Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - application by the mother for leave to withdraw contact application.

[2017]JRC040

Royal Court

(Family)

7 March 2017

IN THE MATTER OF FRANKIE LAUREN AND LUCA (CARE PROCEEDINGS)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

Advocate E. L. Burns assisted by D. Harding for the Mother.

Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for B (the Father of Luca).

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Guardian of Frankie and Lauren.

Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the Guardian for Luca.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        The Court was convened to hear an application by the mother for an order for contact with her two children Frankie (this is not his real name) and Lauren (this is not her real name).  The background to this case is covered in earlier judgments of the Court.

2.         In short the children have been in care, initially voluntarily, but since 3^rd December 2010 under a final care order, since August 2009.  Initially they were placed with a paternal aunt but that placement broke down in July 2015 because of physical chastisement of the children by the aunt.  The mother and the guardian are both critical of the Children's Service for their slowness in responding to concerns about the aunt's treatment of the children. 

3.        After a short placement with other foster carers in the United Kingdom the children were placed with their current foster carers, Mr and Mrs GG, in 21^st August, 2015.  This is a placement in the UK, and the children have remained there since then.  All the evidence suggests that it is a successful placement. 

4.        Although initially there was contact with the children, this was reduced at the instance of the Children's Service in early 2012 to once a year.  The mother saw the children on one occasion in May 2013 but the planned contact in May of 2014 did not take place.  The mother then applied for an order for contact. 

5.        On 18^th September, 2014, the Court approved an agreement between the Minister and the mother and others in relation to contact.  This provided for indirect contact with the ultimate aim of moving to direct contact if and when the children were ready for it.  However this move to direct contact had not happened by the time the placement with the aunt broke down.  The mother believes that the aunt had been very obstructive of contact and that the Children's Service had not dealt with this satisfactorily.  However, she accepts that since the children moved to their current placement, the Children's Service have made considerable efforts to promote contact.  There has been indirect contact involving cards, gifts and letters and she accepts also the foster carers have been doing their best to encourage contact. 

6.        The first direct contact since May 2013 took place in Jersey at Tamba Park on 27^th January of this year.  It is clear that this was not easy either for the children or the mother.  That is not surprising given the very troubled upbringing that the children had suffered and the long gap since the last direct contact. 

7.        The Minister's current plan is summarised in the report from Andrea Davison, the social worker allocated to the children.  It is that direct contact should take place up to three times a year if Frankie and Lauren wish it.  Proposed dates for the next twelve months are set out at paragraphs 3.55 of her report.  However the Minister opposes the making of an order to reflect contact set out in the plan on the basis that there needs to be flexibility so as to respond to any changing circumstances, including the wishes and feelings of the children. 

8.        Originally, as we say, the mother was seeking an order for contact from the Court under Article 27 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.  This was partly because she felt that in the past the Children's Service had not pressed the question of contact with any enthusiasm or vigour despite what had been said in the earlier care plan.  However she accepted that things had now changed and that the Children's Service, through Miss Davison and the foster carers, was now working hard to encourage contact.  She also accepts the need for flexibility and that the children should not be forced to have contact should they wish not to do so.  In these circumstances she is no longer pressing for an order from the Court defining the proposed contact.  Instead she is applying today to withdraw her application in the light of the Minister's proposals. 

9.        Like the Minister, the guardian is against the making of any order.  Indeed she is a little concerned at the Minister's proposals.  She is of the clear view that the most important thing is that the current placement should not break down; that would be disastrous for the children.  She is concerned that the children became very unsettled by the contact occasion in January, to the extent that there was a potential risk to the placement.  She emphasised that she was not against direct contact but it had to be approached flexibly with the children's best interests at the forefront of everyone's consideration.  To that end she advised that considerable preparatory work would be needed with both the children and the mother before any occasion of contact.  She was also a little concerned that the timetable appeared to be over-prescriptive and was raising the mother's expectation as to what would occur with the risk that, given the mother's history of suspicion of Children's Service, she would attribute any change of plan to failure by the Children's Service and would again feel let down. 

10.      Having heard from the guardian, we also heard evidence from Miss Davison and we are satisfied that she is aware of the points raised by the guardian and acknowledges them.  She confirmed that the plan set out in the report is aspirational and that flexibility is essential, so that arrangements can take account of any changes including the effect of contact on the children.  She also agreed specifically that it would be very important to spend time preparing both the children and the mother for contact visits and that there should be a review of the effect of contact on the placement after the occasions of contact.  She agreed that the preservation of the placement was of the utmost importance. 

11.      Advocate Burns confirmed that, whilst desperately keen to have contact with her children, the mother realises that contact has to be in the best interests of the children and that accordingly the proposals set out in paragraph 3.55 of the report are not set in stone. 

12.      We agree that it is in the best interests of the children to give leave to the mother to withdraw her application for a contact order.  We agree that flexibility is essential and that an order would prevent such flexibility. 

13.      The Minister and the guardian have both confirmed that they support the desirability of seeking to promote direct contact between the mother and the children.  We agree.  However, they have both also emphasised that direct contact should only occur if it is in the children's best interests and in particular if it does not place the placement at risk.  Again, we agree.  We are not surprised that there has been an adverse reaction after the first occasion of contact after some 3½ years.  Given the difficult background of these children and the length of time since the last contact, we think that was almost inevitable.  The Minister should not therefore be too easily discouraged.  But we agree that the most important thing for these children is the stability of the placement.  Accordingly the effect of contact on the placement must be kept under review.  We would hope that future contact would gradually cause less unsettling of these children but we agree that the Minister will need to keep the position closely under review.  We also agree that much preparatory work will need to be done with both the children and the mother before a visit. 

14.      So, in summary we agree that it is appropriate to make no order and that leave could be given to the mother to withdraw her application.  Having heard both the guardian and the social worker we note and support the proposed plan for direct contact whilst acknowledging that it will not necessarily be easy and straight-forward; there may be the odd bump along the way.  Ultimately contact should only take place if it is in the best interests of the children. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.