Care order - application by the Minister for a final care order.
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Kerley and Milner |
|||
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
A (the mother) |
First Respondent |
|
|
And |
B (the father) |
Second Respondent |
|
|
And |
Freddie and Arthur (by their guardian) |
Third Respondents |
|
|
And |
C |
Fourth Respondent |
|
|
And |
D |
Fifth Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF FREDDIE AND ARTHUR (FINAL CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate C. R. Davies for the Minister.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Second Respondent.
Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the Third Respondents.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. This judgment is given in respect of the Minister's renewed application for a final care order for Freddie and Arthur. Previous judgments have been given in relation to these boys, and they are to be found in the judgment of this Court of 24th April, 2015, the further judgment of 6th October, 2015, to be found at In the matter of Freddie and Arthur (Care order) [2015] JRC 204 and the judgment of this Court on 5th February, 2016, to be found at In the matter of Freddie and Arthur (Care order) [2016] JRC 033. The facts of this case are clear from those different judgments and there is no need to repeat them.
2. In its judgment of 5th February, 2016, the Court made it clear at paragraphs 2 and 3 of its judgment that it was satisfied that threshold had been passed for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction to make a final care order. For the reasons set out in that judgment, the Court however did not wish to approve the care plan, and accordingly, recognising that there might be a difficult debate to be had, if the Minister maintained his views on the appropriate care plan, as to whether a final care order should be made or the Court should make no order, as the least worst option, the Court adjourned the Minister's application for a final care order and referred the care plan back to him.
3. On 25th and 26th April, 2016, the Court received further evidence and also submissions from the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court made the final care order in favour of the Minister and approved the care plan with reasons to follow. This judgment contains those reasons.
4. Recognising that Freddie was making good progress, the aim of his care plan was to ensure that not only were his physical needs met within a safe environment, but that also he was provided with a high level of parenting care within a residential setting. The Minister anticipated that the success of the care plan would be very largely dependent on significant input from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in Jersey, which that organisation has committed to providing. It is not proposed in the foreseeable future to present a potential plan of rehabilitation of the children with their mother or with any other family member. It is particularly recognised that any premature attempt to return either Freddie or Arthur to her (or their) care would be unsuccessful. Instead therefore it is proposed in their care plans that both boys be encouraged to have positive contact with their mother which is more natural and which promotes the sense that they are being cared for by a team of people which includes their family. Freddie will receive therapeutic intervention through CAMHS, which will take the form of art psychotherapy.
5. Whereas in February this year the Minister's intention had been that he would identify whether any therapeutic foster caring was available on Island (without any real hope of success) and in default of such a possibility, would look for a therapeutic placement in the United Kingdom, the more recent care plan proposes that the Children's Service will utilise the resources available to them to secure a residential setting which would provide a small family home environment for both boys in Jersey. In such a setting, it was anticipated that Freddie and Arthur would be the only residents, and the staff team who would care for them would be supported by CAMHS in addressing any behavioural needs. It is intended that they would have the advantage of relevant training, such as the Solihull approach, to ensure they are best able to meet the children's needs. It was hoped that a suitable unit might be identified within three months of the care order being granted, but while the two boys remained at Y House, Doc Snook the education adviser would continue to provide advice and support on managing their behaviour. The Minister hoped that that support would continue within the new unit.
6. As to contact, it was proposed that each parent should have contact fortnightly, but that the contact sessions should be longer in duration. In addition, provision would be made for the two boys to have contact with their maternal and paternal grandparents. It was hoped that some of the contact sessions with the parents could be more activity based.
7. The care plan envisages that the children will be in the same unit and will not be separated. This is important to them both, just as it is important to both of them that they continue to have contact with their family. Neither wishes to live in the UK and indeed Arthur has asked his mother to promise him that he will not be required to move to the UK.
8. In her position statement, the mother accepts that it is in her boys' best interests that they continue to be placed at Y House, or at a Y House type of environment, in Jersey, with the support from CAMHS pending a further review as to when they might be returned to her. She requested that she should have any practical help which was available to improve her parenting skills, and that if possible she would like to have more contact than she currently enjoyed.
9. The father, who also supported the Minister's application for a final care order, expressed himself pleased that the plan was for the children to stay in Jersey and indicated that he had been very worried about the possibility of them living anywhere else. He confirmed that he would work with CAMHS in any way they required as would help CAMHS help the children. He was pleased with the Minister's plans for contact, recognising that although it was disappointing to him that he would not have the care of the children, he wanted to be part of their lives as they grew up. He particularly liked the idea that contact would become more natural and would take place for longer periods of time.
10. Ms Green, the guardian, expressed herself broadly in agreement with the Minister's latest care plan, which she felt was more consistent with Freddie and Arthur's needs, wishes and feelings. In her view it would have been best if the present staff at Y House could move to the new residential unit once identified by the Children's Service. She agreed that the therapeutic intervention and support suggested by CAMHS for the children was appropriate. She thought that the Minister's proposals in relation to contact, particularly noting no reduction in contact and also the need for contact to take place with both sides of the family, were welcome.
11. The paternal grandparents raised three discrete points in advance of the Court hearing:-
(i) They would like, in due course, to be able to collect Freddie and Arthur from school to maximise the contact time and promote a more natural contact experience for them.
(ii) They would like, in due course, other members of the paternal family to be included in the contact arrangements; and
(iii) They hoped that, again in due course, contact could take place in their home, again to promote a more natural contact experience for the two boys.
12. At the final hearing, the Court heard evidence from Dr Dawn Bailham, a consultant clinical psychologist in forensic mental health, who had given evidence on a previous occasion, from Dr Tanya Engelbrecht, a consultant psychiatrist with the Adult Mental Health Service in Jersey, from Ceri Owens, the social worker and from Dr Posner of CAMHS. We also heard from the guardian, Ms Eleanor Green.
13. Given that the revised care plan meets the very real concerns expressed by the Court in February that the two boys might be separated, and secondly that they might be placed in a therapeutic care establishment in the United Kingdom, it is unnecessary to go into any great detail in relation to the evidence. There are however some points which should be highlighted, arising either out of the evidence or from our own views on what we have read and heard.
14. The mother is very anxious to have the children returned to her. All the professional evidence is that this is very unlikely in the short term and not very likely in the long term. Freddie and Arthur have learning difficulties and behavioural issues. They are at a point where they need better than ordinary parenting. Dr Bailham considered that with the mother's learning disabilities, it was unlikely that she would be able to provide that; and in addition, as the boys reached their adolescent years, they were likely to push the boundaries further which would provide an additional challenge which she would not be able to meet.
15. Dr Engelbrecht has assessed the mother and the paternal grandmother. She agreed that the boys could not be returned home to the mother at the moment, and when asked when they might return to her, she said there were really four critical questions:-
(i) Can the mother make sufficient progress to have the children back safely?
(ii) Are the interventions valid for the mother's intellectual abilities?
(iii) Are the interventions targeted to her needs?
(iv) Is she motivated?
16. The evidence of Dr Engelbrecht was very guarded in this respect. The answer to the question as to whether the mother could ever have the children back with her would depend upon the answers to the questions we have set out above, and in her view, it was quite clear that it would be at least a couple of years before there was any realistic chance of those questions being answered positively.
17. Dr Engelbrecht thought the referral of the mother to an occupational therapist for those with learning difficulties would be a good idea, and she also supported the proposal that the mother should attend at Y House to watch the staff there cope with the two boys. In summary, she thought it was unlikely but not impossible for the children to return to the mother. Some psycho-education to help the mother understand what emotional dysregulation is and how it can be managed, and some self-monitoring techniques by training and then coaching with the family support worker would help. There was a five week Talking Therapies course managed by the Psychology Department, and a longer twelve week course, although she was not entirely sure whether the mother was eligible for such help. In answer to a question from the Court as to whether the Minister considered that arranging therapies of that kind fell within his area of responsibility, Advocate Davies on instructions informed us that the social worker would arrange these courses if the mother agreed.
18. Ms Owen told us that as things stood at the moment, she could not see the children going back to their mother, but she accepted that things might change. What she was concerned about was that the mother should not have any false hopes. The children would only go back to her if she could provide safe parenting, and it was not obvious at the moment that she would ever be able to do so.
19. The Court accepts the professional evidence which we have heard in this respect. We think it is very important to recognise that Freddie and Arthur have suffered significant harm as a result of the parenting which they have received. However, the improvement which they have shown over the last 18 months demonstrates that there is real hope that they will fulfil their potential as they grow into adulthood. To give them the best chance of fulfilling that potential, they need to know where they are - they need to have stability, to recognise where their home is and to learn the standards consistently which are to be applied in that home. It is also obvious that they value the connections which they have with both of their parents and with their wider families. It is really important that the parents and wider families recognise the value which they can provide to Freddie and Arthur even though they do not provide the everyday care of them. The message to the mother is therefore that she should do all the work which she is encouraged to do by the Children's Service, or which has been highlighted in the reports which have been provided to the Court. If all goes brilliantly well, it is possible that the children will be returned to her. We think it is unlikely, but it is possible. However, even if the children are not returned, she is likely to be better able to be a good mother to them through and after their childhood years, and indeed to any other children she might have.
20. By engaging in the necessary work which is identified, Freddie and Arthur will themselves not only get the message that their extended families love them, but also that they will continue to see those families in the future. As a result of the court proceedings, the boys' lives have been disturbed. Every time there is a major hearing, they become uneasy, and every time they need to settle again thereafter. Changes, if any, need to be brought about slowly and the important message for them is that they have a home together, even if it is not with their families, and that it is important to encourage and improve the time spent with their families in the future.
21. For these purposes of course it is true that the arrangements for Freddie and Arthur must be kept under review as indeed they will be. It is also important that the family as a whole buys in to the arrangements which are contained in the care plan.
22. The Court agrees that contact arrangements should be as natural as possible, and should be consistent. It is important that the boys receive a clear plan for their future contact with their families, and do not receive mixed messages. Obviously, as they get older, the nature of that contact may need to be more activity based.
23. The fact that there are maternal and paternal grandparents to see as well as the parents themselves means that the opportunities for supervised contact will be relatively limited. We did note that many of the witnesses before us took the view that there must be equality in the contact arrangements as between the two sets of grandparents and as between the parents. Dr Bailham was of the view that contact should be supervised in the light of the historical family conflict - it would be easy for things to slip back, and we should be anxious to avoid any further emotional damage. She thought it would be easier to control behaviour through supervised contact, and necessary because the boys had been seriously traumatised. She was clear that contact with both sides of the family needed to be supervised. In relation to the points raised by the paternal grandparents, she thought that in time, if contact was going well, and with staff in overall supervision, the paternal grandparents might collect the two boys from school; and likewise, if things went well, and Freddie and Arthur wanted it, the paternal grandparents could have other members of the paternal family to share their contact time with Freddie and Arthur; and as to the possibility that contact take place in their home, she thought that this would be much further down the line, and she would not want to rush any such change.
24. The Court approves the proposed contact arrangements but we wish to add this. In our judgment, there is no hard and fast rule which requires the Minister to treat the parents the same in terms of contact. The approach to contact should be flexible, and the circumstances may change so that one parent makes progress whereas the other does not; or the boys may find themselves relating better to one than to the other, and they are fast reaching the age where their views will be of particular relevance to contact. As the Minister realises, but the parents and grandparents may not, the purpose of arranging contact is for the benefit of the children and not for the benefit of the family members in question. Indeed, that is why there is no hard and fast rule about treating the parents the same.
25. The second thing we wish to say about contact is that unsupervised contact is always ideal in theory, but it is clear that there are risks in this family and that these will form part of the reviews which are to be carried out regularly. Nonetheless, we think it is important to recognise that it is only six years before Freddie reaches the age of 18, and Arthur will follow not too long afterwards. Consideration needs to be given at every opportunity to what the position is likely to be then. If the boys or either of them are likely to have a low cognitive age at that stage, an exit strategy of some kind will be needed. The legal process may stop at majority, but it is necessary to plan for what happens when it stops, and all concerned must start thinking in that direction. The probability is that at some time or another the boys may well go back to their mother and if for example that happened when they reached the age of 17, she would at that stage have unsupervised contact. She will need some advance practice. Indeed if it were the plan that they are likely to return to her by the time they reach that sort of age, then the fact that the Minister still has an involvement until majority may well be extremely helpful.
26. The suggestion was made that the mother might see the staff in Y House or in the new unit providing practical care to Freddie and Arthur. We consider that Dr Posner was right in saying that there could be a real sense of working together if the mother is able to do this. It would not be a case of her coming in routinely when there might not be a problem at all, but there would be some focussed care given - perhaps some planned card games where one or other of the boys (or the mother) would lose, which might provide testing circumstances. Similar considerations would apply if the father were to see the care of the boys in their accommodation. One advantage is that the parents would see more of the children's other world, and be better able to link that with their own, helping the relationship between the boys and themselves. It appears to us that this is potentially useful and could work. Of course it might go wrong, and there are always risks in that respect. In that event, it would have to be reassessed.
27. Before leaving the question of contact, we note that the father's contact in particular has occasionally been foreshortened because of the children's need for medication after school. This can bite into the contact periods and it would be desirable if possible that this could be avoided in future.
28. The Court has granted leave to the Minister to disclose the court documents filed in the care proceedings so far as they relate to Freddie and Arthur to any professionals appointed to provide them with therapeutic assistance and educational assistance. We also agree that the independent reviewing officer and any occupational or psychological therapist should have a sight of the psychological reports in so far as they refer to the mother and the father. We also direct that the paternal and maternal grandparents should have a copy of all the written judgments of the Court in this case. This will assist them to understand not only Freddie and Arthur and their present difficulties but also their son, and daughter respectively, Freddie and Arthur's parents.
29. Finally, we authorise the Minister to disclose the reports of the social workers and the guardian to Freddie and Arthur's head teacher, who needs to have access to them to be better placed to make contributions in any multi-agency discussion.
30. Generally this has been a most difficult set of proceedings for all the parties involved. We express our gratitude to counsel of course for their persistence in it. But we would like to add that we have been particularly impressed with the evidence of Ceri Owen, the social worker and Ms Green, the guardian, and also by the contribution which Dr Posner has made. We are encouraged by the progress which Freddie and Arthur have made as of April 2016 and hope that it continues. If it does, that will be down to the care which has been made available to them and their parents through the Minister and through CAMHS. However, we must not omit in this context congratulations to the parents and grandparents. These proceedings have been as we say difficult. Very unpleasant allegations have been made against each of the parties. The making of those allegations is corrosive, and the investigation and adjudication of them capable of being even worse. In Freddie and Arthur's interests, parents and grandparents must move on. We think they have shown signs of being able to do so and we express the fervent hope that that will continue. What we can add at this stage is that, difficult though these allegations and their adjudication has been, each of the parents and grandparents have accepted with dignity the intrusion into their personal lives which the court process inevitably brings with it and they are to be much respected for that.
31. For all these reasons, the final care order is made and the care plan is approved.
Authorities
In the matter of Freddie and Arthur (Care order) [2015] JRC 204.
In the matter of Freddie and Arthur (Care order) [2016] JRC 033.