Care proceedings - reasons for decision.
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Pitman |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Housing |
Applicant |
And |
(1) A (The Mother) |
First Respondent |
|
(2) B (The Father) |
Second Respondent |
|
(3) DD (The Child) (acting through her JFCAS Guardian) |
Third Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF DD (THE CHILD) (ACTING THROUGH HER JFCAS GUARDIAN) (CARE PROCEEDINGS)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for the Minister.
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the First Respondent.
Advocate L. K. Helm for the Second Respondent.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 4th March, 2020, the Court made an interim care order in respect of an 8 year old child, who for the purposes of anonymisation we will call DD.
2. We also approved the care plan, once the Minister had made various alterations to it suggested by the Court, having regard to the evidence heard. We now give reasons for our decision.
3. The mother and the father were both represented by counsel. Both are in their 40s. The father and mother are unmarried and only the mother has parental responsibility for DD, although both parents have played a part in DD's upbringing. Neither they, nor the Guardian, opposed the making of an interim care order.
4. We heard sworn evidence from the social worker and the Guardian only.
5. We were satisfied that, at the relevant time (when DD ceased to be cared for by her mother to be cared for by a family friend and neighbour E) there were reasonable grounds for believing that DD was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm and that harm or the likelihood of such harm was attributable to the care given to her or likely to be given to her if an interim care order was not made, such care being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give DD.
6. The social worker gave evidence in respect of the preliminary threshold document prepared by her on behalf of the Applicant, in respect of her own statement, and in respect of the care plan that was drafted by her and approved by her head of service.
7. The threshold evidence, after the social worker had been subjected to cross-examination, put forward by the Minister and accepted by the Court was that DD had suffered and is likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm as a result of her parenting because:
(i) The mother has a long history of alcohol misuse and continues to misuse alcohol, which impacts on her ability to parent DD. This has included, over the last three years, numerous referrals in respect of her alcohol misuse and, on 29th January, 2020, concerns expressed by the mother's probation officer that she was under the influence of alcohol when the mother cancelled her visit to probation, which was confirmed by a welfare visit by the Children's Service to the mother. It was on that date that DD went to live with E.
On 17th February, 2020, E reported that the mother had been intoxicated the previous day and could hardly speak when she tried to speak to her daughter on the telephone, which had caused DD to be upset. On 22nd February, 2020, the mother contacted E saying she regretted being a bad mother and that DD would be better off without her around. E contacted that the police who attended the mother's address and found her asleep on the sofa, intoxicated, and unable to stand. She reported having taken an unknown quantity of propranolol and mirtazapine. The police called for an ambulance and the mother was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.
(ii) The mother has been violent towards DD and on [redacted] 2019, when drunk, she grabbed DD by the hair and punched her to the head three times. The mother was convicted of assault under Article 35 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 and sentenced to a 12 month probation order in [redacted] 2019. Her compliance with the probation order has been patchy.
(iii) The mother has had mental health problem, including attempting suicide.
(iv) The mother's inability to prioritise the needs of DD over her own and the mother's inability to engage with professionals to address her long-standing alcohol issues has been evidenced by various incidents over the last year including a refusal on the part of the mother to engage with the recommendation that she attend Establishment 1 to address her alcohol issues, and her refusal to sign an Article 17 agreement to place DD in the care of the Minister whilst assessments were undertaken.
(v) The father was, until recently, without a permanent address and in 2019 was sentenced to [redacted] imprisonment for a drink driving offence and is unable to offer DD permanent care.
(vi) The social worker also gave evidence about a recent troubling incident which took place on the Sunday before the hearing when DD reported to her social worker that her father had been drunk when he had taken her to a local swimming pool. The father had not been allowed into the pool area and a probation officer who happened to be at the pool at the same time formed the opinion that the father was under the influence of alcohol. This was not challenged by counsel on behalf of the father and the father did not give evidence. This led DD to be unsure as to whether or not she wished to continue having contact with her father, who she had been seeing frequently without difficulty up to that point.
8. Prior to the hearing, the Children's Service were unaware that the father in fact did have stable permanent accommodation available to him. Both the mother and the father were concerned that the care plan proposed by the Minister did not offer them sufficient contact, in particular overnight contact. Neither wished the contact that they were offered in the care plan to be supervised, or at least that was their position prior to the evidence being given.
9. It was clear from the evidence of the social worker that she was, prior to cross-examination, unaware of the extent to which DD has had contact with her father. For example, DD visited the father weekly when he was in prison in 2019 and prior to the hearing DD was enjoying visiting and overnight contact on a regular basis with her father, all unsupervised. There had been no concerns about that contact and there was evidence that DD generally looked forward to staying with her father. He had often taken her to school since she had gone to live with E and seen DD after school on occasions and taken her to have a meal. E had not raised any concerns about contact between DD and her father.
10. Since DD went to live with E, the mother had been seeing DD two or three times a week, as supervised by E. E lives within walking distance from the mother's home and lives with her partner F. They both work and do not have other children living with them.
11. DD has a good relationship with E. The social worker said that DD had become more talkative since she began living with E. DD and E were baking and cooking together, and E was described as "encouraging and nurturing". E is one of the mother's long-term friends.
12. [Redacted]
13. Nonetheless, the social worker observed a "positive relationship" between DD and E.
14. One of the orders that the Court was invited to make and did make was for a psychological assessment of both parents and of DD. These assessments will address the parenting skills and needs of the parents, particularly the history of alcohol misuse that both exhibit.
15. The social worker accepted that it would be appropriate for the care plan to make it clear that the supervised contact between DD and her mother (supervised by E) and between DD and her father (supervised by the Children's Service) should, when appropriate, move to unsupervised contact and then, if safe and appropriate, overnight staying contact with the mother and, separately, the father.
16. The Guardian's evidence was helpful to the Court. The Guardian observed that the father does not have parental responsibility for DD. She noted from the records that when DD was just three years old her father had thrown a lighter at her head and her mother had responded by throwing a glass at her father. She said that of the 10 adverse childhood experiences, DD had suffered seven, namely physical harm; emotional harm; loss of parent through custody and separation; seen her mother being treated violently (some years ago by her father); substance abuse; criminal behaviour in the family home and mental ill health of a parent. The Guardian was concerned about the fact that DD, when assaulted by her mother, gave quite a different account to those who went to assist her claiming that "my mum was trying to straighten my hair and hug me". The Guardian said this was dis-associative behaviour. DD was creating a "different reality", she was "trying to dis-associate from the trauma that she has suffered. She wants to protect her parents". This was a matter of concern and needed to be addressed, as a failure to address childhood trauma can lead to significant problems later in life.
17. The Guardian expressed the view that "the chronology only tells a very small piece of DD's life story. It must now be DD who is at the centre of her life and story and not the chronic needs her parents have". The Guardian anticipated that DD would like for her parents to be healthy and be able to co-parent her without adversity, so that she was cared by them and not looked after. DD's maternal grandmother and maternal aunt have been contacted and have shown an interest in caring for her should her mother be unable to do so. E and F have also expressed the wish that they would like to care for DD in the long-term should she be unable to return to her mother.
18. The Guardian expressed the view that in view of the harm suffered by DD and the chronic parental problems of substance misuse, mental ill health, family discord and domestic violence, the Minister should share parental responsibility with DD's mother in any event.
19. It was no surprise to her that DD had said that she wanted to return home to her mother, partly because DD was a "young carer and has provided her mother with care and comfort during her most troubled times".
20. Although neither parent gave evidence, it was clear to the Court that both mother and father love their daughter and wanted her to do well. They both attended Court and listened carefully to what was said in evidence by the social worker and the Guardian. The Court spoke directly to both parents when making an interim care order expressing the hope that they would take the opportunities available to them to overcome the challenges that they both face in order to be the best parents they could be for their daughter.
21. As indicated above, the threshold for making an interim care order pursuant to Article 30 of the Law was satisfied.
22. However, satisfaction of the threshold criteria is not sufficient for the making of a care order. The Court must go on and consider whether such an order is in the child's interests and have regard to the welfare checklist set out in Article 2(3) of the Law. This we now do.
DD wants to go back to live with her mother. However, those wishes need to be seen in the context described by the Guardian and summarised above.
These needs were not being met by her mother, or her father, and are now being met by E.
DD is currently living with E and is content.
There are no particular characteristics that the Court regards as relevant.
Both DD's parents have difficulties with alcohol. DD's mother is currently on probation for assaulting her and her compliance with the probation order has itself been marred by alcohol abuse.
Currently, neither parent is capable of meeting DD's needs and they are being met by E.
The Court considered whether any lesser order than an interim care order was appropriate and concluded that it was not.
23. The Court must not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order. We were satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order in this case.
24. Finally, before making an interim care order the Court must scrutinise the care plan prepared by the Minister, in particular the proposals for contact and invite the parties to comment on them. This we did both in evidence and we heard submissions on behalf of the mother and father. The Court suggested various amendments to the care plan, which were accepted by the Minister and a final version of the care plan, as amended, was sent to the Court the day after the hearing and re-signed by the social worker and her supervisor.
25. Accordingly, we adjourned the Minister's application for a care order, made an interim care order, approved the care plan as amended and made further ancillary directions in order to ensure that all relevant evidence is available for a final hearing in due course, including ordering a contact review hearing to take place within four weeks.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002