Jersey Unreported Judgments

Residence Order

[2021]JRC269

Royal Court

(Samedi)

2 November 2021

IN THE MATTER OF NN (RESIDENCE ORDER)

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

Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Applicant.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the First Respondent.

Advocate M. R. Godden for the Second Respondent.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Third Respondent.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        On 12^th October 2021, the Court made a residence order in respect of the Third Respondent ("NN") in favour of the Second Respondent, ("the Father") and no order in respect of the care proceedings.  No issues arose at the hearing as to this positive outcome to the case and the Court's reasons can now be briefly stated.

2.        NN was born in 2020 and is therefore just over twelve months of age.  From the maternity unit he was placed into foster care and an interim care order in favour of the Minister was made on 18^th September 2020.

3.        This is the fourth child of the First Respondent, ("the Mother"), her earlier children all being subject to care proceedings in England, and who now live with their father in England, under a residence order made in his favour.  There are concerns as to the Mother's mental health and her learning difficulties, which meant that she was not able to prioritise her children.

4.        The Mother came to Jersey and after a brief relationship with the Father, NN was conceived.  During her pregnancy, the Mother did not engage with the Ante Natal and Perinatal Services and denied the paternity of the Father.  After the birth of NN, the Mother initially engaged with the Children's Service and attended contact sessions, but this soon ceased, and she has not seen NN since 11^th February, 2021.

5.        A psychiatric assessment of the Mother was carried out by Dr T Engelbrecht, and a psychological assessment of the Mother and the Father by Dr L Jeffes.  A parenting assessment has been carried out by the independent social worker, Ms Jane Pinder.  The Mother engaged sufficiently with Dr Engelbrecht and Dr Jeffes for them to prepare their reports, but she did not engage with Ms Pinder.  She stopped meeting with any of the professionals involved. 

6.        The expert and professional assessments of the Mother were clear that she does not have the capacity to parent NN, due to her learning difficulties and her own childhood trauma, which has impacted upon her both emotionally and psychologically. 

7.        The Mother had met with Mrs Patricia Winchester of My Voice on 7^th October 2021 and indicated that she intended to attend the Court hearing and welcomed the support of Mrs Winchester.  However, without any explanation either to Mrs Winchester or to Advocate Tremoceiro, she did not attend the hearing.  The Court therefore proceeded in her absence, pursuant to Rule 17 of the Children Rules 2005. 

8.        The Mother had given instructions to Advocate Tremoceiro namely that she agreed that she was unable to look after NN and was very happy for the Father to have his care.  She had seen them out together and had no concerns whatsoever.  She described him as a lovely father. She was heartbroken at the outcome, but would like, in due course, to re-engage with contact.  She accepted this may be a gradual process.  In the interim, she expressed the wish to have photographs of NN, to which the Father readily acceded.

9.        At the end of the hearing, when evidence had been completed, and when the Court was halfway through hearing submissions from counsel, the Mother arrived at the Court.  She was given time with Mrs Winchester and Advocate Tremoceiro, in order for them to explain the process.  Following that, Advocate Tremoceiro informed the Court that although the Mother was not happy with the situation, his instructions had not changed and there was no application.

10.      The Father has fully engaged with the process, from the point at which paternity was confirmed on 5^th October 2020.  Following a directions hearing in March 2021, time was allowed to assess his ability to parent NN, and that progressed well to the point when he took over care of NN full-time in early August 2021.  The Father gave up his employment in order to care for NN and is in now in receipt of income support.  He has procured a relatively large studio flat with a separate bathroom and kitchen for them to live in.  The Social Worker reported that the flat is clean, tidy and well-ordered and provides a safe, warm home for the Father and NN.

11.      In her assessment of the Father, Dr Jeffes found no evidence of psychological or mental health difficulties, but noted his poor verbal reasoning skills, and his lack of reflective abstract thought, which raised concern in her mind as to his parenting skills.  She advised that these concerns could be minimised with long-term support and monitoring from his family and professionals.

12.      The Social Worker addressed these concerns of Dr Jeffes concluding that from her observations of the Father and the observations of the other professionals involved, his approach to parenting and his willingness to seek support, amongst other reasons, demonstrated his ability to care adequately for NN.  Indeed, the Social Worker offered the view that the Father had embraced the opportunity to showcase his parenting skills "wholeheartedly and with impressive focus".  In her view the Father has shown himself to be devoted to the task and entirely capable of meeting, and exceeding, the required standards of care.

13.      The Father's commitment and ability to parent were echoed by the Guardian in her report and in her evidence, saying that everyone attending the care planning meetings had agreed that the Father had evidenced that with support and encouragement, he could parent NN.  He was a first-time Father, who had to learn from scratch.  He had developed a very close relationship with the foster carers who provided support.  He was very open and not scared of asking questions and "taking on board" the advice given.  The Father told the Guardian how he has really enjoyed being a Father to NN and thus being able to provide care to him.  Although it has not been easy, and there have been challenges, NN brings him a lot of joy and pleasure.

14.      The relevant date for assessing the threshold criteria under Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, was the 18^th September 2020, when an interim care order was made and NN was placed into foster care.  At that point, NN was in the sole care of the Mother, who denied the paternity of the Father.  On that basis, the Court found the threshold criteria met in that NN would have suffered significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to him by the Mother if no care order was made.

15.      Having regard to the welfare test and in particular, to the welfare checklist, whilst NN is too young to express a view, the Court agreed with the Guardian that he would choose to be with the Father, who had been a consistent and committed figure throughout his short life, as opposed to his Mother, who acknowledged that she could not care for him.  There would be no change in his circumstances, as he will remain in the care of the Father, who has engaged fully and demonstrated his commitment to NN and his ability to meet his needs.

16.      With the Father applying for a residence order, the Minister did not seek any public law order.  A residence order, which was supported by the Minister and the Guardian, would provide formal recognition of the Father as NN's primary carer and will assist him in caring for NN and navigating any future relations with the Mother.

17.      A possible alternative to the making of no order was a supervision order, which both the Minister and the Guardian advised was not necessary in this case.  The Social Worker confirmed that the Children's Service would continue to support NN and the Father, which would allow the strong and positive working relationships between the Father and the Children's Service to continue.  Funding had been procured for NN to attend nursery as soon as a vacancy arose, and the Social Worker confirmed that assistance would be found for the Father to have English lessons.  NN would remain a child in need, and his placement monitored and reviewed for a minimum period of six months.  The Social Worker confirmed that the closing of the file within the Children's Service would be needs, and not resources led. 

18.      On the issue of contact, both the Social Worker and the Guardian confirmed the need for the Father to refer the issue of contact between the Mother and NN, should she seek it, to the Children's Service, so that a risk assessment could be carried out and for the Mother to demonstrate both commitment and consistency before contact commenced.

19.      The Mother had indicated through Advocate Tremoceiro that she would, in due course, wish to initiate contact with NN and the Court suggested that if so, she should approach the Children's Service in the first instance.  The Minister confirmed that if such an approach was made after the file in the Children's Service had been closed, then it would be reopened for that purpose.

20.      The Court therefore made a residence order in favour of the Father and made no order in respect of the care proceedings.  The Court commended the work of the Children's Service and other agencies in this case and the Father for so enthusiastically embracing fatherhood and for doing everything he could to ensure NN's welfare.

Authorities

Children Rules 2005. 

Children (Jersey) Law 2002