Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - reasons for granting supervision order and approving care plan.

[2017]JRC068

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 May 2017

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN (SUPERVISION ORDER)

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

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Minister.

Advocate A. T. H. English for the Mother.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Father.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        On 26^th April, 2017, the Court gave judgment granting the Minister a supervision order in respect of the child and approving the care plan.  Reasons were reserved.  This judgment contains those reasons. 

2.        The mother was not present for the hearing.  The reason for her absence lies in her attendance with her partner at a parental assessment centre in the United Kingdom which they are attending with their relatively newly born child.  Advocate English nonetheless was able to inform the Court that he had received instructions from the mother and accordingly the Court was satisfied that she had received reasonable notice of the date of the hearing.  In any event the Court was satisfied, for the purposes of Rule 17(4) of the Children Rules 2005 that the circumstances of the case justified proceeding with the hearing in her absence.  This is because the child has been resident with the father since May 2016, and the care plan, with which the mother is said to be in agreement, provides for the child to continue to live with his father albeit within the structure of a supervision order. 

3.        As indicated, the Minister's application at the final hearing was for a supervision order with a care plan for the child to continue to be cared for by his father.  The child is 3 years and 3 months old.  The father and the mother are not married, but the father was granted parental responsibility at an earlier hearing in these proceedings.  They are no longer in a relationship.  Prior to the proceedings, the child ordinarily resided with his mother but following an emergency protection order made on 22^nd April, 2016, the child was initially placed into foster care.  After the interim care order was granted, and a risk assessment having been carried out, the child was placed with the father under a strict safety plan on 13^th May, 2016.  At that time the father was living with his paternal grandmother, who was able to assist him in the care of the child, but in January 2017, the Minister was able to find a flat in which the father and the child might live together alone. 

Threshold

4.        An agreed threshold document was put before us.  The Minister and the parents agreed that the child had suffered and was likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm as a result of the parenting provided to him.  The agreed examples of that harm were these:-

(i)        On 20^th April, 2016, the consultant paediatrician at the General Hospital concluded that the child had suffered two non-accidental blows to the left side of his face and head.  Although it is not known who had delivered those blows, because many people might have done so, the child was in the care of his parents at the time it was caused. 

(ii)       The mother had shown herself unable to prioritise the child's needs and act as a protective factor in his life.  An incident between her and her partner occurred on 19^th April, 2016, in the early hours of the morning, while the child was in her care, demonstrated that she was unfit to care for him at that time. 

(iii)      The mother's credibility and respect for the measures in place to ensure the child's safety were doubted.  Support for that doubt lay in the fact that two calls were received by staff at the General Hospital, purportedly from the mother's aunt, claiming to have been awarded care of the child and enquiring how he might be collected.  The aunt denied making those calls, and the telephone number used for those calls was that of the mother.  

(iv)      The mother has had a longstanding and chronic substance misuse problem.  Indeed, in November 2016, her second child was hospitalised for eight weeks following birth, having been born with a neo-natal abstinence syndrome due to the mother's illicit use of opiates for the first three months of her pregnancy. 

5.        The Court heard evidence from Ms Caroline Glynn, the social worker who has been allocated to the child since January 2016.  Her evidence, which was unchallenged, supported the agreed threshold document.  No other evidence was provided to us, and we confirm we are satisfied to the civil standard that threshold has been passed. 

The welfare test

6.        We went on to consider the welfare test against the principle that no order should be made unless it were better to make such an order than to make no order.  Indeed we also had to consider then the welfare test at large and in particular the matters set out in Article 2 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. 

7.        Ms Glynn informed us that the mother has engaged well with the drug and alcohol treatment she has been receiving.  At present her substance misuse is being managed, and she has also received some emotional therapy treatment.  It appears to us that this is encouraging, albeit there is still some way to go. 

8.        Ms Glynn's evidence was that the placement with the father has gone well.  He has sought help and support when it had been needed, and the child is developing appropriately.  She currently has no concerns at all, which is a welcome sign of progress from the position earlier in her engagement with the family when she was visiting weekly.  She described how the father was able to meet the child's needs, and there was a very positive relationship between father and son.  The father had shown himself capable of managing his finances and of planning forward for events in the future in respect of the child.  It was a stable placement. 

9.        Whereas originally the father had acted in a way which led to concern in the Children's Service as to whether he could, in effect, stand up to the mother, Ms Glynn was now satisfied that he could.  The concerns in that respect had been assuaged.  In her view, there was no need for a care order to be granted but she did consider that it would be appropriate to provide a structure or framework for some external support for the father over the next 12 months.  Discussions with both parents had led them to agree with that proposal. 

10.      That then was the background against which the Minister came to Court seeking a final supervision order and a care plan which left the child living in the care of his father. 

11.      We also heard from the Guardian in respect of the application of the welfare test.  Ms Green told us that the child's relationship with his mother had improved considerably.  Twelve months ago it had been, as she put it, chaotic and really quite worrying.  Some of his behaviours then would appear to indicate that the child felt unsafe and anxious - when challenged, he would pretend to be asleep.  He had made great progress since then, and her evidence was that his anxious behaviours were no longer evident at all.  He was appropriately friendly, playful and lively - as she said in evidence, he was "bubbly" and the father had done a really good job.  She had no concerns about the father's parenting capacity at this stage. 

12.      The evidence which the Court has received in this case indicates that there were some concerns in the early stages as to whether the father would be able to stand up to the mother if challenged by her over the right decisions to take in respect of the child.  The father is now aged 24, and according to the Guardian and to the social worker has demonstrated his increasing confidence to take the right decisions in relation to the child.  Having responsibility for the care of a child of 3 is no easy task and the Court is impressed with the evidence which it has read and heard of the father's progress in this respect.  It is reassuring that the father has a network of family to assist him should that be necessary.  He describes the child's grandmother as supportive towards him and how the relationship between the child and the father's grandmother is also good.  The father's grandmother is available to help him if ever he has any difficulties looking after the child, even though he no longer lives with her.  Furthermore, the father tells us that his whole family have said that they will support him when needed. 

13.      We note that the father has attended a number of programmes since September 2016, and that he is to attend another course in September this year. 

14.      In our judgment, applying the welfare test, there seems no doubt that the child is happy to be living with his father with whom he has such an excellent relationship.  We feel satisfied that we can ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child, namely that he would wish to stay with his father.  All the evidence is that the child's physical and emotional needs are being met, and that the likely effect on the child of any change in his circumstances by removing him from his father would be extremely detrimental to his upbringing.  Having regard to the matters which Article 2 of the Law requires us to consider, we are in no doubt at all that we should approve the care plan which provides for the child's continued residence with his father. 

15.      Equally, the history of the case and the progress which has been made by a hitherto inexperienced father, coupled with the relatively young age of the father suggests that it would be advisable to have a structure or framework in place for the father's support as the Minister contends.  Accordingly we reach the conclusion that it would be better to make a supervision order than to make no order, so that, as the father himself desires, the structure or framework for his support is put in place. 

16.      The care plan provides for supervised contact with the mother on an interim basis once she returns to the Island from completion of the assessment course.  There will be contact three times a week for two and a half hours each contact period for four weeks, supervised by the father.  If that goes well, then the mother will have contact with the child three times a week at her home for tea - the father will drop him off and collect him, and will be permitted to enter the mother's home to assess the environment for the child one each occasion.  The third four weeks will enable unsupervised and unsupported contact between the mother and the child, and the father will drop the child and collect him.  If the arrangements for contact over the next twelve weeks following the mother's return to the Island work well, then there may be further changes leading ultimately to overnight contact.  Ms Glynn told us that, having regard to the information available to her as the social worker not only for the child but also for the child's half-sibling, she was confident that the child would be safe if access were exercised in this way. 

17.      Accordingly we make the supervision order for a period of twelve months, and with the Minister's agreement appoint the Minister as the supervisor.  The terms of the supervision order will appear in the Act of Court. 

18.      This has been a most satisfactory outcome to the present proceedings.  We think it is right to add, given the criticisms which the Court has sometimes made of the Children's Service in other cases in respect of an all too frequent change of social worker appointed to the particular family concerned, that it has been particularly helpful in the present case that Ms Glynn has been the social worker consistently since January 2016 and has additionally been the appointed social worker in respect of the child's half-sibling.  We are told that there will be a change in social worker in the next few months, and it does seem to us to be desirable, if it is possible, that the same social worker be appointed both for the child and for his half-sibling.  It will enable a rounded assessment within the Children's Service of the entire family and it should enable a better early warning system to be put in place if difficulties should arise in the future, which of course we hope they do not. 

Authorities

Children Rules 2005.

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.