Care order - application by the Minister for a final care order.
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Blampied and Pitman |
|||
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
(1) The Mother (2) The Grandfather |
Respondents |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF SARAH (FINAL CARE ORDER)
Advocate P. Byrne for the Minister.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. This judgment will be short because a final care order is not resisted by Sarah's mother or by her grandfather and, indeed, it accords with her own wishes and she has attended the hearing today.
2. By way of brief background, Sarah's mother and father were never married, she and her elder brother, Tommy, (this is not his real name) are children from that relationship. However, the father has never met Sarah (this is not her real name) and he and the mother separated before Sarah's birth. The father does not share parental responsibility for her or her brother, Tommy, and it is believed that he now lives in Scotland.
3. Sarah was in the care of her mother from birth until she was 7 years old, at which time she moved to live with her grandfather due to concerns about the care she and Tommy were receiving whilst in the care of their mother and her husband at the time. This ranged from severe neglect to allegations of sexual abuse. The maternal grandfather was granted a residence order for both children in November 2010 which was supported by the Children's Service. In December 2012 the maternal grandfather's health deteriorated significantly due to kidney failure resulting in him being hospitalised for approximately ten weeks.
4. Sarah and her brother were cared for by the extended family. The Children's Service became involved providing support to the family. At that time they became increasingly concerned about Tommy's challenging behaviours at home and in the community, resulting in him being accommodated in foster care in November 2013. At the same time Sarah remained in her grandfather's care. The Minster was granted a care order for Tommy on 13th January, 2015, with him remaining in the long-term care of foster carers, Mr and Mrs G, and Mr G has attended Court today.
5. Doctor Willemsen was instructed as part of Tommy's care proceedings. In his report of 16th October, 2014, he highlighted concerns about the maternal grandfather's mental health and ability to meet Sarah's needs. Sarah remained in her grandfather's care but the Children's Service became more involved in her case with her name being placed on the child protection register as a result of the concerns raised by Doctor Willemsen.
6. In January 2015 the grandfather was hospitalised again due to a deterioration in his health and he placed Sarah in the care of Mrs F and her partner Mr H. However due to concerns that Mrs F and Mr H were not able to meet her needs, and concerns that Mr H posed a sexual risk to Sarah, Sarah was moved from this family placement on 27th November, 2015, into a short-term foster placement whilst a connected persons assessment was undertaken of Mr and Mrs G. The maternal grandfather, Mrs F and Sarah were not happy about this placement move but the Minister considered it necessary in order to protect Sarah.
7. We note in that respect that Mr H was charged in November 2016, with several counts of indecent assault on a child. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and he is to reappear in the Magistrate's Court.
8. The connected persons assessment was completed and presented to the Fostering and Adoption Panel on 1st March, 2016. It was subsequently approved that a placement with Tommy with Mr and Mrs G was in Sarah's best interests. She was placed with them on 11th March. 2016, where she remains.
9. The care plan for Sarah is to be places long-term with Tommy together at the home of Mr and Mrs G. Sarah is described as an articulate and confident young person. She understands that her grandfather is no longer able to care for her due to his failing health and is aware of the concerns in her staying with her cousin Mrs F. She is very well settled with Mr and Mrs G and wants to continue there and it is clear that she has fitted in very well with the G family and is in fact flourishing in every way. She does not want any form of contact with her mother and she knows that she can continue to see her grandfather, her aunt Mrs E and her cousin Mrs F, and that is indeed part of the care plan.
10. The mother has not provided a position statement and is not legally represented but she has informed Miss Glynn, the social worker, that she supports the placement with Mr and Mrs G.
11. The maternal grandfather recognises that Sarah is happy in her placement with Mr and Mrs G and does not seek to disturb that. He is unhappy at the loss of the residence order which gives him parental responsibility but the guardian's report at paragraph 5.5 sets out his position, we think, very well. He stated and quoting:-
"I know Mr and Mrs G treat the children well. I am happy with their care. I am happy for them to stay there. Mr and Mrs G keep me informed about the children. I get on okay with them both. I don't want the care order but I will not fight it as Sarah is happy and settled. I don't know how much longer I'm going to be here. I know she is happy so I want to see her that way. I don't want the care order but I will not oppose it."
And he has, consistent with that, declined legal advice and has not attended the hearings.
12. In the circumstances the Court has resolved to hear the Minister's application in the absence of both the mother and the maternal grandfather pursuant to Rule 17(4) of the Children Rules 2005.
13. Turning to the threshold, the Court has considered the threshold document, the report of Doctor Willemsen, the judgment of the Court in relation to Tommy, the evidence of Miss Glynn and all of the documentation before it, and is clear that the threshold under Article 24 (2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is met. The relevant date being 27th November, 2015, which is the date upon which the maternal grandfather agreed that Sarah should be looked after by the Minister pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Children Law.
14. Turning to the welfare stage, we have followed the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051. Both Miss Glynn and the guardian have addressed the welfare checklist which has been of assistance to us. The wishes of Sarah, who is now 13, about her own life are to be given great weight and she is clear where she wants to live. A final care order will provide for a continuation of the status quo so there will be no change in her circumstances. Her mother and father are clearly unable to meet her needs and the maternal grandfather is now unable to do so and there is no-one else in the family who has come forward and been assessed as being able to do so.
15. In terms of any order we can make, we have again been helped by a careful analysis both by Miss Glynn and the guardian. Clearly the residence order in favour of the maternal grandfather has to go as Sarah no longer resides with him. Making no order would leave the mother, who has not been involved in Sarah's life since she was 7, and indeed does not even seem to speak to her if they were to meet accidently, with sole parental responsibility and that would be clearly quite wrong. A care order in favour of the Minister enables the Minister to exercise parental responsibility and to ensure that Sarah's placement with Mr and Mrs G in accordance with her wishes is secured. We have considered the care plan and the contact arrangements over which no issue has arisen.
Authorities
Children Rules 2005.
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.