Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - reasons for declining to make contact orders and approving the Minister's contact plan.

[2018]JRC084

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 May 2018

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle and Pitman

 

IN THE MATTER OF IMOGEN (CARE ORDER)

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

Advocate L. K. Helm for the First Applicant.

Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Second Applicant.

Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Third Applicant.

Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the First Respondent.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Second Respondent.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        The Court has before it three applications for orders for contact with a child who is now aged 10 and is in the care of the Minister.

2.        The background is set out fully in the judgment of the Court dated 11^th April, 2016, In the matter of Imogen (Care order) [2016] JRC 081 ("the care judgment").  Reference should be made to the care judgment for the full history of this matter.  We shall use the same terminology as in the care judgment.  Thus we shall refer to the First Applicant as 'the mother', the Second Applicant as 'the step-father', the Third Applicants as 'the step-grandmother' and her partner as 'the step-grandmother's partner'.  Although he has joined the step-grandmother in her application and fully supports it, we shall as set out in paragraph 4 of the care judgment simply refer to the step-grandmother and not include references to her partner unless it is essential to do so.

3.        Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Court declined to make any contact orders and was content to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister whose proposals were set out in a contact care plan ("the contact plan") dated 29^th December 2017 as elaborated by the social worker Laura Stark during the course of her evidence.  We now give our reasons for coming to that decision.

Background

4.        As set out in the care judgment, there was general agreement by all the parties at the time of the hearing in April 2016 that the threshold test was met and that a care order should be made.  The Minister's care plan envisaged placing Imogen in the care of the person described in the judgment as 'the godmother'.  The mother, on the other hand, wished Imogen to be placed with her and the step-grandmother wished Imogen to live with her and her partner in England.  We should add that, although we use the terminology of the step-father, the Second Applicant is not in fact Imogen's step-father.  He was the mother's partner and lived with the mother and Imogen for approximately two years just before Imogen was three.  When his relationship with the mother ended, he continued to see Imogen regularly and the mother agreed to Imogen spending time with him.  At the time of the care proceedings, Imogen believed him to be her father.  It follows that the step-grandmother is not in fact a step-grandmother but she took on the role of step-grandmother when the step-father was living with the mother.  She continued in that role after her son's relationship with the mother ended.  Imogen spent several holiday periods with the step-grandmother and her partner in England prior to the care judgment.

5.        The care judgment approved the Minister's care plan as a result of which, following the issuing of the care judgment, Imogen moved to live with the godmother.

6.        Paragraphs 103 - 114 of the care judgment addressed the issue of contact following the Court's decision that Imogen should be placed with the godmother.  The Court did not make any order for contact and accepted that Imogen must not be flooded with occasions of contact with different people to the prejudice of her placement with the godmother, but went on to say that the Minister must show flexibility in seeking to maintain the important relationships with the mother, the step-father and the step-grandmother at a meaningful level if possible.

Events since the care hearing

7.        At the time of the care judgment, it was envisaged that contact with the mother would gradually be reduced until every six weeks or so.  It was also envisaged that contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother would be suspended until the life story work had been completed with Imogen i.e. she had been told that the step-father was not her biological father and that accordingly the step-grandmother was not her biological grandmother.  That life story work did not take place as early as planned because it was felt that Imogen was not ready for it given the need to settle her in her new placement with the godmother and the fact that in August 2016 the godmother and her family together with Imogen moved to a new home. 

8.        It was decided nevertheless that contact with the step-grandmother and the step-father should resume, which it did.

9.        The life story work eventually took place on 28^th December 2016 and during the early part of February, concerns were raised by those advising the Minister as to the effect which the level of contact with various parties was having on Imogen's placement.  She was having contact with the mother, the step-father and the step-grandmother including Skype contact.  In March 2017, Dr Posner of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) wrote to say that Imogen would benefit from a breathing space and that contact should be suspended for a while.  This was endorsed by the Minister and accordingly it was decided that contact with the mother would continue but at a reduced level, and contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother should be suspended for six months or so.  At a hearing on 26^th April, 2017, the Court fixed the dates of 24^th - 28^th July 2017 for the hearing of the various applications for contact by the mother, the step-father and the step-grandmother, but declined to order a further expert assessment and made no order in respect of interim contact arrangements pending the final hearing, having noted the Minister's proposals for more limited contact with the mother and a suspension of contact with the step-father and step-grandmother.

10.      The anticipated hearing of the application for contact was adjourned on 25^th July, 2017, on the basis that, as contact had been suspended for the last few months in respect of the step-father and the step-grandmother, the Court was not really in a position to consider the matter.  The Minister had by then agreed to reintroduce contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother.  It was agreed therefore that the matter should be adjourned for six months in order to see how things went.  The plan was for there to be at least two direct contact occasions with the step-grandmother and the step-father respectively.  The Court pointed out that it was also necessary to rebuild trust so that the parties could seek to work together.  It was further noted that the godmother would keep the other parties informed of how contact went and of other matters.

11.      Subject to the occasional hiccup in relation to the making of arrangements, contact as envisaged at the time of the adjourned hearing in July has taken place.  However, it is clear that there is a considerable level of distrust of the Children's Service on the part of the step-grandmother and the step-father and this is not entirely surprising.  The Court has previously expressed its views as to the failings on the part of the Children's Service in this case and the reader is referred to the judgment of the Court on 30^th November, 2015, In the matter of Imogen (Care proceedings)  [2015] JRC 247 and paragraphs 115-133 of the care judgment.  As paragraph 131 of that judgment shows, the Court's views were shared by the Guardian.  Even after the care judgment, there appears to have been an undesirable turnover of social workers allocated to Imogen but Laura Stark has been the social worker with responsibility since January 2017, which has led to some stability.

Shape of the dispute

12.      The Minister does not wish there to be an order for contact because of the need for flexibility in the light of changing circumstances.  He has however prepared a contact plan which sets out his proposals.

13.      In relation to the mother, the Minister proposes direct contact every 6-8 weeks and that such contact should be supervised by the godmother.  It would be community based and would last for some 2-3 hours depending on the activity and the transport time.  Additional consideration would be given to occasions such as the annual school play at Christmas and sports day in June.

14.      The mother wishes contact to be every 5-6 weeks for at least 3 hours together with sports day, the Christmas play and other school events as is felt appropriate.  She particularly wishes for an order for contact in December of each year with a view to her attending Imogen's birthday party.  She would also like to have telephone contact once a month should Imogen wish to speak to her mother.  She is content that contact should be supervised by the godmother. 

15.      The Minister's proposal in relation to the step-father is that there should be direct unsupervised contact 4 times a year in the community.  It would initially be for some 2.5 hours, although longer periods could be agreed in the future for specific activities.  Such contact should be in the presence of the godmother as Imogen has asked for the godmother to be present when she sees the step-father.  The plan would be that, provided Imogen is happy, the godmother could leave after a while and therefore only be there at the beginning and end of contact.  This would however be dependent on Imogen's wishes. 

16.      The step-father would like there to be an order for contact for 6 times a year with the removal of some of the restrictions imposed by the Children's Service.

17.      As to the step-grandmother and her partner, the Minister proposes direct contact in Jersey 4 times a year for about 2.5 hours in the community.  Such contact would not be supervised, although again the godmother would be there at the beginning and Imogen would have a choice as to whether the godmother stayed during such contact.  There would not be any Skype contact but the step-grandmother could continue to send a letter to Imogen up to once a month with the godmother endeavouring to send a short update to the step-grandmother on how Imogen is doing approximately once a month via email.  The Minister does not agree to Imogen going to stay with the step-grandmother in England in 2018 or in 2019 (when she will be moving to secondary school) but would be open to consideration of staying contact thereafter if that is in accordance with Imogen's wishes.

18.      The step-grandmother would like an order because of difficulties in the past.  She is not pressing for contact in Jersey more than 4 times a year at present, although she would like to have staying contact in England.

The evidence

(i)         The mother

19.      The Court received a statement from the mother dated 10^th April, 2017, prepared for the anticipated hearing on contact at that time together with an email from her advocates dated 26^th January, 2018, setting out her wishes in respect of contact.  She also gave oral evidence.

20.      She began by emphasising that she was very supportive of the placement with the godmother.  She said that the godmother was doing a wonderful job and she trusted the godmother to take the right decisions for Imogen.

21.      As to contact, she accepted that there had been some difficulties during her contact occasions in the past as set out in the contact logs, but things were now working very well.  Imogen's contact with her was now supervised by the godmother rather than by a social worker and the godmother gave the mother space which the social worker had not.  Imogen enjoyed seeing the godmother and the mother talking and knowing that they were best friends.  The godmother had not so far had to step in on any occasion of contact. 

22.      She said that Imogen cuddled her during contact visits and became upset when visits had to end.  Imogen said that she loved both the mother and the godmother.  She had said more than once that she wished to see the mother more.  This is supported by information contained in the papers before us.  To take one example, the minutes of the LAC review meeting on 17^th November, 2017, refer to Imogen saying that she wanted to see her mother more.

23.      The mother said she was happy for her contact to continue to be supervised by the godmother but she would like its frequency to be increased.  In answer to a question from Advocate Kerley, she said that she would like there to be ten occasions of contact a year i.e. approximately every five weeks.  She would also like additional contact visits such as the school play at Christmas, sports day and other school events such as the fete and parents' evening, although she recognised that on this latter occasion she should see the teachers separately from the godmother.  She also wished there to be telephone contact with Imogen.  She and the godmother spoke monthly on the telephone when the godmother would give her an update.  The mother thought that Imogen could be invited to speak to her at the end of such calls, but only if Imogen wished to do so.

24.      As to contact with the step-father, the mother thought that 4 times a year as suggested by the Children's Service was sufficient.  Imogen now knew that he was not her father and Imogen needed to have time to follow the pursuits that a nine year old child would normally do.  She would like contact with the step-father to be supervised.  She also wished there to be controls on the amount of time the step-father spent on the telephone and on the placing by him of any photographs on the internet.

25.      As to the step-grandmother, the mother thought that 3 times a year would be sufficient but would be content with 4 times if Imogen wished for that.  She would not be happy at Imogen going to the UK to stay with the step-grandmother.  Things had changed since the days when that happened.  Imogen was now placed with the godmother and visits to the UK without the godmother would take Imogen back to the old days when things were so difficult.  Imogen had never said to her that she wished to see the step-grandmother.

26.      In summary, Imogen had come a long way since the placement and the mother did not wish it to be put at risk.  She trusted the godmother to make good decisions about contact.

27.      In her closing submissions, Advocate Helm stated that, although there was an application for an order for contact from the mother which was before the Court, the mother was, on reflection, not actually seeking such an order.  The mother did however wish to have the observations of the Court on the amount of contact going forward and wished the Court to indicate if contact should be increased as she had requested.

(ii)        The step-father

28.      The Court was provided with statements from the step-father dated 7^th April, 2017, 12^th July, 2017 and 25^th January, 2018.  In addition the step-father gave oral evidence.

29.      His written statements set out much of the background.  They explain in some detail the circumstances in which he has come to lose faith in the Children's Service.  He believes that they do not particularly acknowledge the strength of his relationship with Imogen and his importance to her.  He gives evidence of occasions on which he considers the Children's Service has misrepresented the situation or has put an adverse spin on events which have occurred.  That is why he now asks for a court order because he does not have confidence that the Children's Service can be relied upon to adhere to the contact plan.

30.      As an example, he refers to paragraph 2.3.8 of the contact plan which reads "there shall be no Skype contact between [the step-father] and Imogen given how disruptive this was in 2016 and the adverse impact it had on Imogen as set out in previous statements of these proceedings".  He says that he has never had any skype contact with Imogen and that this is an obvious example of the drafting of the contact plan creating a misleading impression about him.

31.      In oral evidence, he said that he strongly supported the placement and considered that the godmother was doing a great job.  He agreed that contact should be for the benefit of Imogen.  However, Imogen had told him that she would like to see him more.  He was therefore asking for contact 6 times a year rather than 4 times a year as suggested by the Minister.  He would wish for more if Imogen wanted it.  He had no difficulty with the godmother being present at the beginning of contact sessions although he thought that, after a while, she would be able to leave because Imogen would be happy to stay with him.  He accepted however that the godmother should only leave if Imogen was happy with that.

32.      He was asked about the suggestion that he had become angry with Imogen when she had called him by his first name rather than daddy.  He said that this had come as a surprise because the life story work had not been carried out at the time.  However he denied that he had got angry.  He said he would be perfectly happy for Imogen to call him by his first name and she now knew that he was not her daddy.

33.      As to the suggestion on behalf of the Children's Service that he had spent too much time on the telephone during contact visits which were supervised by the Children's Service, he did not accept that this was so.  He had received some calls as he needed this for his business.  However it was perfectly natural for this to occur.  He accepted that it should be kept to a minimum.  As to photographs, he had taken photographs and would like to share them with, for example, his mother but he agreed they should not be put online.

34.      He would support Imogen going to stay with his mother in England because she had done so in the past and always enjoyed it.  He did not accept the validity of Dr Posner's opinion, which contributed to the suspension of contact in February 2017.  He had never met Dr Posner and she had never seen him with Imogen.  He did not therefore see how she could offer an authoritative opinion. 

35.      He explained that he lived in a house share with four other men.  He had his own bedroom and bathroom but with a shared lounge.  He would wish to be able to take Imogen back to the house on occasions and not be forced to be out in the community at all times.

36.      In her closing submission, Advocate Corbett, on behalf of the step-father, produced a draft order which, she said, did not make it mandatory for contact to take place, thereby meeting the arguments of the Minister in relation to flexibility.  The order would only require the Minister to make Imogen 'available for unsupervised contact'.  The step-father sought an order whether for 6 times (as he wished) or for 4 times (as the Minister proposed) but with the dates, times, venue and length of contact to be determined in conjunction with the godmother and the social worker.  The draft order would also provide for any additional contact should it be agreed between the godmother, the step-father and the social worker.  The key point was that the Children's Service had not treated the step-father well and he had no confidence in a contact plan which left matters to the Minister's discretion.  It would enable everyone to move forward with confidence if there was a clear order from the Court so that everyone knew where they stood. 

(iii)       The step-grandmother

37.      The step-grandmother filed statements dated 7^th April, 2017, 14^th July, 2017 and 25^th January, 2018.  She also gave oral evidence. 

38.      Much of the first two statements outlined the difficulties which she feels she has continued to face when dealing with the Children's Service since the care judgment.  We do not think it necessary to outline all these concerns.  Suffice it to give two examples:-

(i)        The care judgment recorded that the amended care plan of the Minister was that contact with the step-grandmother should be suspended until the life story work had been carried out but that there would be a LAC review within 28 days of the placement to consider how the placement with the godmother was progressing and to review all aspects of the care plan, including contact and life story work.  It was further planned that once the life story work had been done and Imogen had had time to process the information, the Minister would be proactive in inquiring of Imogen as to whether she wished to resume contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother and if so, of what nature.  As soon as she wished to recommence contact with either of them, an urgent care planning meeting would be convened within two weeks and appropriate proposals for direct contact would be considered and implemented, with a starting point of monthly skype contact with the step-grandmother.  Unfortunately, according to the step-grandmother, she was not kept informed at all.  She left messages with the then social worker on three occasions in April asking the social worker to contact her so that she could be informed of the outcome of the LAC review meeting.  Having not heard from the social worker, she tried to speak to a senior manager on 3^rd May and again on 4^th May.  She was given the name of a new member of the team who spoke to her and said that she would ask the social worker to contact the step-grandmother.  When eventually she managed to speak to the social worker she was told that there was no plan to resume skype contact at this stage.  On 18^th May, the social worker telephoned to say that she was leaving and that Imogen would have a new social worker, although the step-grandmother was not given the name of that person.

(ii)       Having had direct contact with Imogen on two occasions, namely 28^th July, 2016 and 20^th February, 2017, the step-grandmother spoke with the new social worker Laura Stark on 22^nd February about the proposed direct contact in April and that she had booked to come over.  She was then informed that the Minister was proposing to suspend contact for six months.  Even though she had paid for flights and a hotel in April, the proposed contact of that time was not allowed to go ahead.

39.      The step-grandmother does not accept that too much contact with her had contributed to any difficulties in early 2017.  She states that she only had six skype contacts lasting a total of some three hours between 16^th September 2016 and April 2017 and had only had two occasions of direct contact.

40.      Furthermore, like the step-father, she feels that the Children's Service underplays the significance of her relationship with Imogen.  She too is referred to by the Children's Service as a family friend but feels that she is much more of a grandmother, even if there is no biological relationship. 

41.      In the light of the unfortunate history of the matter, she feels that there must be a court order because she does not trust the Children's Service.  In terms of recent examples, she points to the fact that, following a very good meeting between all the relevant parties on 25^th July 2017, it had been agreed firstly, that reassurance would be given to Imogen that she had not been abandoned by the step-grandmother but the way in which this was to be done was to be agreed with the social worker; and secondly, there was to be an acknowledgment by the social worker of the fact that the step-grandmother had been there for Imogen and had played a significant role in her life. 

42.      Laura Stark was also to advise the step-grandmother as to how best the step-grandmother could communicate to Imogen that she was supportive of Imogen's placement with the godmother.  It was agreed in the amended care plan that this would commence by the end of August.  However, despite prompting, it was not until December 2017 that Miss Stark communicated advice as to how best the step-grandmother should give the message to Imogen that she was supportive of her placement.  At the same time, the step-grandmother asked if Imogen knew that the step-grandmother had fought for her in Court and tried to foster her.  Miss Stark said she would look into it and get back to her but, at the time of preparing her statement on 25^th January, 2018, the step-grandmother had heard nothing further. 

43.      It was against that background of her experience with the Children's Service that the step-grandmother sought an order for contact.  She was content that, as recommended in the contact plan, direct contact should take place 4 times a year in Jersey.  However she would like there to be provision for contact to take place more than once during a particular visit given that it is expensive to come over and that the step-grandmother does have very limited means.  She would also like Imogen to come to visit her in the UK in the summer of 2018.

44.      In her evidence, the step-grandmother stated that, although she had been devastated when the decision in the care judgment went against her, she nevertheless was very supportive of the placement with the godmother and understood the importance of not destabilising that placement.  She would do nothing to undermine it.  She did not feel there was any need for supervised contact.  She would be happy for the godmother to bring Imogen to contact occasions but she expected there to be no difficulty in the godmother then leaving.

(iv)       Laura Stark

45.      Ms Stark has been the allocated social worker for Imogen since January 2017.  The Court received statements from her dated 16^th March 2017 and July 2017 together with the contact plan.  In her statements, she explained the background to the events since the care judgment and, in particular, summarised the problems which led to the decision to suspend contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother for six months in March 2017.  Imogen was showing anxious behaviour and there was concern that the placement was being put at risk as Imogen was not coping with the level of contact.  She was also not managing the level of visits contact from social workers and this was reduced at the same time as contact was suspended. 

46.      In her oral evidence, she explained the thinking behind the Minister's proposals for contact as contained in the contact plan.  As to the level of contact, she emphasised the need not to destabilise the placement with the godmother, given the fact that contact had to take place with three parties, namely the mother, the step-father and the step-grandmother.  Even on the Minster's proposals, there would be some 14 occasions of contact per year, all of which would involve the godmother as well as Imogen.  Such a level of contact would interfere with Imogen doing the things which a girl of her age would normally do, such as going to children's parties, undertaking activities with her family (i.e. the godmother, etc.).  The placement was going extremely well.  Imogen was very settled with the godmother and she had no concerns about the care which the godmother and her partner were giving to Imogen.  The godmother was very open to advice and often sought guidance where she felt it was necessary.  It was vital that the placement be maintained and that Imogen felt secure that her future lay with the godmother's family.  Too much contact would place this at risk, as had been shown in 2017. 

47.      As to the level of contact with the mother, it was true that Imogen had said on occasions that she would like to see her mother more but this had to be balanced against the need to ensure that Imogen saw her future as part of the godmother's family.  Ms Stark felt that the Minister's proposal was the correct level for the time being, although the matter could be kept under review as Imogen matured and developed.  The Children's Service were clear that contact with the mother needed to be supervised but supervision by the godmother was working well and it gave Imogen confidence to see the godmother and the mother getting on so well.  She agreed however that, as well as the regular contact, there could be additional contact on special occasions as suggested by the mother e.g. Imogen's birthday, school plays, sports day and other school events.  

48.      As to the level of contact with the step-father, it is clear that Imogen wished to see him but she felt that the level proposed by the Minister was sufficient.  An increase had to be placed in the context of Imogen also having contact with the mother and the step-grandmother and she thought that it would all become too much for Imogen.  However, again, this was a matter which could be kept under review as Imogen matured and great weight would be placed upon her views as she grew older.  

49.      As to the level of contact with the step-grandmother, the Minister was content with four contact occasions in Jersey which appear to be accepted by the step-grandmother.  Ms Stark was not in favour of Imogen staying with the step-grandmother in England at this stage unless the godmother was also over there.  Although Imogen had stayed with the godmother previously in the UK, this had been at a very different time when Imogen was living with the mother.  It was too soon after the placement for her to go to the UK this year and next year there would be a move to secondary school which would need to be planned carefully.  Consideration could be given to a visit in 2020 if Imogen and the godmother were happy with it. 

50.      The Minister was not in favour of there being an order for contact in relation to any of the applicants.  It would reduce the ability to be flexible in the light of changing circumstances.  It would mean that any change in contact arrangements would have to be brought back to Court.  This would reintroduce adversarial proceedings, which were not helping the position or the relationship between all the various parties.  She confirmed that the Minister acknowledged that the step-father and the step-grandmother were important persons in Imogen's life and that Imogen wished to see them. 

51.      In response to questions from Advocate Corbett, she acknowledged that there was no objection to the godmother liaising with the step-father (or step-grandmother) over practical arrangements about exactly when and where to meet on occasions of contact, but she was firmly of the view that the Children's Service had to be responsible for the overall level of contact so as to ensure that it was managed in Imogen's best interests. 

52.      She was pressed by Advocate Dutôt as to whether she had kept the step-grandmother properly informed.  She acknowledged that there had been a delay in advising the step-grandmother as set out at para 42 above and further accepted that she did not know if the letter at 8/58 in the Court bundle had been given to Imogen or whether Imogen had yet been told that the step-grandmother had wanted Imogen to live with her at the time of the care proceedings.  She further accepted that the IRO had not telephoned the step-grandmother as envisaged in the care plan and that there had no communication after an October care planning meeting and a delay in communication in relation to a November care plan meeting. 

(v)        Gill Timmis (the Guardian)

53.      The Guardian supported the Minister's contact plan and was not in favour of the Court making an order.  She had been to see Imogen recently and it was clear that Imogen was fed up with talking about who she did or did not want to see by way of contact and was keen to avoid talking about the subject.  The Guardian was firmly of the view that Imogen just wanted to get on and live the life of a 10 year old.  The godmother's family was now her family and she needed to spend time with them. 

54.      The Minister's proposals involved 14 occasions of contact.  She considered that this was enough and would not like to see any more for this little girl.  She felt that the proposed number of contacts with each of the mother, the step-father and the step-grandmother was appropriate for the time being.  She also supported the Minister in thinking that it would not be appropriate for there to be staying contact in England with the step-grandmother at this stage but felt it could clearly be considered in future if Imogen wished for it and the godmother and the Minister agreed. 

55.      She was not in favour of the Court making an order.  Imogen could change a lot over the next couple of years and contact arrangements which seemed satisfactory at present might not be right then.  It would be undesirable that the parties should have to come back to Court if it was wished to change the contact arrangements in any way.  She believed the Minister could be trusted to maintain the contact as proposed and the Children's Service were certainly aware of how sensitive the issue of contact was. 

56.      The Guardian was confident about the placement and considered the godmother and her partner to be very committed and informed carers. 

Decision

57.      We begin by acknowledging and expressing some understanding of the distrust which the step-father and step-grandmother have of the Children's Service.  The reasons for this are set out in the judgment of 30^th November 2015 and at paras 115-133 of the care judgment.  Things have improved since Ms Stark became the allocated social worker to Imogen but we think that the Children's Service has still not fully appreciated how poorly it has treated the step-father and the step-grandmother in the past and the corresponding need to go that extra mile to restore confidence.  As set out above, there have been recent instances where there has been a delay in following through agreed matters or a lack of communication.  We urge the Children's Service to do all in its power to regain the trust and confidence of the step-father and the step-grandmother.  It will be to everyone's benefit and, most particularly, to Imogen's if that were to occur. 

58.      However, we must make our decision having regard to what is in Imogen's best interests.  In our judgment, her interests would best be served by not making a specific order for contact and by approving the level of contact proposed by the Minister. 

59.      As to whether specific orders for contact should be made, our reasons for not making an order can briefly be summarised as follows:-

(i)        Notwithstanding the chequered history of this matter, we accept the evidence of Ms Stark to the effect that the Children's Service recognises the importance of the relationship which Imogen has with all three applicants and wishes to maintain them.  Whilst the Children's Service must up its game in respect of communication and making people feel involved and valued, we have no reason to think that, in the absence of a change of circumstances, the Minister will not adhere to the contact plan which he has proposed.  As the Guardian said, one needs to trust the people who have responsibility for Imogen and that at present consists of the Minister and the godmother. 

(ii)       For the reasons given by Ms Stark and the Guardian, we think that specific contact orders would be undesirable.  Imogen is now 10.  She will mature and change considerably over the next few years and her wishes and feelings in respect of contact may well change accordingly.  We agree with both Ms Stark and the Guardian that it would be highly undesirable to have to come back to Court if it were felt that there should be a change in contact arrangements.  What the Court considers to be appropriate today may not be appropriate in a year or two's time.  Bringing the parties back before the Court is likely to impose a strain on the relationship between the parties, which in turn will impact on Imogen's wellbeing.  Furthermore, it would involve the Guardian, the social worker and others yet again seeking to ascertain evidence from Imogen as to what she wishes for and it is clear that she does not welcome this. 

(iii)      Advocate Corbett submitted that her draft order (which provided that the Minister 'shall make .. Imogen available for .. contact') did not impose an obligation for contact to occur if Imogen did not wish it, and maintained flexibility.  We cannot agree.  If there is an order, the expectation is that contact must take place in accordance with the order unless the child places such strong objections as to render it inappropriate, in which event the Minister would have to bring the matter back to Court for a variation.        

60.      Whether or not to make specific orders is of course inextricably linked with whether we consider the Minister's current proposals for the level of contact to be adequate.  Again, we accept the evidence of Ms Stark and the Guardian in this respect. 

61.      As to the mother, she ultimately withdrew her application for an order and is content to work with the Minister and the godmother.  We think the Minister must keep the level of contact with the mother under review.  It is clear that the relationship with the mother is extremely important to Imogen and that she worries about her mother's wellbeing.  If Imogen expresses a desire to see her mother more and if the Minister (no doubt after consultation with the godmother) feels that this is appropriate, then that can take place.  It is not for us at this stage to say whether any increase would be appropriate in the future.  It would all depend upon the circumstances and how the placement is going.  In our judgment, the right course is to leave this in the hands of the Minister.  It is always open to the mother to bring new proceedings if she feels that there are circumstances to justify it.  We do however agree with the mother in principle having contact on school occasions etc. as suggested by her and we understand the Minister to be content with this.   

62.      As to the level of contact with the step-father, we agree with Ms Stark and the Guardian that the current amount of overall contact with the three applicants is sufficient and that an increase would not be desirable.  The placement appears to be going extremely well and it is vital that nothing is done to undermine it.  We accept that none of the applicant's wishes to do that but the effect of too much contact could be to do so inadvertently.  As to the nature of the contact with the step-father, the Minister has agreed to it being unsupervised but has indicated that the godmother should remain for so long as Imogen wishes this to be so.  We agree with that approach.  It may well be that after a while Imogen will be happy for the godmother to leave so that she remains alone with the step-father, in which event that should occur. 

63.      As to the level of contact with the step-grandmother, she does not ask for more than four occasions when she will visit Jersey.  She does however raise the possibility of seeing Imogen more than once during such a visit and we think that this is something which should be actively considered by the Minister in consultation with the godmother.  For example, the second occasion of contact during a single visit might be rather shorter but it would be natural in ordinary circumstances for a grandmother who visits Jersey to see her grandchild more than once during such a visit. 

64.      As to the question of contact in England, we accept the evidence of Ms Stark and the Guardian that it is too soon for that to occur.  The circumstances in which Imogen stayed with the step-grandmother previously were very different.  Again, this is something which should be considered in 2020 if Imogen expresses a wish for it to occur. 

65.      For these reasons, we make no specific order for contact and we approve the Minister's contact plan. 

66.      We cannot leave this case without expressing our admiration of all that the godmother has achieved.  It is clear from all the evidence before us that she and her family have shown enormous commitment to Imogen and are providing her with a loving and safe home.  It is also clear that the godmother is doing her level best to work well with all the other parties, who all love Imogen and wish to play a part in her life.  We commend her most warmly for all that she is doing. 

Authorities

In the matter of Imogen (Care order) [2016] JRC 081. 

In the matter of Imogen (Care proceedings) [2015] JRC 247.