Care order - application by the Minster for a care order relating to five children.
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff and Jurats Sparrow and Christensen |
|||
Between |
Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
|
And |
B (the mother) |
First Respondent |
|
|
|
C (the father of Daniel and Chloe) |
Second Respondent |
|
|
|
X (father to April) |
Third Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE A CHILDREN (CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate JC. R. G. Davies for the Minister.
Advocate S. McFadzean for the Mother.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Third Respondent Father.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Minister for a care order under Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") in relation to the mother's five children aged ten, eight, six, five and two. There have been several proceedings in this Court already concerning this family. Judgments of the Court can be found at In the matter of the A Children (Supervision order) [2013] JRC 080A in April 2013, secondly at In the matter of the A Children (Care proceedings) [2013] JRC 168B and finally in August 2014 at In the matter of the A Children (Supervision order) [2014] JRC 160. Those proceedings were respectively to order a supervision order, refuse an application for an interim care order and in 2014 to refuse an extension of the supervision order. The contents of those three judgments are known to and taken into account by this Court without a repetition of their contents.
2. The Court proceeded in the absence of the mother, who at short notice - time was abridged - could not find anyone to assist her in child care. The decision to proceed was taken in the best interests of the children.
3. At the time of the refusal to extend the supervision order in August 2014, it was clear that the relationship between the mother and the Children's Services was not working well. Indeed that was one of the reasons why the Court did not think it was appropriate at that time to extend the supervision order, even though the Court recognised - as it has done on every occasion - that bringing this number of children up without help would be a tall order for anyone, including the mother. The current application was lodged by the Minister on 28th March, 2017. We take that as the operative date for determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe at that time that the children respectively were suffering or were at risk of suffering serious harm on account of the care provided to them by their mother falling short of that standard which it would be reasonable to expect the mother to provide.
4. Although the first and third respondents made it clear that threshold will be a major issue at any final hearing, neither really disputed the Minister's preliminary threshold document which the Minister says should lead the Court to conclude that there are reasonable grounds for believing the children have suffered and are at risk of suffering significant emotional harm as a result of exposure to domestic violence and long-standing parental conflict, that they are at risk of suffering neglect because their needs have not been met; and that they are at risk of significant physical harm. The risk of physical harm is said to arise when they are in the presence of the third respondent, April's father (this is not her real name). The allegations of neglect relate to the following:-
(i) Multiple house moves, including being removed from the Island;
(ii) The mother has stated on a number of occasions she is not able to cope with the children and indeed the two eldest children are now living in France with their maternal grandparents;
(iii) The children do not receive appropriate supervision - the eldest, Daniel has been reported to have been left home alone, and on 26th February Daniel, Holly and Adam were seen outside a shop unsupervised playing between the cars and in and through the shop. When challenged, the mother could not remember how long the children had been outside before she noticed they had left the house;
(iv) Furthermore the Children's Service have received reports that the children have attended school hungry.
5. As to emotional harm, the Minister's contention is that the children have suffered from exposure to domestic violence and long-standing parental conflict. A number of different illustrations of that contention are contained in the threshold document. They have not been disputed today and we are satisfied at the least that there are reasonable grounds for believing them to be true. We note, however, Advocate McFadzean's position that threshold will be a real issue if the Minister proceeds to a final hearing, a position also adopted by Advocate Hillier for the third respondent father, who told us that the summary of recent events was disputed.
6. The Court is satisfied, having regard to all the documentation that as at the relevant date, on the balance of probabilities, the threshold criteria for making an order under Article 30 of the Law, read in conjunction with Article 24(2) are satisfied, namely that there are reasonable grounds to believe the children have suffered and are likely to suffer significant neglect, emotional and physical harm as a result of the care provided to them by their parents.
7. The Minister's plan is that Daniel remains in his mother's care during an assessment of her parenting capacity and psychological attunement to his needs. If he is unable to remain in his mother's care, the proposal is that he should join his maternal grandparents in France. The mother agrees with that assessment.
8. Daniel's views, like the views of the other children have not yet been ascertained. This is partly because the Children's Service fear that if they contact him and ask him for his views, he will merely conclude that they are trying to separate him from his mother. He presents as anxious and the Minister does not want to compound this and impact further on his emotional well-being. These views which the Minister has expressed resonate with the judgment of the Court in August 2014.
9. Daniel's eldest two siblings, Oliver and Grace are living in France with their maternal grandmother. It is proposed that they will be joined by Chloe. Daniel says he will miss Chloe but he does not want to join her. The proposal is that he should remain with his mother and the allocated social worker will provide support and advice to the family.
10. The Court agrees with that proposal and in line with the Minister's application will make no award to interim care to the Minister. Accordingly he remains in the care of the mother whilst further assessments are undertaken.
11. The Minister's proposal is that Chloe should be placed with the maternal family in France, under an Article 17 voluntary agreement with the mother. It is thought that her identity, emotional educational health and attachment needs can be met consistently and safely in that way. She currently seems to be suffering from low self-esteem and low self-confidence, but she has no disabilities. Despite her age, she continues to have enuresis and continence issues. She does not appear to have many friends in the Island. She has said that she is not worried about going to France and was looking forward to school there. She wanted to share a bedroom with Grace, who is her favourite sister.
12. The mother wishes Chloe to be cared for by her mother and step-father in France as well. She has been consistent in stating that she thinks it will be best for Chloe to live with her grandmother and siblings in France, and she agrees the Article 17 agreement procedure. The second respondent has parental responsibility for Chloe and Daniel, but his views are yet to be ascertained.
13. Holly is aged six. As with Daniel and Chloe, the Minister does not seek to share parental responsibility at present and suggests that no order be made on an interim basis pending the outcome of the various assessments which are yet to be made. The care plan is that Holly should remain in her mother's care for the time being, and the mother concurs.
14. In the circumstances the Court will make no order in relation to Holly.
15. Adam is aged five and at the present time the Minister contends that he should remain in his mother's care with no order being made. He attends primary school and does not require any additional support. He has no ongoing health needs or disabilities.
16. However, direct work with him has demonstrated that he has been exposed to domestic abuse both physical and emotional as indeed he confirmed on 23rd March this year.
17. If the mother should be unable to manage Adam in her care, then it may be necessary for the Minister to return and seek an interim care order with a view to placing Adam with his paternal grandmother and her partner, both of whom live in Jersey. Adam's views have not been ascertained because he is not of an age to understand the current proceedings. Furthermore, his siblings' anxiety about these proceedings may impact upon his emotional well-being. The Minister's proposals generally are supported by the mother.
18. April is aged two and the Minister plans that April should remain in her mother's care assuming the mother is able to demonstrate that she can provide good enough parenting to her. The chronology of her childhood so far however demonstrates that she has not received good enough parenting at this stage which will ensure that her health, emotional educational developmental and social needs have been consistently met.
19. April does not have any communication issues, and communicates appropriately for her age. It seems that she has a positive relationship with both her mother and her father, the third respondent, but she is at risk as a result of the volatile relationship which her mother and father have.
20. The Minister's interim care plan suggests that if there would be any immediate risk to the health or welfare of April while in the care of her mother, the Minister will take the appropriate steps either to agree with the mother that April be placed in a suitable alternative family placement, or to make an emergency application to the Court to ensure such placement.
21. The child is obviously too young to express a view in relation to the proposals.
22. Although the parties were content that no finding be made, the Court finds that threshold for the purposes of an interim order has been met. Having considered the interim care plans proposed by the Minister, the Court, however, considers that it is appropriate to make no order at the present time. That is a position agreed by the parties. The Minister of course has liberty to apply.
23. The Minister's application for a care order has accordingly been adjourned for a date to be fixed and the parties were ordered to attend before the Bailiff's Judicial Secretary to fix a date for the directions hearing within the next seven days. The remaining directions are as set out in the Act of the Court, and were again very largely agreed. There are just these points which we would like to emphasise:-
(i) The second respondent has not yet taken any part in either the present proceedings or in previous proceedings involving these children of some of whom he is the father. It is a matter for him as to whether he does so, but sooner or later it remains at least possible that the children will read any judgment that is issued in respect of them. In that event, it would be preferable if such judgment could have disclosed that the father was sufficiently interested in them to play a part in these proceedings.
(ii) Given the history of alleged domestic violence, the Court has made an order that the addresses and contact details of the first, second and third respondents and of the children shall be redacted prior to any documents being related to the parties. Any breach of that order will be treated seriously.
(iii) As so often happens in cases involving allegations over a protracted period, the personnel involved in the case on behalf of the Minister tend to change. It will be necessary for the Minister to pay careful attention to what evidence is admissible given the objections which the mother and the third respondent father have taken to the evidence to date. It will also be necessary for the Minister to identify and produce, as far as he can, police officers who have been engaged in the various alleged incidents. It is recognised that the quality of evidence in family cases often does not meet that standard which would be expected in criminal cases, but nonetheless it will be essential for the court of trial, if threshold be contested at the final hearing as the mother and third respondent father have indicated, that as much primary evidence, including primary evidence from police officers, is available as possible.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
In the matter of the A Children (Supervision order) [2013] JRC 080A.
In the matter of the A Children (Care proceedings) [2013] JRC 168B.
In the matter of the A Children (Supervision order) [2014] JRC 160.