Supervision and Residence Orders - reasons.
Before : |
R. J. MacRae., Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Blampied and Cornish. |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
And |
(1) A (the Mother) |
|
|
(2) QQ (the Child) (by her Guardian Elsa Fernandes) |
|
|
(3) B (the Maternal Grandmother) |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF QQ ("THE CHILD") (SUPERVISION AND RESIDENCE ORDERS)
Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Applicant.
Advocate M. R. Godden for the First Respondent.
Advocate R. E. Colley for the Second Respondent.
Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Third Respondent.
judgment
in privatet
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 21st January 2022, and with the consent of the parties, the Court made a supervision order placing the child under the supervision of the Minister for a period of six months, and giving the supervisor, the Minister, the power to give directions to the child, including a direction that she lived with her maternal grandmother, the Third Respondent, and, inter alia, requiring the child to meet with the supervisor (in practice the social worker) every four weeks with the grandmother being required to, inter alia, participate in such recommended interventions as reasonably required and to attend "child in need" meetings at six weekly intervals with the social worker to which the mother and child would also be invited.
2. Further, we made a residence order in favour of the grandmother until the child's 18th birthday, pursuant to Article 11(6) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") and made a contact order to the effect that the child would see her mother at least twice a week, ideally once over a weekend, but that the grandmother may refuse contact in the interests of the child's welfare.
3. In this judgment, we give brief reasons for making these orders and do not repeat the background set out in the judgment dated 26th July 2021, (In the matter of QQ (Interim Care Order) [2021] JRC 195 giving the reasons for granting an interim care order, placing the child in the care of her grandmother on 2ndJuly 2021.
4. The child, a girl, is now aged 10. When the interim care order was made the mother was unrepresented and the grandmother was not a party to the proceedings. Both were participants in the final hearing, and both were represented by counsel.
5. The child still has no contact with her father who is without parental responsibility and he did not participate in the proceedings save to indicate to the Guardian that he was content for his daughter to continue living with her grandmother.
6. The child has been known to the Children's Service since 2015. The threshold document prepared by the Minister was considered in draft by the parties, amended and was agreed on 17th January 2022. For the purposes of Article 24(2) of the Law it was agreed that the child had suffered significant harm and is likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm if returned to her mother's care as a result of parenting provided to her by her mother. The mother is a vulnerable adult in her own right and her mental health has deteriorated in the recent past. She has not been able to provide consistent parenting for any of her five children and has limited insight into the same.
7. Prior to the child being placed in voluntary care on 17th June 2021, the child had suffered neglect in the care of her mother, consisting of in summary:
(i) Poor school attendance;
(ii) A failure to attend dental treatment (ultimately, she required 10 teeth to be removed in October 2021) and had not been taught how to brush her teeth;
(iii) The child had inadequate clothing and conditions at home were poor; and
(iv) The child expressed the view that she did not feel safe at home with the mother and wished to live somewhere where she could feel safe. At home, she was hungry, late for school and sometimes wore her school uniform all weekend.
8. In the circumstances, we were satisfied that threshold was met.
9. We then needed to consider the welfare checklist in Article 2(3) of the Law particularly in the circumstance in which the child now finds herself where she is content and well cared for by her grandmother.
10. We will deal with each aspect in turn:
The child wishes to stay with her grandmother and says that she is happy at her house. However, she enjoys spending time with her mother and wishes to have contact with her.
It is clear that the grandmother can meet the child's physical, emotional and educational needs. The child is now doing better at school and settled there owing to the care she receives from the maternal grandmother and her adult children living with her. The child is now receiving proper healthcare which the mother was unable to provide to her owing to her mental health challenges. The child will now attend regular and follow-up appointments with the GP, dentist, optician and any other routine health appointments. Further, as the grandmother will acquire shared parental responsibility for the child now that a residence order has been granted, the grandmother will have the power to give parental consent for such matters and then notify the mother of her decisions. Where appropriate, the grandmother will consult the mother in relation to such matters as medical treatment. However, in the event of emergencies, that will not be possible.
The child is happy with the grandmother and there are no other available family members who could be carers for the child.
The child is 10 years old and is content at her grandmother's house. The grandmother provides good care for her and it is recommended by the social worker that that continue and for permanency to be achieved by way of a residence order.
The child has suffered harm as set out above and would be at risk of suffering further harm if she was returned full time to her mother's care. It was agreed that a supervision order is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that contact arrangements between the mother and the child are observed and that contact between the child and her other siblings is promoted. A term of six months for that supervision process was agreed by the parties, subject to the view of the Court. Further, during that period, the social worker suggested, and the Court required should be noted in the supervision plan, that a family group conference be arranged by the Minister, with input from the grandmother, as soon as possible in order for the family to create a plan of support for the child including provisions for contact between the child and her siblings in particular. It is very important that the family, who have disparate concerns and have not always had good relationships between each other at adult level, get on as well as they can for the purpose of promoting the child's welfare.
The mother is not capable of looking after the child and the father has no inclination to do so. The grandmother has inclination, desire and experience of so doing. The only concern that we had, as drawn to our attention by the Guardian in her report was the question of the grandmother being in receipt of sufficient funding to continue to provide for the child. This was resolved in the course of the hearing and provided for in the supervision plan. The grandmother will receive the same sum that she would have received pursuant to a foster carer allowance until the child is 18 years of age. This was confirmed by the social worker in evidence and the allowance was described as a "residence allowance". The social worker also confirmed that the school will continue to utilise the Jersey Pupil Premium for the child to receive her swimming lessons without charge.
It would have been difficult for the Court to make the orders sought without confirmation that this funding was available for the grandmother.
The child is fortunate that the grandmother is able to love and care for her. She has a settled home and is meeting the child's needs. The "unrealistic options" in the case were analysed by the social worker, the options of "no order - child to return home" "supervision order with the child to be cared for by her mother" and "freeing for adoption order" were all considered and discounted as being either unsafe or inappropriate. It was also inappropriate to make a care order because the child would remain a "looked after child" for the rest of her minority and the child has expressed a strong wish that she wishes to cease to be a looked after child. Further, it is inappropriate that she do so. The other realistic option was a residence order without a supervision order and although there would be advantages of making such an order, the disadvantage is that the continued support for the next period in resolving contact questions and the family conference would not be possible. Accordingly, the third option was a supervision order alongside a residence order being made in favour of the grandmother. This will provide the child with safe and nurturing care where she is not at risk of harm and give the grandmother parental responsibility in order for her to make decisions in the best interest of the child. Further, the Children's Service will be involved for a period in order to encourage co-parenting between the mother and grandmother and deal with the contact issues referred to above.
11. The Court scrutinised the care plan and made various suggested amendments, all of which were adopted by the Minister.
12. Accordingly, we had no doubt that the appropriate order in this case was to make a supervision order for a period of six months, together with a residence order in favour of the grandmother until the child is 18.
13. As to the duration of the order, generally residence orders expire when the child is 16 unless, pursuant to Article 11(6)(b) the Court is satisfied "that the circumstances of the case are exceptional". On behalf of the Minister (and no parties disagreed with this submission), it was said that the case was an exceptional one as this was a vulnerable looked after child who is entitled to expect and wish for the comfort of a permanent residence order taking her to the end of her minority. We agreed and extended the residence order until the child reaches the age of 18.
14. We also agreed it was appropriate to make the contact order. It was consistent with the child's wishes and would give a degree of permanence to the relationship between the mother and the grandmother whilst permitting the grandmother to withhold contact if there was a significant deterioration in the mother's mental health.
15. As to the mother's mental health, we note from the evidence that she has various needs and, in particular, the report of Dr Briggs stated that she would benefit from [Redacted]. She may benefit significantly from as little as six to eight sessions and thereafter could progress to more substantial psychotherapy such as cognitive analytical therapy or dialectical behaviour therapy. Unfortunately, the Children's Service are unable to fund the [Redacted] treatment as the mother is insufficiently involved in catering for the child's daily needs to warrant such an expenditure. However, such treatment is available either through the mother's general practitioner or through Jersey Talking Therapist. In both circumstances there is likely to be a waiting list and we hope that the mother is able to obtain, secure and benefit from this therapy as it is plainly in her interests that she attains it. We were pleased that the final supervision plan reflected the fact that the social worker would endeavour to assist the mother with referrals which may address her need for therapeutic support.
16. If it is of assistance to the mother in accessing this service, then we would be content for this section of the judgment, and any related sections, to be disclosed to such third parties as may consider this matter.
17. Finally, we note that this matter was resolved at what was initially listed as an Issues Resolution Hearing. Accordingly, it was possible to vacate the final hearing of this matter. The parties, including counsel, are to be commended for the efforts they made to resolve this matter expeditiously. Such efforts are worth making in almost every case and will benefit the child if differences may be resolved earlier with the consent of all those who have an interest in the upbringing of the child.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
In the matter of QQ (Interim Care Order) [2021] JRC 195.