Children's Service to attend to explain how such a care plan could be presented to the Court.  We should add that Ms Baddeley explained that management had known for some three weeks that she had to leave before Easter. 

129.   We are pleased to say that Ms Wse-St Leger reacted promptly to the Court's concerns, which were relayed to her.  By the time she attended before the Court on 17^th March, she had procured that Ms Baddeley would remain until June, so that there would therefore be continuity in overseeing the move to the godmother.  She had also identified the social worker from the Permanence Planning Team who would take over.  It followed that the position was back to that envisaged by the care plan as originally presented to the Court.  She accepted that the situation as discovered by the Court was highly unsatisfactory.  

130.   Our concern in this case relates to the management process in the Children's Service.  Three weeks before the hearing (according to Ms Baddeley) it was known within the Children's Service that she would not be available to manage the transition.  Yet nothing appears to have been done to address the situation.  An obvious measure would have been to introduce another social worker three weeks ago so that at least Imogen would have been familiar with the new social worker at the time of the transition.  Alternatively, efforts could have been made earlier to see if Ms Baddeley could remain longer.  It seems to us that it was a serious failure in management that the Children's Service could seriously have been suggesting that it was in Imogen's interests for this rapid turnover of social workers to take place at this critical time in her life when she would be facing a move to new accommodation coupled with the discovery that the step-father was not her father. 

Summary

131.   In our judgment, the deficiencies on the first three aspects referred to above - the fourth only emerged during the hearing - were well summarised in very measured terms in the Guardian's report of 6^th January, 2014, in the following paragraphs:-

"7.3 During these proceedings, it has been clear that there have been three very significant people in Imogen's life - these being the godmother, the step-father and the step-grandmother. [the original social worker] who initiated the application for a care order in January 2015 was convinced that it would be best for Imogen to be placed out of Jersey and she pursued a plan for Imogen to be placed with the step-grandmother. It appears that [the original social worker] did not fully analyse all the possible options. It is unfortunate that full assessments were not conducted promptly of the godmother and of the step-father and that a full analysis of the costs and benefits to Imogen of a move from Jersey was not undertaken.

7.4 Since January 2015 there have been three social workers allocated and the current social worker took a starkly different stance to that of [the original social worker]. There have also, unfortunately, been three independent reviewing officers so that there was little if any continuity of oversight or planning.

7.5 It has been concerning that apart from maintaining the mother's contact, the need to communicate with important people who care about Imogen has been ignored. Each of the three key people have at different stages been completely overlooked and treated with a stark lack of respect. They are all motivated by wanting to support Imogen and they deserve to have been notified and informed of developments particularly as they had been instrumental in supporting Imogen very effectively prior to the proceedings.

7.6 Unfortunately the assessment of the godmother was completed very late in these proceedings and the outcome of the Panel was only known a day before Children's Services filed the social worker's final statement. My understanding is that the conclusion of the statement and the care plan was rapidly changed from a proposal seeking Imogen's placement with the godmother and the godmother's partner to one seeking long-term fostering. It would have been a fairer process if there had been time for an appeal against the Panel decision to be heard before the final hearing."

132.   We entirely agree with these sentiments. 

133.   We do not wish to be unduly critical.  This Court regularly hears evidence from social workers in the Children's Service and we know that they are dedicated, hardworking individuals who have the interests of the children they look after at heart.  However, the deficiencies which have appeared in this case suggest that there are difficulties in the Service which need addressing and we hope that these observations will assist in that process. 

Authorities

In the matter of Imogen (Emergency Protection Order) [2015] JRC 051A.

In the matter of Imogen (Care proceedings) [2015] JRC 247.

Re F and G (No2) [2010] JCA 051.

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.