Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - supervision order to be imposed for 12 months.

[2018]JRC130

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 July 2018

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen and Dulake.

 

IN THE MATTER OF WILLOW AND MATILDA (SUPERVISION ORDER)

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

Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Minister.

Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the First Respondent.

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Second Respondent.

Ms S. Clarke, Guardian.

judgment

the bailiff:

Introduction

1.        On 2^nd May, 2018, the Court gave judgment (unpublished) adjourning an application by the Minister for a final care order and an application for approval to arrange for the children now aged 9 and 4 to live outside Jersey and made an interim care order.  The reasons for that decision were handed down in a detailed judgment on 16^th May (In the matter of Willow and Matilda (Care proceedings) [2018] JRC 088.

2.        At paragraph 49 of that judgment, having set out the reasons why the Court was not prepared to make a final care order and approve a care plan which would require these children to be placed in long-term foster care in the United Kingdom, the Court (constituted then as it is now) said this:-

"If driven to it, we would have decided on 2^nd May that either there should be no order, or that there should be a supervision order with terms to be resolved after submissions had been received. In either event, that would have meant that the children could stay with foster carers on a temporary basis if the Mother consented but otherwise they would be returned to her. At the conclusion of her evidence, the Court asked the Mother a number of questions as to how she thought life would be if the children were returned to her, and to whom she would turn if there was any particular problem. There was no doubt at all in our judgment that she had not really thought about practical arrangements at all - she had not really contemplated how she was going to manage getting them to school and maintaining her job, how she would arrange for them to be picked up, what other care would be available, what arrangements would be made for the summer holidays and so on. There will be a number of practical things to think about."

3.        This was followed at paragraphs 52 and 53 by the following comments:-

"52.    Given the work that has to be done and the relatively short time in which it might be done, we resolved that an interim care order would be the best solution. It will clearly come to an end at some point between now and the end of July when the Minister's identified foster parents in Jersey will cease looking after the children, and at that point the current expectation is that the interim care order will come to an end and the children will be returned to the Mother, assuming she has not suffered any serious relapses. It is probable that it would be appropriate that a supervision order be made at that time and a package of measures need to be considered constructively between the Minister and the Mother in that connection. It seems very likely a family support worker will need to be allocated to the Mother in the early months until a routine has been established which works well for the children and minimises the stress for her, because stress will increase the likelihood of a relapse and all should be working to avoid that.

53.      The purpose of the interim care order therefore is to create a structure for organised progress towards the return of these children to the Mother over the next three months. It will also enable the Guardian to continue to be involved, which we think will be helpful over that period."

Process from 15^th May

4.        The judgment of 16^th May, coupled with the remarks made by the Court when the decision was handed down on 2^nd May illustrate that the decision had been taken by the Court that the children would be returned to the care of the Mother.  However, it was not safe to do so immediately, and for that reason only an interim care order was made.  It was made plain that, unless the Mother suffered any serious relapses in terms of alcohol or substance misuse, the children would be returned to her and we made it plain that we thought it would be likely that a supervision order ought to be made at that time, and therefore a package of measures needed to be considered constructively between the Minister and the Mother.  

5.        There was a directions hearing on 15^th May, the purpose of which was to identify what progress had been made following the delivery of the Court's decision on 2^nd May.  Advocate Benest expressed concerns about the front loading of interventions which was a concern both to her and to the Guardian.  She said on several occasions that a revised draft care plan had been requested and it was still not available.  She said that in the absence of any draft information as to what the Minister was proposing, she had many questions amongst which were - what would the family support worker actually do in practice?  What other support was going to be made available in the summer holidays?  How much more time would be available to the Mother to spend with her children?  She emphasised there was no objection to any of the interventions individually, but they should not all take place at once.  On behalf of the Father, Advocate Tremoceiro being elsewhere engaged, Advocate Benest also expressed the concern which he had about the directions as drafted, not about them individually, but about the probable clash with the Father's work commitments.  On behalf of the Minister, Advocate Kerley made a number of points which went to suggest that the draft programme of interventions could be managed given that some of the courses were not likely to start for some time.  It appears that he considered that apart from evening commitments, most of the interventions could be achieved on Mondays and Thursdays, leaving the Mother free to work on the other three days of the week. 

6.        On 22^nd May a directions hearing was held which dealt with some of the matters which were outstanding, and set dates by which the final statement and care plan and any other witness statements together with the parents' statements and the Guardian's recommendations should be filed. 

7.        On 22^nd May, Advocate Kerley, on behalf of the Minister indicated that he did not yet agree rehabilitation with the Mother.  The timetable proposed allowed the Mother to attend the proposed therapy and would enable the Minister to have further discussions with her.  He asked for an updated hair strand test.  Advocate Benest informed me as single judge that she had understood there would be a rehabilitation care plan - one arrived on her desk that morning, with a caveat in relation to the Minister's lack of agreement to the proposal, and it remained light on detail.  She emphasised that the Mother's employer was anxious to assist the Mother if he could, but there was concern about her ability to attend when called upon to do so, and about arrangements for child care during the school holidays, against a background that other staff members might become resentful if she had too favourable an arrangement.  The Guardian told me that she acknowledged that both parents had much to do, but she emphasised that what they were to be requested to do should be achievable.  The Mother's work schedule had been a significant part of her recovery and appointments with professionals should where possible work around that.  Advocate Kerley indicated on behalf of the Minister that he needed to know what employment will look like, and that the Minister proposed a meeting with the Mother the following week in order to discuss it. 

8.        There was a further directions hearing on 6^th June when the Minister applied for leave to instruct Dr Van Rooyen and Dr Englebrecht to provide an addendum report on the papers in respect of what the Minister described as the "proposal" to rehabilitate the children into the care of the Mother.  He also asked for transcripts of the experts' evidence before the Royal Court to be ordered.  The basis for the request to have an addendum report was that the experts had not had the opportunity to comment on the specific proposals, i.e. the detail of the care plan.  To that contention, Advocate Benest responded on behalf of the Mother that the application suggested that the Minister was seeking to re-open the Court's judgment, or alternatively was seeking to delegate micro-management of the rehabilitation plan to the experts.  She told me that the Mother still did not know if she was to have an additional contact period the following Friday as had originally been envisaged, and she confirmed that there had been a family support meeting the previous week.  She also confirmed that the employer had asked for the Mother's commitment to work that Friday, which she had not been able to give because she was hoping for an extended contact period with her children; that the Mother had not been able to attend work the previous Monday because of the appointments which had been made for her; nor on the Tuesday because in the morning she had at the Children's Service suggestion, attended the children's school, and because in the afternoon a drug and alcohol appointment had been fixed for her, albeit that it was cancelled by that service; nor on the Wednesday because she saw her employment adviser in the morning and attended the Directions hearing in the afternoon.  Her point had been that the Mother had not been able to commit to her employer because she was prioritising her children. The application for a further set of reports from the experts was refused. 

9.        At the end of May 2018 the former social worker to this family, Andrea Codrington, was replaced with a new social worker Ms Wendy Buchanan, appointed to the Children's Service in April.  Ms Buchanan filed on behalf of the Minister a statement on 13^th June.  This report had as its purpose the provision of an updated position concerning the care plan for the children.  Perhaps surprisingly, the Minister in this report made it plain that the reunification of the children to the care of the Mother would in his view once more place the children at risk of significant harm.  The Minister did not believe that it was in their best interests for a rehabilitation plan to be progressed despite the approach of the Court, supported by the Guardian.  The Minister emphasised that the ultimate success of the support and intervention package which he had developed through the Children's Service was dependent upon the cooperation and meaningful engagement of the parents.  It was said that despite the parents being reminded on 4^th June during a contact period with the children that there would be a looked after child review for them on 6^th June, they did not attend.  At that meeting the professionals present all agreed that if the plan were for the children to have unsupervised contact with their mother, it would put them at risk of significant harm.  The reasons for that conclusion were essentially the same reasons as had been advanced in their evidence respectively by Doctors Englebrecht and Van Rooyen.  The statement also indicates that the independent reviewing officer did not endorse the care plan that the children should return to the full time care of their mother, due to the same concerns.  Accordingly the Minister came back with a care plan proposed for both children that (although there was no new evidence since the hearing in May) as the parents had not demonstrated a period of abstinence from alcohol and drugs, the children could not be safely returned to the Mother's care and accordingly the plan was to place them both in a long-term foster placement off island.  The Minister had identified a particular placement and would seek the Court's leave to place the children there.  The care plan indicated that the Guardian supported the Minster's care plan for the children to achieve permanence through long-term fostering.  It was also said that the independent reviewing officer supported the care plan.

10.      The Minister's approach came as both a surprise and disappointment to the parents as was plain in the position statements, which they both filed.  The Father indicated that he had now taken big strides permanently to address his alcohol problems.  He had stopped drinking alcohol entirely since the court hearing in May, with just one exception, namely at a family gathering on Father's Day when he had a couple of beers.  He had registered with a General Practitioner and could access medical care.  He was hoping to press his doctor for a referral to a back specialist to deal with the underlying causes of his frequent back pain and address the need for painkillers.  He had engaged with the Alcohol and Drugs Service including meeting his key worker who had obtained a place for him on the relapse prevention course run by that Service.  He had attended Alcoholics Anonymous each week on a Wednesday evening, and a separate Narcotics Anonymous meeting.  He had given samples for a hair strand and blood test which showed what he described as a "huge reduction" in his intake of alcohol, but did not tell the full story.  He expressed determination to maintain the changes which he had made to his lifestyle for the sake of his children.  He also expressed the view that the Mother had made some big changes in her lifestyle as well. 

11.      He expressed disappointment at the Minister's statement which indicated that the parents had consistently failed to engage with the Children's Service.  He accepted that he had missed the LAC review on 6^th June this year, and apologised for it.  He said that the meeting had simply slipped his mind and the explanation was that there were a number of appointments he had had, with lawyers, counsellors, doctors, the hospital as well as the relapse prevention course and weekly AA and NA meetings, as well as his contact sessions with the children. 

12.      The Mother in her statement expressed similar shock and dismay at the Minister's continued proposal that the children move to a long-term foster placement in the UK.  She said that the first she knew of the continuation of this plan was when she read it in the final statement, and that as far as she was aware up to that point, both Minister and parents were progressing with a plan for the children to be rehabilitated to her. She had started having unsupervised contact with them, and she said in her statement that the children had been told by the social worker that they were coming back to her and they still thought they were coming home.  She had attended the relapse prevention group on Mondays between 11:30am and 1pm, which she found helpful and instructive.  She gave information about the family support meeting which had taken place on 1^st June, which she had attended, both with her mother and her lawyer, but also with the Father and members of his family, and his lawyer. The Minister's advocate and the social worker Ms Buchanan were also there.  More detailed arrangements were set out particularly for the children's summer holidays and she said that the Children's Service had agreed to assist with up to three days per week activities for the children through a Childcare provider during the summer holiday if she were not working.  She had asked Ms Buchanan whether the Children's Service could provide practical assistance in getting the children to and from the Childcare provider, given the fact that the Mother does not drive, and it was said that enquiries would be made and the Children's Service would come back to her.  Since then, although nothing formal had been heard, the Children's Service has indicated they cannot assist. 

13.      In her statement she gave some details of her diary commitments.  There were indeed full commitments on 4^th, 5^th and 6^th June.  In particular in relation to 6^th June, she had a meeting with her employment adviser in the morning, a meeting she was required to attend as she received Income Support to pay her rent and the employment advisor would be trying to help her back to work through the Back to Work Scheme.  In the afternoon, as previously indicated, there was a directions hearing and at that time, she learned that she had not attended the LAC review in the morning.  With the various appointments changing at short notice, even the directions hearing on the Wednesday afternoon had only been listed the day before - she had become confused, because she thought the LAC review was due the following day. 

14.      More worryingly, the results of these various appointments are that the Mother has not been able to continue work.  She advised that her employer had offered to provide further work to her once she knew what her commitments were. 

15.      The Mother reiterated her position that she wanted the children to return home to her when the foster placement came to an end. 

16.      The Guardian filed her report on 26^th June.  In it she indicated that she had spoken with the independent reviewing officer on 22^nd May after the directions hearing, and had been told that that officer disagreed with the outcome of the final hearing and the contents of the Court judgment.  Apparently the Guardian was informed that the independent reviewing officer would not endorse a care plan for the children to return home.  On 11^th June, JFCAS had received a further communication from the IRO setting out her opposition to the findings of the Court and indicating that she had recommended a child protection conference should be convened prior to any rehabilitation plan commencing.  The IRO provided a copy of an email dated 6^th June which she had sent to Ms Buchanan's team manager, Ms Jane Jones, and in that email she had reiterated her view that the children would be at risk of significant harm if they were to have unsupervised contact with the Mother. 

17.      In her report, the Guardian says that she had read the final evidence and care plans of the Minister carefully, and noted that it had been said that she supported the care plan for long-term fostering.  The Guardian said that that statement was supposition on the part of the Minister and she did not know why the Minister had included such a statement in his final evidence.  In fact she did not support the care plan for long-term fostering.  Her view remained that the rehabilitation plan should continue because the parents remained on the right trajectory with regard to their own recovery.  Worryingly, she expressed the view that although the Minister criticised the parents and the Mother in particular for a failure to engage and cooperate with services, it was clear in the light of the evidence she produced that the Minister did not accept the outcome of the previous hearing, and she thought it was unlikely that the Children's Service would try to work openly and constructively with the parents.  She said that both parents had noted this attitude from the Minister, and the Mother had found the whole process to be very stressful.  She did not consider the Mother was exhibiting disguised compliance.  In her view the Minister was in a position of enormous power and control, and had used it inappropriately.  She was not surprised that the Mother had found it difficult to navigate her way with Children's Services in the face of such hostility. 

18.      Her recommendation would have been for a supervision order, but given the Minister's views it might be that no order would be the appropriate outcome.  She concluded:-

"I have been surprised with the intransigent view taken by the Minister.  No offers of support have been forthcoming.  I cannot see how the Minister would try to work constructively with this family.  The Minister seems to be using every effort to distance themselves [sic] from any decision for the children to return home."

19.      The criticism of the Guardian led quite unusually to the Court being provided with a statement by the independent reviewing officer.  In that statement, she reiterated her views that the care plan proposed by the Minister was the right care plan for these children.  She considered that her view was based upon the facts and the reports of the expert witnesses.  She considered that the Guardian had not complied with the JFCAS and independent safeguarding and standards protocol in that she had failed to contact the IRO with concerns about the Children's Service management of the case. In her view, the Children's Service had not displayed any hostility towards the Mother and had exercised their powers and controls appropriately. 

20.      Faced with this wealth of material, the Minister proposed a witness template for the final hearing on 2^nd and 3^rd July which would require the Court to hear from Ms Buchanan the social worker, from a representative of the Drug and Alcohol Service, from the independent reviewing officer and from the head teacher at School A.  The witness template allowed for the Court to hear something also from the Mother. It was quite apparent that the Minister intended to request the Court to make a final care order and approve a care plan involving long-term off-island fostering and limited contact with the children's birth families. 

21.      We have gone into some detail about what has transpired between 2^nd May and 2^nd July because it is clear to us that it is not simply a matter of the Minister having been consistently late in filing documents and providing detailed structure to the parents as to what help was to be offered and what they, particularly the Mother, would be asked to do; he has simply disregarded the findings that the Court made at the earlier hearing. 

22.      The Court made it plain on the final day of that hearing in May when the decision not to grant the care order was announced that, if a decision had been taken there and then, there would have been either no order or a supervision order.  In fact the interim care order was imposed only to enable detailed arrangements to be put before us for approval for the rehabilitation of the children to their mother.  Naturally, because it was an interim care order, there was a reservation of the position in the event the Mother had not suffered "any serious relapses".  In fact there is little evidence of any serious relapses.  The Mother herself volunteered that on one occasion she went out with her parents and other family members to Mimosa and drank "some shots of Sambuca and ... four Southern Comforts and coke over about four hours ... I have not had a drink since. I know this does not look good but I am putting my hands up to show I am being completely honest as I know I have been accused of disguised compliance in the past.  To put it bluntly, I was relieved at how the April hearing had gone and I did not stop to think about the consequences of having a drink."

23.      In our judgment that statement was consistent with the independent evidence from the PETH tests and/or hair sampling and while the mother was wrong to drink alcohol with her family in the light of all the evidence which she had heard, this was nowhere near a series of "serious relapses" which would justify the Court's interference with the structure it had put together through the orders of 2^nd May and detailed in the judgment of 16^th May. 

24.      Yet still the care plan filed (late) by the Minister was essentially the same as that filed for the April hearing.  Accordingly, as had been said to Advocate Kerley during one of the directions hearings, the Court repeated at the outset of the hearing on 2^nd July that these children were to be returned to the Mother.  There was a particular need to make that plain to the Minister right at the outset of that hearing.  Although Advocate Kerley told us that the children had been told the Court would make a decision on 2^nd July as to where they would live, Advocate Benest informed us that the children thought that they were going home.  They had had unsupervised contact since 8^th June.  In their statements, the parents indicated that they thought the children had been told by the Children's Service that they were going home.  There was every reason why the children should have thought they were going home.  The Court's view was that the notion that, within a matter of no more than two or three weeks, the children would be uprooted and sent to new carers in the United Kingdom, with minimal preparation before they went was deeply worrying.  When Dr Van Rooyen gave her evidence in the May hearing, she was asked about the particular difficulties of putting the children in a place completely alien to them.  She said this:-

"Everything is going to change in every possible way and the children would need to have dealt with that in that context and there are ways to support children in that process and prepare them, but obviously it's the final thing.  So if that was the only option - I am not saying that it's, you know, looking at all the options, if that was the only option, the children would need to be very well prepared and they would need a lot of life story work and they would need a lot of pre ...

Bailiff: There's three weeks to do it.

Witness: Yes. So they need a lot of understanding of what's going to happen and know exactly step by step by step. So, one needs to manage it.  It's how one manages all situations. Whatever scenario one is facing, it is how one manages those situations will depend on how they cope, but it would be, it would be far more distressing.  It will be traumatic if they're not managed properly.  If it's managed properly, it will be distressing nonetheless, but then moving into any foster home would be distressing, but less distressing if it's just down the road and they have the same school.

So, it is a complex issue because, on the one hand, I think mum has the potential but she needs to engage in the work, my biggest worry is that, for want of practicalities, putting mother in a position where one is setting her up to fail and then everybody loses - everybody loses - and then there is no turning back from that because then it will be disaster. So that for me would be harmful to everybody, the children included, because their trust then would be broken forever ..."

25.      If it would have been difficult to prepare the children adequately, when Dr Van Rooyen gave her evidence on 2^nd May, when at least it was less likely the children would have realistic hopes of being rehabilitated with their mother, how much more difficult would it be in the three weeks from 2^nd July when during the interval they had spent unsupervised contact with the Mother and, according to her, believed they were going back to live with her. If the Children's Service had told the children that the Court would be making a decision that tends to support the view that the children could reasonably have expected rehabilitation too.  We were convinced at the earlier hearing that it would be wrong to make a care order approving a care plan with long-term fostering in the United Kingdom having regard to the circumstances of this case.  The Minister's lack of commitment to the judgment of the Court, revealed in the directions hearings since that judgment, and the likely trauma which would be caused to these children if we engaged with that process again re-emphasised the view which we had previously taken.  Accordingly, we indicated to Advocate Kerley at the outset of the hearing that these children were returning to their mother and the only issue was whether or not the Court would make a supervision order or make no order. 

Evidential update

26.      In the light of the foregoing direction, the Court heard evidence from the social worker Ms Buchanan.  She told us that she had provided support to the Mother by picking the children up from school and taking them home for unsupervised contact at the sessions on a Monday and Friday and that the following package of support was also being proposed - during the summer holidays, the Minister would fund the children's attendance for three days a week at the Childcare provider, and for eight weeks there would be a family support worker on hand to help the Mother with lifestyle choices. She considered that support for the children attending the Childcare provider five days a week during the summer would be available if the Mother regained employment.  The Minister would also wholeheartedly support the Mother attending therapeutic services and she would provide assistance in planning how that might be worked through.  Ms Buchanan told us the Mother had an appointment at Jersey Talking Therapies scheduled for the end of the present month.  She thought that it was useful that the Mother attended the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and noted that the relapse prevention group course had finished, and that the Mother wanted to repeat it. 

27.      Ms Buchanan told us that unsupervised contact had gone well, although it was very difficult for the children especially when they came to be handed back at the end of the contact session. Nonetheless, the children have been supported and have handled the situation sensitively and well. 

28.      In the light of the Court's direction that the children were to be rehabilitated with their Mother, a planning meeting would take place on the Wednesday following the Court sitting to arrange a return sooner rather than later.  The children needed to say a planned goodbye to their carers, and she thought that probably a return to the Mother's care on Thursday after school would minimise the possibility of the children suffering more anxiety. 

29.      Ms Buchanan said she would want to visit the Mother's home every day for the first two weeks.  The children might well want to test their Mother, and that is likely to be stressful.  She would want to go in daily to offer support.  She had in mind that the children would go back on a child protection plan.  That would involve a two weekly visit as well as monthly core group meetings which the parents would attend and when the progress of the children would be discussed.  She thought this was necessary because there should be a structure in place to monitor the Mother's progress.  Although Advocate Kerley had indicated earlier that the Minister would seek a supervision order, Ms Buchanan made it plain that she did not seek a supervision order.  In cross-examination Ms Buchanan told us that no one has suggested that the Mother needed basic parenting skills.  Getting the children to school on time was a difficulty which was linked through her substance misuse to particular lifestyle choices.  The question of funding travel to and from the Childcare provider was beyond her pay grade.  

30.      As to the Mother's attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, she would have to fund and find her own babysitters if these took place in the evening.  Ms Buchanan indicated that the Minister was prepared to look at short term support for gym club for the eldest child.  It was important not to stigmatise them but certainly she would look at it. 

31.      In further cross-examination by Advocate Tremoceiro, she agreed that the Father had taken some action following the Court's judgment.  As to what progress had been made since that judgment, she confirmed that the family support worker had been identified and progress had been made in relation to unsupervised contact. 

32.      Questioned by the Guardian, Ms Buchanan indicated once again her concern about the children returning to the Mother's care and she said she was not confident that they would be safe without a child protection plan.  The professional psychologists had indicated that they recommended total abstinence from alcohol and she thought the Mother would be under a good deal of pressure and would be liable to relapse if the children were returned to her.  With a child protection plan in place, the Children's Service would visit the family a minimum of every two weeks.  This was stronger from her perspective than a supervision order. 

33.      Ms Jane Jones, the social worker's team manager also gave some evidence on funding matters.  She made no commitments, but she said that the Minister was prepared to consider funding expenses such as taxis to the Childcare provider.  This was not in accordance with the usual policies adopted by the Children's Service, and she might have to consult outside her pay grade before agreeing any such proposal.  It was obvious to the Court that a question to Ms Jones as to why the Minister was able to fund much more expensive long-term foster care in the United Kingdom with associated regular and frequent travel costs for the social worker and also regular travel for the parents on an annual or bi-annual basis, but was not able to fund the costs of taxis for eight weeks to transport the children to the Childcare provider, caused her some embarrassment.  

34.      We also heard from the Mother who said that she had attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous for a total of three times between them.  She found the process very emotional.  The Mother told us that unsupervised contact had gone very well.  She had spent the day before the court hearing with the children on the beach.  In her view she could not do more than she had, and it was disappointing that the Minister still did not accept that she could look after her children.  When asked about her employment position, she said that her employment counsellor considered that she should not be in paid employment given all the other appointments she had.  She confirmed that because rent was paid for a three bedroomed house, there was an ancillary requirement that she should see an employment counsellor and this had clashed of course with the LAC review meeting.  She confirmed that if the Court so ordered, she would be very happy to take the children back on the Thursday after the court hearing. 

35.      In answer to questions from the Court, she said that she would try to attend Alcoholics Anonymous more regularly and that she had a general plan to return to work when she was able to do so.  Her relationship with the Father had not resumed and she was committed to her children.  She said that "my children are the most important thing to me". 

36.      There was however one comment which troubled us.  In the course of her evidence the Mother said that her mother "will babysit if I want to go out for a few drinks".  This seemed to us to reflect an inability on the Mother's part to recognise the force of the psychological evidence which had been given.  In effect, the Mother has been told by the psychologists in their evidence, in words of one syllable that she must not drink at all.  In answer to further questions from the Court on this, she agreed that that was what she hoped to achieve.  In our view it is extremely important that she recognises the good sense of the psychologists' advice and we can endorse it by saying that in the Court's experience, we have seen numbers of mothers who have thought they could control their drinking but in fact had found they were unable to do so and subsequently had lost their children into the Minister's care.  Even though one relapse, or possibly more than one relapse depending upon the timetables, might not cause the substitution of a care order, the Mother should be aware of the very real risk that anything other than abstinence would lead to such a loss of self-control on her part that the loss of the children followed.  

37.      We also heard from the Guardian.  She said the rehabilitation plan appeared to have gone well and no one had suggested anything had gone wrong with it.  Both parents had reported increasing optimism to her.  She had spoken to the Mother about her alcohol consumption and in the Guardian's view the Mother remained a work in progress.  The Guardian believed that the Mother had understood the need for her not to consume alcohol at all.

38.      In the Guardian's view, the Minister has not really contemplated anything other than long-term fostering in the United Kingdom for these children.  In those circumstances it may well be the case that no order had to be the appropriate outcome although she thought a supervision order would have been appropriate.  The Guardian expressed a worry that putting the children within a child protection plan would be treated as a mechanism for the Children's Service to look for evidential support for its own thinking, and that would not necessarily be helpful.  She was worried that the Children's Service had not moved on and accepted the judgment of the Court, and worried that that might colour their view as to what should happen in the future.  

39.      She agreed in cross-examination from Advocate Kerley that she had not seen the children since the last hearing or spoken with the social worker or the school.  She agreed she had not attended the family group meeting on 1^st June.  She said she had not been invited to the LAC review on 6^th June and did not know that that had taken place.  She noted she had emailed the social worker on 13^th June with reference to the rehabilitation plan, and had received a reply to the effect that the Children's Service were determined on their own care plan for the children to be removed.  Talking to the independent reviewing officer had simply confirmed that that lady did not accept the Court's judgment. 

40.      At the end of the evidence, Advocate Kerley on behalf of the Minister contended that the care plan should be approved, a care order made and the children placed in long-term foster care in the United Kingdom.  If the Court was not prepared to make that order, as had been made plain, the Minister did not agree to a supervision order being made.  The consequence of paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3 of the Law was that in the absence of the Minister's consent, no supervision order could be made. 

41.      The Court asked Advocate Kerley why the Minister contended that if the Minister's care plan should not be approved, then no order was more appropriate than a supervision order in circumstances where the advantages of the supervision order were that:-

(i)        Regular support could be offered to the Mother as a term and condition of that order, including, if necessary the requirement that PETH tests be taken to establish the extent of any alcohol intake; and

(ii)       Without the ability to impose conditions through a supervision order, any contact with the Father would be entirely unconditional, and left to the Mother alone.  This was in circumstances where the Minister had contended in the evidence that it would be unsafe for the children to have unsupervised contact with the Father. 

42.      It was put to Advocate Kerley that it was difficult to see how this in the circumstances could be considered to be in the best interests of the children, and it was therefore a surprising approach for the Minister to take.  The Court then resolved to adjourn until 10:30am the following day. 

43.      We were pleased on our return on 3^rd July to be advised that although the Minister remained concerned about the return of these children to their mother, the Minister, having regard to a court judgment, would agree a supervision order.  The Court then adjourned again to enable a draft supervision order and support plan to be submitted, which it duly was.  The terms of the supervision order are fully set out in the Act of Court, and it is sufficient to say for the purposes of this judgment, that the order adds conditions that the children are to live with the Mother, and should meet with the Minister as reasonably required; should participate in any other requirement reasonably in their interests; should have contact with the Father as directed by the Minister. 

44.      By consent, the parents agreed to comply with subparagraphs 1(a) and 1(c) of paragraph 3 Schedule 3 of the Law and, in particular, would themselves meet with the Minister as reasonably required, would attend planning meetings with the supervisor and other professionals as required, would require the children to participate in appointments or activities reasonably required in their best interests, would access support for the children as might be required and generally adhere to contact arrangements as directed by the Minister.

45.      The draft supervision order sets out, in a series of columns, actions in relation to a support plan.  These were also agreed by the parties.  

46.      In the circumstances, the Court having been satisfied that threshold was passed at the relevant date, and considering the children are still at some risk, albeit very much reduced from the risks which existed at the relevant date, has made a supervision order with the conditions requested. We wish to add the following comments:-

(i)        The parents have committed to changes in their lifestyle.  Such changes are never easy to achieve and it would not be at all surprising if from time to time there were errors made on their parts, particularly in the context of alcohol and substance abuse.  However, the tests and history show that in relation to the Mother since September last year, she has made very substantial progress indeed; and in relation to the Father, he too has made progress, albeit that is more recent.  They are both rightly regarded by the Guardian as a work in progress as far as that is concerned.  Both now and in the future, this will need to be reviewed through both ends of the telescope.  From the perspective of the parents, they simply must continue to aim for total abstinence because if they do not do so, the risks of a complete collapse back to the position they were in only approximately a year ago will be much higher and in that event the probability of the children being removed from the Mother's care becomes very high.  However, at the other end of the telescope, lies the approach of the Minister to any such lapses.  It is important that the Minister recalls the evidence of the psychologists that the removal of the children from their mother's care, from their schools, from their extended family, from their friends and from the island that they know is potentially completely traumatic.  Long-term fostering can often prove to be absolutely the best option in relation to children who have suffered damage from a failure on the part of their parents to give them good enough parenting care, but the other side of that coin is that fostering is itself often not particularly successful. 

(ii)       The Minister has made it plain that one of the criticisms of the parents is that they are not prepared to engage with the Children's Service.  It may well be that that criticism is justified in respect of the period up until the launch of these proceedings.  The evidence which we heard in this respect was second or third hand, but the social workers' reports might certainly suggest that conclusion.  It is important to recognise however that what we have seen during the last twelve months is not a reluctance to engage at all. The Minister must be careful to ensure that the previous experience does not jaundice his approach from now on. 

(iii)      It seems to us from reviewing the support plan and from the evidence we have heard generally that there is at least a risk that the Mother will face numbers of meetings ostensibly to support her.  In her comments agreeing the proposals which ultimately were made, the Guardian said that in her view it was vital that the Minister gave support and advice to the Mother and the Father, and not scrutiny and monitoring.  We agree with that.  To achieve that result means that the Children's Service will have to change the mind-set which they have had, not just for the last years, but in particular which they have had since the delivery of the Court's judgment.  That mind-set simply must change.  Our firm view not only on the evidence we have seen and heard but also on the approach actually taken by the Minister during the proceedings is that it may be difficult to achieve.  In his concluding submission, Advocate Kerley said that the Minister was well aware of his duty to act in the best interests of the children, and that the Children's Service would whole-heartedly commit to the implementation of the supervision order and support plan, and we do not doubt the sincerity of that commitment.  In making the comments we have about the change of mind-set, we reflect only that putting commitments into practice is sometimes as difficult for the Minister as it is for the parents, and in this case it applies to both.  Under Article 28 of the Law, the supervisor is required to "advise, assist and befriend the supervised child". That is done with younger children by ensuring advice, assistance and befriending of the parents and that will be very much needed in this case. 

(iv)      The Father is anxious to reach a stage where he might have unsupervised contact.  We sympathise with that, but equally sympathise with the Minister's concern that the Father must show that he is not exercising contact at a time when he is inebriated or under the influence of substances.  It may be that the right outcome is to look for a structure of supervised handover such that the Minister can be satisfied that the Father is not in fact inebriated or under the influence of substances at the time the children are delivered to his care.  At all events, that will be something for the Minister to consider in conjunction with the parents, and of course an application can always come back to the Court in future if that should be necessary.  In the context of the Father's contact, we add that the elder child, although not a child for whom he has parental responsibility, has always treated him as the father, and we have likewise. 

(v)       The elder child is already of an age where she can appreciate the likelihood of being taken away from her mother's care as a result of her mother's drinking.  We heard evidence that she had expressed the view that alcohol should be taken away from the world.  The Mother has shown that in the relatively short term she has been able to abstain from taking alcohol, at least for the most part and the Court is confident in her that she can achieve that on a permanent basis.  Whether she does or not will depend upon not only her continued commitment to her children but also the support of the Minister in the various ways which have been discussed.  The Mother may find additional support from remembering that her ongoing relationship with her daughter may well depend in the long term upon her ability to stay away from alcohol because her daughter has already expressed her views about that, as described above.  Although the Minister has not satisfied us on the balance of probability that a care order is appropriate, the Mother must recognise that while she has made enormous progress in the last twelve months, this is only the beginning.  The care of these children in athletic terms is a marathon not a 100 metre sprint.  If she continues on her present trajectory, she will gain enormously from her relationship with them as on their side they will from her too.  There is much at stake and this supervision order is just a start. 

47.      For all these reasons, threshold being passed, we impose a supervision order for a period of twelve months.  Depending on the Mother's progress during that period, it may well be appropriate for the Minister to apply to renew the order for a further period of twelve months nearer the expiry of the first order. 

Authorities

In the matter of Willow and Matilda (Care proceedings) [2018] JRC 088.