Care order - reasons regarding final application for a care order by the Minister.
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Crill and Blampied |
|||
Between |
Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
A (the mother) |
First Respondent |
|
|
And |
B (the father) |
Second Respondent |
|
|
And |
Lacey |
Third Respondent |
|
|
And |
Emily |
Fourth Respondent |
|
|
And |
Ryan |
Fifth Respondent |
|
|
And |
Connor |
Sixth Respondent |
|
|
And |
Jamie |
Seventh Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF LACEY, EMILY, RYAN, CONNOR AND JAMIE (CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Second Respondent.
Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Third Respondent.
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents.
Miss E. Green, as Guardian, appeared for the Children.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is the final hearing of the application by the Minister for Health and Social Services ("the Minister") for a care order in respect of the five children of A ("the mother") and B ("the father") namely Lacey (born in 2002), Ryan (born in 2003), Emily (born in 2005), Connor (born in 2006) and Jamie (born in 2008). These are not their real names.
2. On 21st January, 2016, the Court (differently constituted) determined that the threshold had been passed with regard to all of the children, and, at the request of counsel, left over the determination as to what order should be made, following a consideration of the welfare stage. The Court delivered its reasons in a judgment dated 20th July, 2016.
3. On 19th April, 2016, the Court considered the welfare stage and granted the Minister's application for a care order with regard to each of the children, and approved the Minister's care plan. These, in brief, are our reasons.
4. The mother and the father and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents (acting through their guardian Eleanor Green) all filed position statements prior to the hearing. It is not necessary to go into the detail of each of the position statements. Suffice it to say that whilst the mother disagreed with some of the factual allegations advanced by the Minister, she nevertheless accepted that a care order should be made, and that the care plan of the Minister should be approved, provided it was supported by the expert witness, Dr Mair Edwards, who was called to give evidence. The father, for his part, also accepted that a care order should be made, although he was concerned to ensure that his children did not lose contact with him. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents' position, through their guardian, was fully supportive both of the making of a care order and the Minister's proposed placements pursuant to the care plan. The guardian argued in the position statement for flexible contact arrangements.
5. The Third Respondent, Lacey, was represented through counsel, and accepted that a care order should be made in that she needed to be in a therapeutic placement. Counsel expressed, on Lacey's behalf, her wish to go when ready into foster placement, and would hope that that would be joint with her sister Emily. Whilst content with the contact schedules that were suggested, she would prefer more contact with her mother, and indeed with her siblings. She did not want any contact with her father, and would draw comfort from an order of the Court meaning that that was not compulsory.
6. There is, accordingly, unanimity that the appropriate order for the Court to make is a full care order.
7. The Court had before it a number of reports from social workers (who have been involved with the children and the family) and from experts. We also heard from Miss Diane Burgess ("Miss Burgess") who was a social worker in the case for Lacey, Ryan and Emily, and she identified and placed in evidence the Minister's proposed care plans for each of these children. Miss Burgess confirmed to us that she had read the experts' report and had been guided by them in assessing the children's needs and in preparing the care plan. She was able to give us an up to date report with regard to Lacey, Ryan and Emily, confirming that Lacey had been placed in Unit 1 in the UK; Ryan had been placed in Unit 2 in the UK, and Emily was also placed in Unit 3 in the UK. She was able to inform the Court of the progress that those children had been making which appeared to us to be positive and beneficial. There had been a break in contact with the parents and siblings to enable the children to settle in to their new placements, but there was a fully considered contact schedule which would be put into effect.
8. The cross-examination of Miss Burgess largely related to contact and it is clearly that aspect which is of most concern to the respondents both as to contact with the parents and inter-sibling contact.
9. We also heard from Miss Caroline Glynn ("Miss Glynn") who is the social worker for Connor and Jamie. She identified and placed in evidence her statement and identified the care plans for each of those children. Connor and Jamie are currently placed together in foster care in the UK. She describes the children as quite settled after a period of initial upheaval. She had witnessed the warm interaction between both of the children and the foster family and describe a settled placement. She gave evidence of a reduced level of conflict and that the children were learning ways of getting their needs met other than by violent or otherwise dysfunctional behaviour. She felt that they should remain together and felt that the foster carers were well placed to manage the joint placement successfully. She was concerned that too much contact with their mother might be disruptive to the development of the bonds that the children need to establish in their foster placement. With regard to the father's wish to be in contact with the children, Miss Glynn echoed the evidence of Miss Burgess to the effect that he would need to show that he can engage with the Children's Service, and discuss the welfare of the children, before contact could be considered to be in their best interests. She confirmed that she had noted a real improvement in Connor and Jamie over the last nine months or so and that over the last three months the school had reported a positive shift in their behaviour.
10. We had the benefit of evidence from the guardian for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents, Miss Eleanor Green ("Miss Green"), who identified her report. She had nothing to add to her report and confirmed that she agreed with the orders sought by the Minister and with the care plan. With regard to contact, she felt that any arrangements should not be too prescriptive and that flexibility was important. She pointed to the importance of a flexible approach, given the need for the various therapeutic placements to discharge their duties and functions. She supported the evidence of Miss Burgess that there should be no contact between the children and the father at this point. She felt that the children were at the beginning of a complicated process concerning understanding what happened to them at their home. Although it was perhaps an unusual step she felt that a lack of contact with the father was at this point needed to protect the children.
11. We also heard from Dr Mair Edwards who had prepared reports on the father and the mother and all of the children. Although these reports were some months old Dr Edwards had considered the Minister's care plan and approved of it. With regard to contact, she observed that we are dealing with children with very different needs and that they were going through a dynamic process of change. In terms of contact it was important to be guided by the placement therapists and contact should not be set in stone. However the broad outline for contact contained in the care plan appears to her to be appropriate, although it should be kept under review. Given the allegations that Lacey had made it was imperative, in Dr Mair Edwards' view, that the children were kept safe and more importantly felt safe and at this point no contact with the father seemed to be appropriate.
12. Having heard the evidence we are satisfied that it is appropriate to make a care order in connection with the children. It is equally important that the children are placed appropriately to meet their individual needs, which are quite different for each child. It seems to us that the Minister's care plan adequately covers this and accordingly we approve the care plan to the extent that it relates to the placements.
13. The most contentious issue appears to be that of contact. We have of course looked at the care plan carefully insofar as it relates to contact and have noted what contact is proposed. The clear message from the experts and indeed from the social worker is that it is important to maintain a flexible approach to contact as contact between the siblings and indeed between the children and the mother needs to be managed to take into account the therapeutic and other needs of each child in question. It is important, therefore, to manage contact in close consultation with those who have therapeutic and welfare responsibilities for the children on a day to day basis.
14. We do not underestimate how painful and difficult it has been for the mother to agree to a care order and the placement of her children as proposed by the Minister. She has reflected on the professional advice and the reports and has realised what her children need and has put them first. It has been said before us that this was a courageous thing for her to do and we agree.
15. We approve the care plan of the Minister insofar as it relates to contact and in our view contact must be guided entirely by flexibility and the need to manage contact in a way that does not disrupt each of the children's therapeutic or developmental needs. At this stage, therefore, we also agree that the Minister should be in a position to deny contact to the father and whereas contact in this respect, as indeed in all other respects, should be kept under careful and ongoing review, we would not expect the Minister to review the position with regard to contact with the father until the father has engaged appropriately with the Children's Service. In terms of contact generally we fully appreciate that managing contact between five siblings in four different placements out of the Island and the mother presents significant logistical difficulties and that is another reason why flexibility is so important in this matter.
16. We have not set out all of the evidence that was put before us as we have not felt the need to do so. However for the reasons contained within the reports that we have seen and the evidence to which we have made reference above we made the care order and approved the care plans and made the other directions and orders set out in the Act of Court.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.