Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Fisher and Ronge |
|||
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
B (the Mother) |
First Respondent |
|
|
And |
Nicole (through her Guardian ad Litem) |
Second Respondent |
|
|
And |
A (the Grandmother) |
Third Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF NICOLE (CARE PROCEEDINGS)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate S. L. Brace for the Minister.
Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Second Respondent.
The Third Respondent appeared in person.
judgment
the Commissioner:
1. This is an application by the Minister pursuant to paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the 2002 Law") for permission to arrange for a child, who is in his care under an interim care order, to live outside Jersey.
2. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court granted leave as requested by the Minister. We now give our reasons for that decision.
3. This matter has been before the courts previously and we therefore propose simply to repeat certain passages from the previous judgments when describing the factual background.
4. Nicole (this is not her real name) was born in July 2015 and is therefore some fifteen months old. The First Respondent ("the mother"), who is aged 19, is her mother. Nicole's father has played no part in these proceedings and does not have parental responsibility. The mother is the daughter of the Third Respondent ("the grandmother").
5. The mother has herself been a looked after child since the age of 12 and has experienced multiple foster placements and carers since that age. Following Nicole's birth, arrangements were made to provide support for her. However, concerns emerged as to the care of Nicole and on 23rd July, 2015, Nicole was placed in foster care with the agreement of the mother.
6. On 4th September, 2015, the Royal Court made an interim care order. The care plan lodged by the Minister at the time envisaged that Nicole and the mother should be placed within a parent and child foster placement with a view to a parenting assessment being carried out. Sadly, this was not successful and the mother left the placement on 19th November, 2015. Nicole has remained in foster care since then. A psychological report by Dr Mair Edwards dated 3rd December, 2015, was not positive from the mother's point of view and she then put forward the grandmother, who is aged 42 and lives in the UK with her husband and their four year old son Robert, (this is not his real name) as a connected person carer for Nicole. A viability assessment of such a placement was carried out by a social worker employed by the Children's Service but her report of 18th January, 2016, was negative and did not recommend that a full connected person's assessment be undertaken in respect of the grandmother.
7. The grandmother challenged that conclusion, and, because the mother had also put forward the grandmother's mother-in-law ("the step-great grandmother") as a potential carer, the Minister agreed that both could be the subject of a connected person's assessment to be carried out by an independent social worker. That assessment was ordered by the Royal Court on 1st March, 2016, which entailed adjourning the final hearing date, which had at that stage been fixed for 14th - 18th March, 2016.
8. The appointed independent social worker filed her report on 7th April, 2016, and did not recommend either the grandmother or the step-great grandmother as a suitable carer for Nicole.
9. There being no other viable members of the family to be considered as carers, the care plan of the Minister at that stage was for Nicole to be adopted and the Minister indicated that he would be seeking an order for her to be freed for adoption at the final hearing, which at that stage was fixed for 11th - 15th July, 2016.
10. On 31st May the Royal Court heard an application by the grandmother for a further connected person's assessment of her as she was critical of a number of aspects of the assessment by the independent social worker. This application was rejected by the Royal Court in an unpublished judgment of 3rd June. The grandmother appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal.
11. In order to put the decision of the Court of Appeal in context and in order properly to explain the background to the decision which this Court has to make on the present application, it is necessary to describe matters in a little more detail.
12. The grandmother previously resided in Jersey together with her then husband and her three children, namely two sons and her daughter (i.e. the mother). There was a history of involvement on the part of the Children's Service and all three children were placed on the Child Protection Register in July 2009. The Children's Service were concerned about the grandmother's treatment of her children, particularly the mother.
13. On 18th December, 2009, the grandmother pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault on the mother and was sentenced to 40 hours' community service. Private law proceedings between the grandmother and her former husband resulted in a residence order in relation to the mother being made in favour of the former husband (who was not her father). Ultimately, in January 2010, the Minister instituted public law proceedings and obtained an interim care order in respect of all three of the grandmother's children. Although the grandmother filed a statement seeking the return of the children to her care, she left Jersey shortly afterwards and went to live in Manchester with her present husband. She left without informing the children or saying goodbye to them and took no further part in the care proceedings. Following her departure, residence orders were made in respect of all three children in favour of the former husband but, in relation to the mother, the placement rapidly broke down and thereafter the mother experienced a number of foster and residential placements. The grandmother has had no contact with her sons since she left Jersey and until recently, very limited contact with the mother.
14. When the grandmother's son Robert was born, the Social Services Department of the relevant local authority in the UK became involved because of concerns as a result of the grandmother's history in Jersey and care proceedings were instituted. This Court has not seen any of the papers from those proceedings but it is clear that, after assessments of the grandmother and her present husband, it was felt that Robert could safely be left in the care of the grandmother and her husband and that no order was necessary. Robert has since then lived with the grandmother and her husband. The husband's daughter, Sara, (this is not her real name) by a previous marriage also stays regularly in the household. There is no suggestion that the grandmother's parental care is unsatisfactory; on the contrary the independent social worker described it in her evidence before the Royal Court on 31st May as "in excess of good enough".
15. The case of the grandmother (supported by the guardian as well as the mother) before the Court of Appeal was that the assessment of her was flawed and had relied exclusively on the grandmother's history and difficulties as evidenced in the Jersey care proceedings. Her case was that she had changed since her time in Jersey. She had undergone therapy since then and had been rigorously assessed by the UK authorities in connection with the care proceedings instituted in respect of Robert. The assessment had not properly considered whether the grandmother had indeed changed and whether, despite her unfortunate history in Jersey, she could now provide a proper home for Nicole.
16. For the reasons set out in its judgment of 12th July, In the matter of Nicole (Care proceedings) [2016] JCA 120, the Court of Appeal accepted the grandmother's submissions (supported as they were by the guardian). It reminded itself that all alternative options must be fully explored before adoption is decided upon and did not consider that such full exploration had taken place. It ordered that two reports on the grandmother should be prepared, namely a psychological assessment and a parenting assessment by a new independent social worker.
17. These two further assessments have now been carried out. The psychological report is dated 29th August, 2016, and was prepared by Dr Carritt-Baker, a chartered clinical psychologist. It is an extremely detailed report.
18. It investigates the issues surrounding the failures of the grandmother in the parenting of her children in Jersey as well as her current position in the UK. It is clear that Dr Carritt-Baker places significance upon the fact that in Jersey she was in a difficult and volatile relationship with her former husband, whereas she is now in a happy and stable relationship with her present husband. The report expresses no grounds for concern over the grandmother's parenting ability in respect of Robert.
19. In answer to the question as to whether any psychological assistance or treatment would help the grandmother improve her parenting, emotional equilibrium or any other problems, Dr Carritt-Baker concludes that there was no necessity [his emphasis] for any particular intervention aimed at improving parenting but that some psychological therapy might be generally helpful. In relation to the key question of the grandmother's motivation and ability to prioritise Nicole's needs now and in the future, he concluded that, given that the grandmother and her husband had been able to care for Robert without much support and that there had been no concerns surrounding his welfare, there was no substantive reason to doubt the grandmother's ability to prioritise Nicole's needs even if she were to receive no help or support. He said that it was clear that the grandmother's husband provided considerable support and stability. He concluded that there was nothing in his investigation which would raise the grandmother's ability to understand Nicole's needs and meet those needs in the longer term as a primary area of concern. In short, the report was supportive of the grandmother's ability to provide adequate parenting for Nicole.
20. The parenting assessment was carried out by Ann MacKenzie, an independent social worker and children's guardian. She too has carried out a detailed investigation involving six visits to the grandmother's home together with extended interviews with the grandmother, her husband and observations of their care of Robert and also Sara, who was present at the home on three of the visits. She was not able to see Nicole with the grandmother because there had at that time been no contact between them. Accordingly her report is determined at assessing the likely parenting of Nicole, their readiness and preparations for such an eventuality and their future plans for her care.
21. We would quote two paragraphs from the summary of her report:-
"20. It would appear from the counselling that [the grandmother] has undergone since she arrived in [the UK] together with input from the Attachment Service has helped enormously with her early parenting of Robert [sic]. I have found that [the grandmother's] developing depth of insight in to her historical parenting of her first three children has allowed her to make links with her potential capability. She appears to continue to draw on reasonable adaptive parenting that she has clearly received in her childhood upbringing from her parents and grandparents. There may still be areas where she can benefit and in my view this could be ameliorated from engagement with a series of parenting interventions / parenting classes where the focus is more on tuning in to a child's emotional state. There is abundant modelling of this from [the grandmother's husband] which I have directly observed with Robert and Sara throughout this assessment. This compensatory parenting care has allowed a balance to be struck and improvements to be made by [the grandmother].
21. Cognisant of the evidence I have gathered in my assessment and the reflective and comprehensive report of Dr Carritt-Baker, there is a good prognosis for [the grandmother] in terms of continued improved functioning. Subject to any information from the outstanding health assessment and the DBS checks that would preclude Nicole being placed in the care of [the grandmother and her husband], it is my professional opinion that [the grandmother and her husband] have the likely capacity to meet the needs of [her] granddaughter, Nicole and be able to protect her from any potential harm both now and in the future." [original emphasis]
22. Following receipt of these two reports, the Minister has revisited his care plan, which previously envisaged adoption outside the family. The Minister has accepted the recommendations in the two reports and now proposes that Nicole be placed with the grandmother and her husband under the existing interim care order for a period of assessment. Although acknowledging the positive aspects of the two reports, the Minister is not willing at this stage to agree to a permanent placement with the grandmother, not least because of the lack of an existing relationship between Nicole and her grandmother and the concerns over the grandmother's past history of parenting. The Minister has arranged for the grandmother and her husband to be introduced to Nicole (and this has already begun). Once that is sufficiently advanced, the plan is that Nicole should then move to live with the grandmother and her husband.
23. We heard evidence from Miss Justine Cook, the supervising officer of the social worker allocated to Nicole. She explained that the plan for introducing Nicole to the grandmother and then transferring her to the grandmother's care will follow the tried and tested formula which is used in connection with adoptions. She emphasised that there would be regular visits by the social worker in order to monitor progress. If there were to be a breakdown in the placement, Nicole would be brought back and re-placed in foster care pending any decision as to adoption. However, the Children's Service felt confident about the placement and indeed would not be putting Nicole through this if they did not think that it would work satisfactorily.
24. The guardian had not prepared a report for the hearing but gave evidence before us. She said that she was in agreement with the revision to the care plan and was supportive of the placement of Nicole with the grandmother and her husband for a period of assessment. She felt that the grandmother had made progress since the Jersey proceedings. Her life had changed, she was in a stable relationship and the UK local authority had been happy with her care of Robert. She believed that the grandmother and her husband would be able to care satisfactorily for Nicole and she will also be visiting them on a regular basis during the period of assessment.
25. The application before us is supported by all the parties. The Minister believes that, in the light of the recent reports, it is in Nicole's interests to place her with the grandmother and her husband for a period of assessment on the basis that there are reasonable grounds for believing it will be successful, and that a satisfactory placement with a family member would be preferable to adoption. The guardian is in agreement, as is the mother. The grandmother has filed a position statement emphasising her wish to look after Nicole.
26. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the 2002 Law provides (so far as relevant) as follows:-
"4. Arrangements to assist children to live outside Jersey
(1) The Minister may:-
(a) with the approval of the court arrange for, or assist in arranging for, any child in the Minister's care to live outside Jersey; and
(b) ...
(2) The court shall not give its approval under sub-paragraph (1)(a) unless it is satisfied that:-
(a) it would be in the child's best interests to live outside Jersey;
(b) suitable arrangements have been, or will be, made for the child's reception and welfare in the country in which the child will live;
(c) the child has consented to living in that country except where:-
(i) the court is satisfied that the child does not have sufficient understanding to give or withhold his or her consent; and
(ii) the child is to live in the country concerned with a parent, guardian or other suitable person; and
(d) every person who has parental responsibility for the child has consented to the child living in that country except for a person whom the court is satisfied cannot be found, is incapable of consenting or is withholding his or her consent unreasonably."
27. For the reasons given by the Minister and the guardian (supported by the reports of Dr Carrick-Baker and Ms MacKenzie) the Court is satisfied that it is in Nicole's best interests to live outside Jersey for this period of assessment and we are also satisfied that suitable arrangements are being made for Nicole's reception and welfare in the UK.
28. As to paragraph 4(2)(c), Nicole is too young to give her consent and we are satisfied that the grandmother is an 'other suitable person' for the purposes of that sub-paragraph. As to (d), the mother, being the only person with parental responsibility, has consented to the move.
29. In all the circumstances we agree that what is proposed is in Nicole's best interests and that the conditions specified in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 of the 2002 Law are met. We therefore granted the Court's consent to the Minister arranging for Nicole to live outside Jersey in accordance with the revised care plan.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.