Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - application for contact

[2020]JRC077

Royal Court

(Family)

30 April 2020

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, and Jurats Olsen and Averty

 

IN THE MATTER OF IMOGEN (CARE ORDER - CONTACT)

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

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the First Applicant.

Advocate B. J. Corbett for Second Applicant

Advocate J. A. E. Kerley for First Respondent

Advocate L. K. Helm for Second Respondent

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Third Respondent

Advocate M. R. Godden for the Fourth Respondent

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        This judgment concerns applications by the First Applicant and the Second Applicant for contact with Imogen, who is now aged 12.  Leave to bring the applications was granted by the Court on 2^nd September 2019.  The hearing was listed for three days commencing 16^th March, 2020, but towards the end of the second day, the parties reached agreement that there should be no direct contact for the time being but that there should be indirect contact on the terms recorded in an agreement signed by all the parties. 

2.        In the circumstances, the Court made no order but simply noted the terms of the agreement, which was annexed to the Act.  However, at the request of the parties, we have prepared this judgment in order to record the background to the agreement. 

3.        This judgment follows on from a number of earlier judgments in these proceedings.  The three to which we would make specific reference are as follows:

(i)        In the matter of Imogen (Care Proceedings) [2015] JRC 247, 30^th November 2015 ("the November 2015 judgment").  

(ii)       In the matter of Imogen (Care Order) [2016] JRC 081, 11^th April 2016 ("the Care judgment"). 

(iii)      In the matter of Imogen (Care Order) [2018] JRC 084, 11^th May 2018 ("the Contact judgment"). 

4.        The full background is set out in the above judgments and it is not necessary for us to do so on this occasion.  However, we set out below some of the background to the present applications.  In doing so, we shall use the same terminology for the parties as in the previous judgments.  Thus the First Applicant is referred to as the 'step-father', the Second Applicant as the 'step-grandmother', the Second Respondent as 'the mother' and the Fourth Respondent as the 'godmother'. 

Background

5.        The step-father is not in fact Imogen's step-father.  He had a relationship with the mother for approximately two years and lived with the mother and Imogen for some time when Imogen was a toddler.  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 judgment in 2016, Imogen knew the step-father as "Daddy" and believed that he was in fact her father. 

6.        The step-grandmother is the step-father's mother.  She took on the role of step-grandmother to Imogen when her son became involved with the mother.  She continued in that role after her son's relationship with the mother ended.  Imogen spent several holiday periods with her in England prior to the Care judgment and she maintained contact with Imogen via Skype on a regular basis and on visits to Jersey. 

7.        The godmother is a close friend of the mother and has seen Imogen throughout her life on a very regular basis. 

8.        Following the grant of an emergency protection order on 9^th February, 2015, an interim care order was granted on 9^th March, 2015.  Following the granting of the emergency protection order, Imogen resided with foster carers.  The original social worker with responsibility for Imogen was in favour of Imogen going to live in England with the step-grandmother and a full assessment was successfully carried out on the step-grandmother.  Following a change in social worker, a full assessment was carried out on the godmother and, by the time the hearing for the final care order came before the Court in March 2016, the Minister was recommending a care order with a placement with the godmother, whereas the step-grandmother sought a placement with her in England.  The Court accepted that both the step-grandmother and the godmother were devoted to Imogen and wished to do their best for her by offering her a safe and secure home where she would be loved but, for the reasons set out in the Care judgment, the Court decided that the Minister and the Guardian were correct to recommend a placement with the godmother in preference to one with the step-grandmother.  Accordingly, a care order was made and Imogen has lived with the godmother since shortly after the hearing in March 2016. 

9.        As to contact, Dr Mair Edwards, the clinical psychologist who gave evidence at the hearing in March 2016, recommended that contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother should be suspended until life story work had been carried out; in particular, that Imogen had been informed that the step-father was not her biological father and that accordingly the step-grandmother was not her grandmother.  The Court summarised the position at para 113 of the Care judgment as follows:

"However we wish to express a clear view that, assuming the life story work goes well and that Imogen continues to express an interest in seeing the step-father and/or the step-grandmother, the Minister should show flexibility in his approach.  It is quite clear from the evidence that Imogen has derived great pleasure from seeing both the step-father and the step-grandmother and has benefitted from her contact with both.  They are important people in her life. In our judgment, the Minister should keep a very open mind as to the frequency and nature of the contact with them.  We accept that, given the number of important people in her life, Imogen must not be flooded with occasions of contact with different people to the prejudice of her placement with the godmother.  But conversely, the Minister must show flexibility in seeking to maintain these important relationships at a meaningful level if possible...."

10.      As already stated, it was envisaged at the time of the Care judgment that contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother would be suspended until the life story work had been completed with Imogen.  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 in her new placement with the godmother and other matters.  The Children's Service decided nevertheless that contact with the step-grandmother and the step-father should resume, which it did in the latter part of 2016. 

11.      Some life story work eventually took place on 28^th December, 2016, but thereafter concerns were raised as to the level of contact and whether this was having an adverse effect on Imogen's placement with the godmother.  In March 2017, Dr Posner of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service ("CAMHS") suggested that contact should be suspended for a while.  This was endorsed by the Minister who decided that contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother should be suspended for six months or so and that contact with the mother should be reduced.   

12.      Applications by the step-father and the step-grandmother for contact were brought but were adjourned in July 2017 on the basis that, as contact had been suspended for the last few months, the Court was not really in a position to consider the matter.  The Minister had by then agreed to re-introduce contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother.  This duly occurred and the applications for contact came before the Court in February 2018.  At that stage, the step-father was asking for an order for contact six times a year and the step-grandmother was asking for an order that there should be contact in Jersey four times a year.  Both the step-father and the step-grandmother felt that there had been difficulties in liaising with the Children's Service. 

13.      The Minster's proposal was that the step-father should have direct unsupervised contact four times a year in the community for some 2½ hours and that the step-grandmother should have direct contact in Jersey four times a year for about 2½ hours in the community.  Again such contact would not be supervised.  The Minister however opposed the imposition of an order because of the need for flexibility in the light of changing circumstances.  In this, the Minister was supported by the Guardian who felt that it would be undesirable for the parties to have to come back to Court if it was wished to change the contact arrangements, particularly given Imogen's aversion to being asked about such matters by social workers and other professionals. 

14.      For the reasons set out in the Contact judgment, the Court declined to make an order for contact.  In passing the Court said this at paragraph 59(i): 

"Notwithstanding the chequered history of this matter, we accept the evidence of [Imogen's social worker at the time] 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...."

We should add that the reference to three applicants is because the mother was also applying for a contact order at that time.  However, by the time of the hearing, she was no longer asking for an order and was content with the Minister's proposals for contact between her and Imogen.  The mother has had contact throughout these proceedings, but we do not refer to that topic further as the mother is content with the present arrangements for contact with her.  

Events since the Contact judgment

15.      During 2018, contact took place with both Applicants broadly as envisaged at the time of the Contact judgment.  So far as the Applicants were concerned, it went well.  For example, following an occasion of contact on 5^th August, 2018, Imogen asked for an additional contact whilst the step-grandmother was over in Jersey and that took place on 7^th August with both the step-father and step-grandmother. 

16.      To the Applicants' surprise, Imogen's social worker (by then a new one who had taken over in May 2018) wrote to the step-grandmother on 5^th October 2018 raising various concerns about the contact which had taken place in August.  This was apparently written without any previous discussion with the step-grandmother and therefore came out of the blue.  The step-grandmother was so concerned by this that she wrote a letter of complaint to the Children's Service which we understand was ultimately upheld.  It is clear from various papers that the relationship between the social worker and the step-grandmother was not very easy. 

17.      Be that as it may, the step-grandmother had a further occasion of contact with Imogen in Jersey in October 2018 and the step-father had an extra occasion of contact in December 2018 arranged at Imogen's request.  At that stage therefore, apart from the odd hiccup and some difficulty over whether arrangements should be made directly with the godmother or via the Children's Service, contact appears to have been going reasonably well.  In particular, in relation to the step-father, the social worker emailed him on 30^th January 2019 reporting that Imogen had said that she liked seeing the step-father and informing him that the Children's Service proposed increasing the scheduled contacts from four to five times a year with a view to there being extra contacts during the year if Imogen wished to do so or if there were any significant dates upon which the step-father would like to see Imogen.  The length of each contact was also to be increased to five hours on each occasion.  It appears from Dr Edwards' report that a Care Planning Meeting in January 2019 had also been informed that Imogen had stated that she would like to see the step-father and the step-grandmother, which is consistent with the social worker's email. 

18.      According to the step-father, although contact had been going well, there were difficulties of communicating with the social worker and he frequently left messages without receiving any response and emails were not responded to.  In particular, by 25^th January 2019, he had received no information about the next contact session, although it should have been during the course of January.  In view of those difficulties, Advocate Tremoceiro wrote on his behalf to the Law Officers' Department (LOD) on 25^th January recounting some of the communication difficulties and also recording the fact that there appeared to have been a change of approach as to whether the step-father could make contact arrangements directly with the godmother or not.  Following the contact hearing in February 2018, the then social worker had agreed that practical arrangements could be made directly with the godmother whereas, in her letter of 5^th October 2018, the social worker who had taken over in May 2018 had changed this and said that arrangements must be made through her.  Advocate Tremoceiro's letter ended by asking four specific questions and suggesting that a meeting might be the best way forward so that a constructive approach to Imogen's contact could be quickly re-established.  It was following this letter that the social worker's email of 30^th January (referred to in the preceding paragraph) was sent.  The step-father had contact with Imogen on 21^st February; and on 18^th February, the social worker had emailed to say that, having spoken to the godmother, it would be fine for arrangements to be made directly for contact in future. 

19.      In due course the meeting requested by Advocate Tremoceiro in his letter of 25^th January was arranged and by email of 20^th February, the step-father informed the social worker that his lawyer, Advocate Tremoceiro would be present.  The meeting was arranged for 4^th April, 2019 but, on arrival, Advocate Tremoceiro was denied access to the meeting and the head of service and the social worker insisted on meeting with the step-father alone.  At that meeting, the step-father was told that, contrary to the email of 18^th February, arrangements for contact should be made with the Children's Service rather than directly with the godmother.  Following the meeting, Advocate Tremoceiro (who had of course not been present at the meeting because of the attitude of the Children's Service) wrote to the LOD on 25^th April seeking clarification of a number of matters.  He sent reminders by email on 8^th May, 27^th May, 5^th June, 6^th June, 12^th June, 5^th July and 10^th July.  The LOD responded periodically indicating that they were awaiting instructions.  In the reminder of 6^th June, Advocate Tremoceiro's assistant said that the step-father had been informed that the then social worker was no longer assigned to the case but that he had not been notified of her replacement.  A further contact session with Imogen was due in July but the step-father did not know with whom he should liaise in order to make the necessary arrangements.  By email dated 28^th June to the Children's Service, the step-father suggested 25^th July as the date for the planned July contact, but received no reply.   

20.      Finally, on 16^th July, Advocate Tremoceiro emailed the LOD to say that, in the light of the Children's Service's continued failure to respond to the various communications regarding contact, he was attaching an application for contact which he intended to send to the Court the next day.  The LOD said that they were forwarding this email to the relevant manager in the Children's Service requesting an urgent response.  The LOD were able to respond the next day to the effect that they had received instructions from the Children's Service that identified the replacement appointed social worker for Imogen ("the current social worker") and that he would be contacting the step-father to progress the proposed contact for 25^th July 2019.  The letter also responded to some of the outstanding queries in Advocate Tremoceiro's letter of 25^th April.  The response was however received after the step-father's application for leave to apply for contact had been filed with the Court. 

21.      According to the step-father, he was contacted by the current social worker on 17^th July, who apologised and explained he had received a really bad hand-over of the case.  He said he would make arrangements and revert to the step-father about the forthcoming contact.  However, later the same day, the step-father was contacted by a colleague of the current social worker, who explained that the current social worker had been called out on an urgent matter and that the issue of contact would be discussed at a meeting in the Children's Service on 18^th July following which the step-father would receive a telephone call. 

22.      According to the step-father, no such telephone call was received.  On 22^nd July, Advocate Tremoceiro again contacted the LOD explaining the need to know if the proposed contact would take place.  The step-father received a text from the current social worker on 23^rd July specifying the arrangements for the contact which would take place on 25^th July.  However, on 24^th July, the day before contact was due to take place, the step-father received a telephone call from a different person at the Children's Service, who said that 'as explained yesterday' there would be no contact between the step-father and Imogen because Imogen had said she did not want any such contact.  The step-father replied that no such thing had been explained to him yesterday and that, on the contrary, he had been told that contact would take place the following day.  The person insisted that he had been told yesterday that no contact would take place, although this was wholly inconsistent with the text message from the current social worker dated 23^rd July to the effect that contact would be going ahead.  The step-father has not had contact with Imogen since April 2019. 

23.      As to the step-grandmother, she was told by the current social worker on 23^rd July 2019 that Imogen did not wish to have contact with her in August as had been planned and she has not had contact with Imogen since then.  In those circumstances, the step-grandmother also applied for leave to bring an application for contact. 

The present application

24.      It is against that background that the step-father and the step-grandmother applied for leave to bring an application for contact.  As already mentioned, the Court granted them leave pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 on 3^rd September 2019.  At that time they were both seeking direct contact with Imogen, as had hitherto been the case. 

25.      On 10^th October, 2019, the Court directed that Dr Edwards be instructed to prepare a report on the question of contact between the Applicants and Imogen.  It was agreed that she would not interview Imogen because of Imogen's aversion to being questioned, but she would interview all the other interested parties either in person or by video call. 

26.      Dr Edwards produced her report on 30^th January, 2020.  We shall touch upon it in a little more detail later in this judgment, but she recommended against direct contact with either Applicant. 

27.      In the light of her report, the step-father modified his position.  In his witness statement of 14^th February, 2020, he made clear that he absolutely did not wish to force Imogen to have contact with him.  However, he sought an order that the Minister facilitate contact between Imogen and him four times a year by means of the social worker or family support worker simply mentioning to Imogen, a few weeks before the scheduled occasion of contact, that if she would like to see the step-father at any point, this could easily be arranged.  If Imogen were to say that she did not wish to see the step-father, he would respect that and no contact would go ahead.  He also asked for an order that information about the date and circumstances of the issue being broached and Imogen's response be provided to him in writing by the Children's Service.  That remained his position at the commencement of the hearing before us. 

28.      In her witness statement of 14^th February 2020, the step-grandmother maintained her stance that she wished there to be an order for direct contact, preferably four times a year.  However, at the beginning of the hearing on 16^th March, Advocate Corbett on her behalf said that, having considered the matter further in the light of the various reports, the step-grandmother was now seeking only indirect contact four times a year.  She was also seeking a goodbye occasion of direct contact whilst she was over in Jersey for the hearing. 

29.      Accordingly, the issue before the Court at the commencement of the hearing was quite a narrow one.  The step-father was requesting that Imogen be spoken to four times a year and given the option of seeing him, the step-grandmother was seeking indirect contact four times a year and the Minister was opposing any order for contact. 

Evidence    

30.      Against that background, we turn to the evidence.  Much of the statements of the step-father and the step-grandmother was taken up with difficulties which they had experienced with the Children's Service and their feeling that the important role which they could play in Imogen's life had not been properly supported.  However, in view of the way in which matters developed, we do not think it necessary to deal with that evidence other than briefly in the context of certain remarks we make at the end of this judgment.  We also received statements from the current social worker, from an earlier social worker and from two family support workers.  In addition we received statements from the mother and the godmother as well as reports from the Guardian and Dr Edwards.  The godmother was not in favour of direct contact with the Applicants as long as Imogen did not wish it, but made clear that, if Imogen wished for contact in future, she would facilitate that.  The mother was against direct contact with the Applicants at present. 

31.      We heard oral evidence from the current social worker, the earlier social worker, Dr Edwards and the Guardian before matters came to an end pursuant to the agreement of the parties. 

(i) The current social worker

32.      The current social worker is a social worker with the Children's Service.  His first involvement with Imogen's case was on 31^st May 2019 when he was appointed co-worker with the previous social worker, who had been Imogen's social worker since May 2018.  He became the social worker with responsibility for Imogen on 2^nd July 2019.  Although he had read the file, he could therefore only give limited evidence in relation to events before his involvement. 

33.      He said that he had met with Imogen on four occasions.  With specific relevance to the present applications, he had seen her on 18^th February 2020 in company with Imogen's family support worker, with whom Imogen has a good relationship.  Imogen had accidentally become aware of the current application and therefore knew that the step-father and the step-grandmother were seeking orders for contact with her.  The family support worker's note of the meeting records the following:

"[The current social worker] chatted to Imogen and explained to her that the adults around her would all be going to court in March.  I then explained that I would be going to share Imogen's voice and decisions she wanted to see put in place.  I was mindful that Imogen has become anxious about this and I wanted her to know that it is ok, we are ready to go and it would be ok.

During direct work with Imogen, [the current social worker] asked about what she wanted to say to the judge.  Imogen stated that "I need to tell the judge that I can basically see my mum and [the godmother] whenever I want to.  I definitely do not want to see [the step-grandmother].  I don't want to see "Dad" who is technically not my dad [the step-father].  He will shout at me if I call him [by his first name].  He wants me to call him "daddy"." 

And later on in the meeting:

"Imogen stated that she is really angry with [the step-grandmother and the step-father] as they will not listen and keep dragging everyone into court.  Imogen said "why won't they listen, why won't they just leave me alone!!!""

Imogen's attitude as disclosed at the above meeting is consistent with her attitude at an earlier meeting with the family support worker on 14^th February, when she said that she did not wish to see the Applicants and they were not listening to her. 

34.      The current social worker said that the most important thing for Imogen was not to destabilise her placement with the godmother, which was working extremely well.  Imogen felt that she was not being listened to.  If she were to be asked four times a year whether she wished to see the step-father (as he was suggesting), Imogen would not feel that she was being listened to, having said that she did not wish to see him.  It could be emotionally damaging for her and he was against the step-father's suggestion, which he considered would not be in Imogen's best interests. 

35.      As to the step-grandmother's suggestion of indirect contact by means of sending cards or letters four times a year, he was not in favour of that either because of Imogen's wishes.  However, we were not at all convinced from his evidence that Imogen had expressed any wishes about indirect contact; the note of the family support worker is clearly referring to direct contact and that is not surprising because it was what the Applicants were seeking at the time.  Ultimately we did not find the current social worker's evidence to be of any assistance in relation to the issue of indirect contact. 

36.      As a postscript, we should add that we were informed during the hearing that, for reasons which we can quite understand related to the current pandemic, the current social worker was leaving the Children's Service immediately and returning to live in the United Kingdom.  This does, however, mean yet another change in social worker for Imogen.  Since the Contact judgment in May 2018, the social worker has moved from the earlier social worker to her replacement to the current social worker and now to a new social worker, i.e. four social workers in less than two years.  Whilst we fully understand the difficulties faced by the Children's Service, it is certainly not ideal. 

(ii) Gillian Timmis - the Guardian

37.      Mrs Timmis has been appointed as Imogen's Guardian in all the previous proceedings and she was reappointed in connection with the current application.  She prepared a report dated 11^th March, 2020, and gave evidence via video link. 

38.      She has met with Imogen on many occasions over the years and went to see her in November 2019 in connection with the present matter.  The key paragraphs from her report are in the following terms: 

"4.5 I asked if there was anyone Imogen likes to see and she said only her mum, she told me she doesn't want to see anyone else. 

4.6 I asked if there was a reason she had not wanted to see [the step-grandmother] and [the step-father]; she told me she just doesn't want to see them. 

4.7 I said that I thought they liked to see her, and that they thought she had enjoyed spending time with them.  Imogen said "I just don't want to see them."  She then said "I don't like answering any more questions."

...

4.9 I explained that [the step-father] and [the step-grandmother] thought they'd had nice times with her and they didn't understand what had changed.  Imogen didn't want to talk about it anymore..."

39.      The Guardian emphasised the importance of the placement with the godmother.  She said that Imogen was settled, happy and thriving with the godmother, who had been there for Imogen practically and emotionally since she was a baby.  However, despite this, Imogen could be de-stabilised and unsettled.  It was absolutely critical at this stage that everything was done to help Imogen to remain stable, to feel settled and to continue to experience a sense of belonging with the godmother in the home she was comfortable in. 

40.      She said that Imogen's views about not wishing to see the step-father and the step-grandmother had been consistent since July 2019.  The visit by the family support worker and the current social worker on 18^th February confirmed that Imogen's views had not changed since the Guardian had met her in November 2019. 

41.      The Guardian emphasised that, although Imogen's wishes and feelings should be taken into consideration, her welfare was paramount and her views were certainly not definitive.  If the Guardian considered it would be better than not for Imogen to have ongoing and regular contact with the step-grandmother and the step-father, who have played a role and supported her in her earlier childhood, the Guardian would certainly recommend it. 

42.      However, Imogen had been asked many times to express her opinion as to contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother and she had been absolutely clear with all those who had asked her.  It was important that Imogen realised that her opinions counted and were taken carefully into consideration by the Court when making decisions with an impact on her future.  She therefore agreed entirely with the conclusions of Dr Edwards that there should not be any order for direct contact at present. 

43.      In oral evidence she responded to the suggestion of the step-grandmother that there should be indirect contact four times a year by saying that she thought it should only be twice a year but that indirect contact was not a bad idea.  It would enable Imogen to know that the step-grandmother still cared about her but there had to be no pressure on Imogen to respond.  Later in her evidence, she said that she was not sure that letters would be helpful for Imogen but we understood her ultimately to remain supportive of the idea. 

44.      As to the suggestion on the part of the step-grandmother of a goodbye meeting, she was not in favour of this.  Imogen had said that she did not want to see the step-grandmother and it would be wrong to insist, even for one meeting. 

45.      She was not in favour of the step-father's suggestion of Imogen being asked four times a year whether she wished to see the step-father.  It would require Imogen continually to consider the issue of contact when it was clear that she did not wish to talk about it.  She saw no objection to the step-father writing twice a year. 

(iii) The earlier social worker

46.      The earlier social worker gave oral evidence, but she ceased being Imogen's social worker in May 2018.  She was therefore unable to give evidence about events in 2019 or 2020.  She was asked some questions about a meeting in February 2018 held immediately after the hearing which gave rise to the Contact judgment, but we do not think her evidence in this respect is of assistance for present purposes. 

(iv) Dr Edwards

47.      As previously stated, Dr Edwards was instructed to prepare a report, having been involved previously at the time of the Care judgment.  Dr Edwards held Skype interviews with the godmother, the step-father and the mother, a personal meeting with the step-grandmother and telephone conversations with the current social worker and the Guardian.  She also reviewed voluminous papers from the files of the Children's Service. 

48.      Dr Edwards noted the expression of wishes on the part of Imogen that she did not wish to see the step-father or the step-grandmother at present.  Dr Edwards noted that on previous occasions she had felt able to express a wish to see them (e.g. December 2018) and that the professionals working with Imogen had been supportive of this by arranging additional contact with the step-father and making notes in various documents when Imogen had expressed positive responses to her contacts.  She was therefore of the view that, for whatever reason, Imogen's current expressed wishes were genuine on her part.  She was of the clear opinion that organising contact between Imogen and the Applicants at this stage would not be successful.  There was also a risk that, if Imogen felt that the godmother was forcing her to attend contact, this would damage their relationship as well - leading to placement instability.  The priority at this stage was to protect the stability of the placement and allow Imogen time and space to gain confidence that her placement with the godmother was permanent. 

49.      In oral evidence, she also said that she was not in favour of the step-father's suggestion that Imogen should be asked four times a year whether she wished to see him. 

50.      However, during the course of her evidence, she indicated support for indirect contact from both the step-grandmother and the step-father and for an open-ended question to Imogen about whether there was anyone she wished to see. 

51.      We would summarise the outcome of her evidence on this topic after questioning by counsel for the various parties as follows: 

(i)        Each of the step-father and the step-grandmother could send a card or letter twice a year, with them both writing before Christmas and each writing once at a separate time spaced out over the rest of the year. 

(ii)       Guidance should be given by the Children's Service as to the content of the first letter from each Applicant so as to ensure that Imogen was aware that they supported the placement with the godmother and that there was no pressure upon her to reply or to see them. 

(iii)      Initially, the correspondence should be vetted by the Children's Service and subsequently by the godmother, but once Imogen was 14, she could be handed the letters unopened. 

(iv)      Within a reasonable period after each card or letter, Imogen could be asked an open-ended question to the effect of whether there was anyone she was not seeing at present that she would like to see.  If she responded positively by indicating that she would like to see either the step-grandmother or the step-father, arrangements could then be made for direct contact to occur pursuant to her wishes. 

(v)       If Imogen refused to read or accept any of the cards or letters, these should be retained safely by the godmother and handed to Imogen when she was 14. 

52.      Dr Edwards considered that such indirect contact would be beneficial in that it would keep the door ajar.  The step-grandmother and the step-father were two people who had been important in Imogen's life and this would enable them to make clear to Imogen that they wished to remain part of her life if that was what she wished. 

Conclusion 

53.      Following the conclusion of Dr Edwards' evidence, the Court invited the parties to see if they could reach agreement on the basis of her evidence, given that what she had been recommending was close - although not identical - to the applications of the step-father and the step-grandmother respectively in their amended form. 

54.      Following an adjournment, the parties informed the Court that they had been able to reach agreement which had been reduced to writing.  Following a few minor suggestions on the part of the Court, the terms of that agreement were agreed by all the parties in the presence of the Court.  The parties were agreed that they did not wish the Court to make an order in the terms of the agreement but merely to note it. 

55.      We do not think it necessary to reproduce the terms of the agreement in this judgment as it has been annexed to the Act of Court.  Suffice it to say that the agreement is modelled closely on the recommendations of Dr Edwards but with some fleshing out of the detail.  In other words, each applicant will be able to send a letter or card to Imogen twice a year at specific times.  These will initially be vetted for suitability by the Children's Service and subsequently by the godmother but then will be given to Imogen.  There will be no restriction on Imogen responding to indirect contact but no obligation on her either.  Within two weeks following each item of correspondence being given to Imogen, she will be asked if she would like to see anyone that she is not currently seeing, i.e. an open-ended question, not a specifically directed question.  During the first year this will be done by the Children's Service and thereafter it will be done by the godmother or the Children's Service.  There are provisions about communicating Imogen's reaction to the correspondence and the open-ended question to the step-father or the step-grandmother, as the case may be.  There is further provision that should Imogen become significantly distressed at being asked the question referred to above, she will not be asked the question on the next occasion of indirect contact, but the question will be asked once again thereafter, subject to any further pause should she again become significantly distressed.  The Children's Service will give guidance to the step-father and the step-grandmother as to the content of the first card or letter.   

56.      We commend the parties on reaching this agreement.  We had not of course heard all the evidence, but on the basis of that which we had heard - and bearing in mind that contact is ordered solely in the best interests of the child - we were provisionally of the view that this was the sort of order which would be appropriate; in other words, in the light of the unanimous views of the current social worker, the Guardian and Dr Edwards that an order for direct contact would not be appropriate, the Court was thinking more along the lines of indirect contact.  This would hopefully avoid any feeling on Imogen's part that the step-father and step-grandmother had abandoned her or lost interest in her; it would also keep open the lines of communication so that, should she wish to see them at any stage in the future, she would be able to do so. 

57.      The upshot is that, at the request of the parties, the Court made no order in relation to the applications for contact by the step-father and the step-grandmother.  This means that, should they at any time in the future wish to apply for any form of contact, they would need the leave of the Court to do so.  Given the arrangements which have been put in place pursuant to the agreement and the clear evidence that Imogen does not like being questioned about such matters by social workers, guardians etc., they would need to show good reason at that stage as to why the Court should grant leave. 

Postscript - lessons still to be learned

58.      The Court has on more than one occasion been critical of some of the actions of the Children's Service in relation to this case.  We would refer specifically to the November 2015 judgment and to paras 115 - 133 of the Care judgment.  The position was touched upon again in the Contact judgment at para 57 in the following terms: 

"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 [the earlier social worker] 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."

We would refer also to paragraph 59(i) of the Contact judgment quoted at para 14 above. 

59.      A large part of the witness statements of both the step-father and the step-grandmother was concerned with complaints about how they have been treated by the Children's Service since the Contact judgment.  In particular, both complain of a lack of communication on the part of the Children's Service.  Given the history of this matter and the Court's previous criticism referred to above, this is disappointing. 

60.      Because the case came to an end as it did, we did not hear oral evidence from the step-father, the step-grandmother or the godmother.  Nevertheless, on the basis of the material before us, we feel obliged once again to raise certain matters of concern. 

(i) Events of January to July 2019

61.      We have described these events in some detail at paras 17 - 23 above.  We have seen the relevant correspondence and emails. 

62.      In short, after an extra session of contact in December 2018, which was apparently successful, the step-father had difficulty in obtaining a response from the social worker as to the next contact.  In the absence of a response, Advocate Tremoceiro wrote a letter on his behalf dated 25^th January 2019.  This letter raised a number of queries as well as seeking details of the forthcoming occasion of contact.  The letter procured a response from the social worker making the necessary arrangements for contact, stating specifically that Imogen liked seeing the step-father and stating that there would be an increase in the number of occasions of contact from four to five times a year.  That appears to be consistent with a care planning meeting in January (referred to by Dr Edwards in her report at para 1.2.25) where it was said that Imogen had stated she would like to see the step-father and the step-grandmother. 

63.      The step-father duly had occasions of contact in February and on 19^th April (being Good Friday) which, so far as he was concerned, went well. 

64.      Completely unbeknown to him, at a LAC Review Meeting on 8^th April 2019, it was reported that Imogen was indicating that she did not want contact with either the step-father or the step-grandmother or just minimal contact.  The decision taken at the meeting was that contact with the step-father should be reduced to twice a year and then only if Imogen wanted to see the step-father.  It was agreed that the social worker would meet/communicate with the step-father to advise of the change to contact arrangements and the reasons for this.  Thus the relevant passage from the recommendations read as follows:

"Contact arrangements to change with [the step-father] - 3 hrs twice a year and only if Imogen wants to see [the step-father].  The social worker to meet/communicate with [the step-father] to advise of change to contact arrangements and reasons for this and also to agree with him a set of expectations for his behaviours within any contact with Imogen."  

A decision was also taken at the meeting to change the contact arrangements with the step-grandmother; there was to be no contact unless Imogen wanted it and until the step-grandmother had met with the social worker to agree the boundaries and expectation of her conduct in any contact with Imogen.   

65.      Astonishingly, despite these minutes, there was no communication with either the step-father or the step-grandmother notifying them of this significant change from the approach which had existed as recently as January 2019.  As outlined earlier, despite repeated chasing by Advocate Tremoceiro, there is simply no response from the Children's Service.  Even when Advocate Tremoceiro indicates on 6^th June 2019 that the step-father understands that there has been a change of social worker and seeks details of the identity of the new social worker, there is no response despite further chasing.  Eventually, on 16^th July, Advocate Tremoceiro states that, in the absence of any response to the various requests regarding contact, he intends to file a C2 Form regarding an application for contact the next day.  Only then is there a response on 17^th July stating that the current social worker is the appointed social worker and that he will contact the step-father to progress contact on 25^th July.  Even then, there is confusion.  The step-father is contacted on 23^rd July by the current social worker outlining the arrangements for contact on 25^th July.  However, on 24^th July (the very next day), he is told in a telephone call that there will be no contact; Imogen has said she does not wish it. 

66.      The Applicants have been criticised for this further application for contact.  However, we consider that the step-father was left with no alternative.  So far as he was concerned, following the January email from the social worker, Imogen liked seeing him and the contact occasions were to be increased to five times a year.  He is then faced with a complete failure on the part of the Children's Service to respond to any of his inquiries, including arrangements for the anticipated contact in July and the identity of the social worker.  Behind the scenes, completely unknown to him, the Children's Service has decided to reduce contact with him but has not had the courtesy to inform him of this. 

67.      In our judgment, on the narrow point of whether the step-father should have brought this application for contact, no criticism should be laid at his door.  The failure of the Children's Service to follow through on the action required following the meeting of 8^th April (which required the social worker to meet with both the step-father and the step-grandmother to explain the change in approach over contact), was inexcusable, as was the repeated failure to respond to any of the letters and emails from Advocate Tremoceiro.  It is unacceptable that this lack of communication with the Applicants should continue following the earlier criticisms made by this Court about just such a lack of communication.  We accept that the social worker apparently became ill not long after the April meeting but it was the responsibility of management to ensure that things were followed through.  

(ii) Life story work 

68.      In her evidence before the Court at the time of the final care hearing in 2016, Dr Edwards was clear that the life story work (in particular communication of the fact that the step-father was not her father and that the step-grandmother was not her grandmother), should be undertaken before contact with the step-father and the step-grandmother was resumed.  However, this did not occur and contact was resumed prior to the life story work being carried out. 

69.      The first piece of life story work appears to have been undertaken on 28^th December, 2016, by a family support worker, when she communicated as best she could that the step-father was not Imogen's birth father.  However, further life story work was suspended in February 2017 by the Children's Service.  It appears never to have been resumed by the professionals and the plan has apparently been that continuing life story work should be undertaken by the godmother. 

70.      In her report for the present proceedings, Dr Edwards is critical of the fact that contact was resumed before the life story work was undertaken and the fact that it has been suggested the godmother should perform the task.  She expresses the view at para 3.7.1 of her report that, if the work had been completed in a timely manner by the Children's Service, there may have been a more successful outcome in relation to contact.  She states that Imogen needs factual information about her extended family arrangements. 

71.      In oral evidence, the Guardian agreed that the life story work was important and that although some work had been done, it needed to be completed. 

72.      Advocate Tremoceiro was also critical of the accuracy of what Imogen had been told in such life story work as had been done.  The note of the family support worker in relation to the visit to Imogen's home on 28^th December, 2016, records the family support worker as informing Imogen that she had only met the step-father when she was about 3-4 years old.  This was incorrect.  The evidence shows that she met the step-father when she was under 2 years old. 

73.      In our judgment, it is most unfortunate that the life story work, which all parties agreed was important as long ago as 2016, has still not been completed and that, at least in one respect, what work has been done is not wholly accurate.  We urge the Children's Service to complete the life story work as a matter of urgency and to ensure it is carried out accurately and by appropriately qualified personnel.  

(iii) Other matters

74.      The various witness statements before us show that there have been other difficulties in relation to this case; for example whether arrangements for contact should be made by the step-grandmother and the step-father directly with the godmother or need to be made through the Children's Service.  The Children's Service appears to have agreed at a meeting immediately after the contact hearing in February 2018 that arrangements could be made directly with the godmother but in October 2018 the step-grandmother was instructed that arrangements should be made through the Children's Service.  Similarly, on 18^th February, 2019, the step-father was told by the social worker that arrangements could be made directly with the godmother, but at the meeting on 4^th April that decision was reversed.  Another example is the letter of 5^th October from the social worker raising concerns about certain things the step-grandmother had done during the contact in August 2018.  The step-grandmother's complaint in respect of this letter has been upheld but we would certainly endorse the sentiment that, if there were valid concerns, these should have been raised orally with the step-grandmother by way of gentle words of advice rather than by a letter written some two months after the event.   

75.      In view of the fact that the hearing came to an end before all the evidence had been heard, we are not in a position to resolve a number of the matters raised by the Applicants and it is not necessary for us to do so.  We would however wish to comment on one aspect.  It is alleged by both the step-father and the step-grandmother in their statements that Imogen's expressed wish not to see them has arisen as a result of the attitude and/or lack of enthusiasm of the godmother and/or the Children's Service to such contact taking place.  Indeed, the step-grandmother goes as far as to suggest in her statement that there has been 'manipulation' of her relationship with Imogen. 

76.      Dr Edwards and the Guardian both rejected this suggestion and consider that, for whatever reason, Imogen's expressed wishes are her genuine wishes at the moment and have not been brought about by actions or omissions on the part of the Children's Service or the godmother. 

77.      We cannot determine this matter authoritatively in view of not having heard orally from the Applicants and the godmother, but we have to say that there is no evidence in the material before us to support this allegation.  It is true that the godmother has on occasion raised concerns as to Imogen's behaviour after contact visits but it is perfectly correct for her to have alerted the Children's Service to such matters.  The godmother asserts in her witness statement that she has always tried, in an appropriate way, to encourage Imogen to go to occasions of contact and states that, if Imogen wished to have contact, she would facilitate this.  We have no reason to doubt such assertion.  All the experts are agreed that the godmother has done an outstanding job in providing a safe and secure home for Imogen after her troubled beginning in life and that Imogen is thriving in her placement.  There is no evidence at all that she or the Children's Service have attempted to thwart contact.  On the contrary, as Dr Edwards points out, whenever Imogen has expressed a desire to see either of the Applicants, this has been noted in the various records and, where appropriate, extra contact occasions have been organised, as in December 2018 and as in the decision in January 2019 to increase the occasions of contact with the step-father from four to five. 

78.      Whilst therefore we have been and remain critical of a number of actions of the Children's Service as summarised above and in earlier judgments (particularly in relation to the lack of communication on their part), there is no evidence before us that the Children's Service or the godmother have sought to influence Imogen against contact with the Applicants or that they have acted otherwise than in what they genuinely believe to be Imogen's best interests

Authorities

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

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

In the matter of Imogen (Care Order) [2018] JRC 084. 

Children (Jersey) Law 2002