Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - freed for adoption.

[2020]JRC064

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 April 2020

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen and Christensen.

 

IN THE MATTER OF CC (THE CHILD) (ACTING THROUGH HIS JFCAS GUARDIAN (FREED FOR ADOPTION)

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

Advocate K. L. Kavanagh for the Minister

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the First Respondent.

Advocate M. R. Godden for the Second Respondent.

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

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        On 26^th March, 2020, the Court:

(i)        declared itself satisfied that the threshold criteria had been met within the meaning of Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;

(ii)       approved the care plan and made a final care order committing the child, CC (aged five months) to the care of the Minister; and

(iii)      ordered that CC be declared free for adoption pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961. 

Background

2.        CC is already subject to an interim care order granted by this Court shortly after birth.  Since that date CC has been cared for by foster carers who are approved adopters. 

3.        CC's mother and father are in their 20s.  In this judgment we will refer to them as "the mother" and "the father" respectively.  They are married and both had parental responsibility for CC. 

4.        The parents have had other children, who have been removed from their care and freed for adoption. 

5.        The mother was pregnant with CC during the proceedings relating to an older child. 

6.        Both parents had difficult starts in life [details redacted].  

7.        Prior to the birth of their first child, the parents were given assistance by the Children's Service including attending a parenting assessment centre [redacted] where they were under 24 hour supervision.  This assessment highlighted concerns about their lack of maturity, inability to focus and prioritise their child's needs after birth.  The father was asked to leave the assessment centre and the mother's placement was also ended before the end of the assessment.  After the first child was placed in foster care, both parents struggled to commit to contact with their baby.  An assessment of both parents by a psychologist at that time showed that the father showed signs of anti-social, emotionally unstable and self-defeating traits whilst the mother showed signs of strong avoidant and paranoid traits which led to both parents prioritising their own needs over their child and concluding "as such neither in my view have the necessary emotional maturity, skill set or empathy to be considered as potentially adequate parents".  In evidence before us the social worker said that she regarded that assessment, [redacted], as still accurate today. 

8.        Indeed it is plain from the evidence before us that that finding [redacted] remains true today.  The mother was already pregnant with the second child before the end of the care proceedings in relation to the first child.  There was assistance given to the parents during this period, including parenting sessions undertaken by the social worker and family support worker.  Both parents engaged with this work but the Children's Service continued to have concerns about the ability of either parent to meet the needs of an unborn child.  When the second child was born, both parents agreed that the child could be accommodated in foster care on a voluntary basis once he was discharged from the maternity unit.  The parents did engage with the Children's Service and attended contact sessions with the second child but both the Children's Service and experts continued to have concerns about the ability of either parent to meet the needs of the second child and, ultimately, the Court approved the Minister's care plan and granted a care order and freeing order, as indicated above. 

9.        We heard these applications when CC was still a baby.  We were informed that the parents consented to the making of an interim care order in relation to CC and for CC to be placed in foster care, as they were unable to have CC in their accommodation. 

10.      The Guardian described the parents' commitment to CC during these proceedings as being the "minimum, with lots of opportunities for contact missed by both parents". 

11.      The father did not engage in these proceedings until recently and indeed, until a paternity test had been taken, for a period did not accept being the father of CC.  The mother made a statement in February 2020 in which she said that she was aware of the issues that had been raised in respect of her problems attending contact sessions, lack of appropriate housing and issues with her relationship with the father and her mental health.  She realistically accepts that, "these are all problems which have got worse, not better since the interim care hearing.  Each problem has made the others worse." 

12.      In respect of the failure to attend contact sessions when they are available, the mother said that this was a consequence of her depression and issues that she had with the father. 

13.      The parents' relationship has been punctuated with episodes of domestic violence and a recent incident necessitated the involvement of the criminal justice system.  Notwithstanding having received advice not to have contact with one another, the parents have resumed cohabitation. 

14.      The mother has said that she is considering a referral to Jersey Talking Therapies to assist her with her mental health and address her depression.  We urge her to take all opportunities offered to her to assist her. 

15.      She realistically accepts that she is not in a position to care for CC.  She says that she loves CC very much, which the Court accepts.  She reluctantly decided not to oppose the Minister's application for a final care order and gives her consent to the order freeing CC for adoption. 

16.      [Redacted].

17.      The father has not provided a statement to the Court but has spoken to the Guardian on the telephone.  He said that he is not wishing to contest these proceedings.  The father said he did not have time to undertake the therapeutic work recommended by the experts in previous care proceedings owing to his own long working hours and the fact that they coincided with the opening hours of the services in question.  He and the mother have said that they would take steps to ensure that they were unlikely to have further children, recognising that they were unable to properly care for them. 

18.      Both parents have indicated that they wish to have yearly letterbox contact with CC which they feel would be important.  The father said his door would always be open to his children. 

19.      Notwithstanding the consent or lack of opposition to the orders sought on the part of the parents, the Court must be satisfied that this is an appropriate case to grant the orders sought by the Minister. 

Threshold

20.      The relevant part of Article 24(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 provides that the Court may only make a care order if it is satisfied:

"(2)(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -

(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child."

21.      Accordingly the Court must be satisfied that CC is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to the child. 

22.      The relevant date for determining whether the threshold criteria is met is, in this case, the time when the protective measures were first put in place, not the date of the final hearing.  In this case this is the date upon which CC was born [redacted]. 

23.      Nonetheless the Court is entitled to consider matters which have taken place since then in order to assess whether CC is likely to suffer significant harm in the future. 

24.      The Minister's final threshold document was provided to the Court and is not set out again in this judgment.  Most of the contents of the document were not contested by either party and we heard in evidence from the social worker in this case in support of the Minister's evidence in respect of threshold. 

25.      In summary the Court finds at the relevant date [redacted] CC was likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to him if a care order were not made. 

26.      The key findings made by the Court in this regard are as follows:

(i)        As set out in our judgment above in respect of the background of this matter, the parents have not demonstrated any significant change to their parenting since the removal of CC's older siblings from their care ['redacted];

(ii)       On an arranged home visit two weeks prior to CC's due date, the health visitor and social workers visited the accommodation of the parents and found it to be unfit for a baby;

(iii)      Dr Van Rooyen, the Court appointed chartered clinical psychologist who prepared two reports for the Court in April and December 2019.  She found in her April 2019 report that "the nature of their (the parents') relationship is such that they prioritise their relationship and need to support each other, over and above the needs and best interests of their infant."

(iv)      In respect of the mother, Dr Van Rooyen said "there had not been any growth and the patterns and concerns have remained unchanged since the psychological assessment in April 2019".  She continued "when [the mother] was asked if she posed any risk to an infant in her care, she responded by saying "yes, at times".  This is related to "not knowing when my mood will change"... "if I have a breakdown, it would not be nice for a child.""

(v)       The police attended the mother and father's home owing to domestic violence in December 2019 and noted that their accommodation was in extremely poor condition, untidy with discarded food on the floor and broken items and clothing strewn everywhere.

(vi)      The father attended one contact session only with CC after CC left the maternity ward and said that he did not wish to bond with the child as he anticipated that the child would be removed permanently from them; the mother's attendance at contact had been sporadic and she has not attended since November 2019. 

(vii)     The father did not agree to a referral to Jersey Talking Therapies until October 2019 and has not engaged since.  The father also failed to engage in the court directed psychological assessment with Dr Van Rooyen. 

27.      Satisfaction of the threshold test is a pre-condition to a care order but not sufficient in itself.  The Court must go on to consider what order, if any, should be made and, bearing in mind at all times the child's welfare is the paramount consideration, should go on to consider the seven matters ("the welfare checklist") set out in Article 2(3) of the Law. 

The welfare checklist

28.      In this respect we have been greatly assisted by the evidence of the Guardian. 

CC's wishes and feelings (considered in the light of his age and understanding)

29.      Clearly CC is too young to articulate his own views.  Any child of his age would wished to be loved, nurtured and to be in a secure and safe environment.  In this regard CC's needs are currently met by CC's foster carers.  CC is settled and developing well. 

CC's physical, emotional and educational needs

30.      These needs are met by CC's foster carers.  CC is fit and healthy.  CC is slight but has remained on the same growth trajectory since birth.  When CC is awake CC is alert and happy and is meeting all expected developmental milestones.  CC is relaxed and content.  CC has had two contacts with CC's father, once on the maternity ward and once in late November.  CC has had seven contacts with CC's mother since being in foster care, the last in late November 2019.  Both parents have, in the Guardian's opinion, missed many opportunities to build an emotional connection with their child and vice versa. 

The likely effect on the child of any change in his or her circumstances 

31.      The recommendation in the care plan is for CC to be freed for adoption, severing all face to face contact with his birth family but remaining in his current placement, the current carers having been approved as foster carers to adopt.  The Guardian comprehensively analysed the options available to CC namely: 

(i)        Returning to the care of both CC's parents;

(ii)       Returning to the joint care of CC's parents or to the sole care of one of CC's parents under the auspices of a supervision order;

(iii)      Being placed in the care of extended family members under a residence order (not an option  as no family members have been identified as suitable);

(iv)      Being placed in long-term foster care under the auspices of a care order; or 

(v)       Being made subject to a full care and freeing order, with CC possibly being adopted in due course by CC's current foster carers. 

32.      It is clear that the fifth option is in the best interests of CC and is consistent with CC's current circumstances. 

The child's age, sex, background and any characteristics of the child which the Court considers relevant

33.      There are no particular background characteristics of significance.  CC was born in Jersey as was CC's father.  CC's mother was born in the United Kingdom. 

Any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering

34.      As indicated, the parents are unable to care for CC.  CC would be at risk were CC to be returned to CC's mother or father, or both of them.  In evidence the social worker described the parenting of CC as being "disorganised neglect" which we regarded as an accurate assessment.  

How capable are each of the child's parents (or any other person looking after or having parental responsibility for the child) of meeting the child's needs

35.      All assessments carried out have considered the risk that the father and mother pose to their children and, for these purposes, CC.  Their relationship continues to be chaotic and they are unable to care for CC or any child in current circumstances.  They both experienced instability and trauma in their own childhoods which has affected them as adults.  Research indicates that will impact their attachment styles and personalities. 

36.      As to contact, the Minister proposes a goodbye session with CC if CC's parents wish to attend one.  In the course of the hearing the Court suggested an amendment to the care plan, which the Minister accepted to the effect that the current pandemic may make a physical farewell contact session difficult or impossible.  The Minister proposes promoting indirect contact between CC and CC's birth parents via letterbox and via his siblings.  The Guardian supports this as does the Court. 

The range and powers available to the Court under this Law in the proceedings in question

37.      We have considered this matter under the title "Likely effect on the child of any change in his or her circumstances" above.  The Court gave consideration to the various powers available to it, namely making no order, a supervision order, a family assistance order, and a residence order.  None of these was appropriate. 

The care plan

38.      The care plan envisages that CC should be freed for adoption.  Once a child has been freed for adoption, a former parent requires leave of the Court to make an application for contact.  Prior to a freeing order being made, the Minister is under a positive duty to allow reasonable contact under Article 27 of the Law.  This ceases when a freeing order is made, and under the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961 the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child (Article 3). 

39.      The Court scrutinised the care plan in relation to CC and suggested various changes at the hearing, all of which were accepted by the Minister.  In summary, CC will stay with CC's foster parents where CC is settled, happy and doing well.  The social worker said in evidence that CC was the only child in the foster family and that the foster parents were both doing a great job.  The matching panel were due to meet to consider the question of CC being adopted by the foster parents on 7^th April, 2020.  Counsel for CC said that CC was thriving in placement and the foster parents were devoted to CC.  There will be a final goodbye contact arranged between CC and CC's parents if appropriate and in CC's best interests.  Photographs will be taken for CC to have in due course when CC is undertaking life story work.  Then the parents will be offered indirect contact with CC in the form of letterbox contact once a year.  The Minister will also promote indirect contact between CC and CC's siblings once a year, thus enabling the siblings to gain an awareness of each other over time.  Hopefully this will progress to direct contact depending upon the development and understanding of all three children and the views of their adoptive parents. 

40.      The Court was content to agree the care plan as amended. 

Freeing for adoption

41.      When considering an application to free a child for adoption, Article 12 of the 1961 Law provides that where the Court is satisfied that each parent agrees to the making of an adoption order unconditionally or that the parents' consent should be dispensed with or on a ground specified in Article 13(2), the Court shall make the order.  Both mother and father have confirmed they consent to the Minister's application - the mother in her statement and the father via his advocate. 

42.      The effect of freeing CC for adoption is, pursuant to Article 12(5) of the 1961 Law, that sole parental responsibility will now be held by the Minister thus extinguishing the parents' parental responsibility for CC.  In the circumstances, the Court made the order sought and as summarised at paragraph 1 of this judgment. 

Postscript

43.      Counsel for both parents invited the Court to consider the Pause Programme which is currently unavailable in Jersey.  The Pause Programme works with women who have experienced or are at risk of repeated pregnancies resulting in children being removed from their care within care proceedings.  It targets its resources towards breaking this recurring cycle, by providing women with an opportunity to access support and retake control of their lives.  The Programme is run by a UK based organisation and attempts to prevent the damaging consequences of children being placed into care.  The Programme has had a good deal of success.  This might be a programme from which the mother in this case would derive substantial benefit.  We invite the Minister, if resources permit him, seriously to consider or reconsider, if already considered, the benefits of such a Programme being introduced in Jersey.  We were shown an independent evaluation of Pause dated July 2017 which was generally extremely positive. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961