Before : |
Commissioner A. R. Binnington, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Ronge and Hughes |
Between |
The Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
And |
(1) (the Mother) |
|
|
(2) (the Father) |
|
|
(3) PP (the Child) (through his legal representative Advocate Claire R. Grace Davies |
|
|
(4) E |
|
|
(5) F |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF PP (THE CHILD) (INTERIM CARE ORDER) (ASSISTED BY J IN HER CAPACITY AS GUARDIAN)
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Minister
Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the First Respondent
Advocate L. K. Helm for the Second Respondent
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Third Respondent
Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Fourth Respondent
Advocate A. T. H. English for the Fifth Respondent
judgment
in private
the commissioner:
1. After a four day hearing, the Court made an Interim Care Order in respect of ("PP") ("the Child"), in accordance with Article 30(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the 2002 Law"). On the same date the Court approved the Care Plan dated 23 March 2023, subject to amendments made during the course of the hearing. This judgment records the Court's reasons for making the orders which it did.
2. This matter came before us on an application by the Minister for a Final Care Order pursuant to Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in respect of fourteen-month-old ("PP"). The Care Plan in respect of the proposed Final Care Order provided for PP to be placed in the care of either E a family friend or F a family member with regular contact with his Mother and Father. However, very shortly before the hearing took place the Minister indicated that she was seeking a further Interim Care Order, with PP to be placed with F. It was accepted by the Minister at the beginning of the hearing that the Care Plan was inchoate.
3. The Mother's position at the beginning of the hearing was that she wished PP to remain with her and that she was planning to make an application for this. She did not accept that the threshold criteria had been met.
4. Advocate Davies, for the child, suggested that the court should determine the issue of placement at the conclusion of the hearing and said that it was clear to the Guardian that PP could not be parented by either the Mother or the Father and accordingly placement with F was appropriate.
5. The Father's position was that he supported placement with F and his primary concern related to continued contact with PP.
6. E's position was that she would continue to do everything possible to support PP and was supportive of a shared care arrangement as had been the case over recent weeks. However, if the decision was to place PP with F she would continue to assist.
7. F wished PP to be placed with her.
8. PP was first made subject to an Interim Care Order shortly after his birth in 2022 at a time when he was still in the maternity unit of the Jersey General Hospital with his Mother. The trigger event for the application was an assault committed by the Father against the Mother in 2021 when the Mother was [redacted] pregnant and in respect of which the Father had at that time pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing. The grounds upon which the application was made were set out in the Preliminary Threshold Document and, in summary, the concerns related to the risk of domestic violence and the ability of the Mother, who has suffered mental health issues, to meet PP's needs. The court was satisfied that the threshold under Article 24(2) of the 2002 Law had been met and approved the Minister's Care Plan, which provided for the Mother and PP to be placed together in a foster care placement. The court made a number of directions including instructing psychological assessments by Dr Briggs on both parents, an independent parenting assessment on both parents by Ms Henney, dual drug and alcohol and psychiatric assessments on the Father by Dr Engelbrecht and drug and alcohol testing of the Father.
9. The relationship between the Mother and the foster-carer was at first positive but it subsequently broke down due to arguments between them. The Mother and Child were then placed in a temporary respite provision arranged by the Minister, prior to the Mother being allocated an Andium property and the Mother wished to move into independent accommodation with PP, which happened on 16 July 2022.
10. On 13 July 2022 the Minister requested a six-month adjournment of the final hearing which had been initially listed for October. This decision was supported by the parties and by the Guardian. The Minister based this request on the experts' reports which identified several needs that should be addressed and the timeframe within which the work could be completed.
11. In September 2022 the Father was arrested for an alcohol related offence and was subsequently given a custodial sentence.
12. In October 2022 the Minister contacted Dr Briggs due to concerns raised by the Mother's lawyer who believed that her client exhibited signs of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD") and suggested that a further assessment was required. Dr Briggs responded confirming that there were grounds for an ADHD assessment. Dr Kaushal, a consultant psychiatrist, was instructed and his report concluded that the Mother met the Diagnostic Statistical Manual Version 5 (DSM V) criteria for ADHD.
13. In early January 2023 F approached the Children's Social Care Service due to concerns about the Mother's home conditions, unknown people staying at the family home, and PP being unwell and not taken to the doctor in early January. An urgent meeting with professionals and the family was organised and the Mother agreed to PP being placed in the care of E during the following three weeks and for her to have contact with him. Three weeks later the mother reluctantly agreed to an additional two weeks with the same arrangements. During that period she had contact with PP, supervised by a family member or E for four hours, three times a week, and one and a half hours per week with a family support worker.
14. On 9 February 2023 the Mother filed an application to discharge the interim care order, but this was later withdrawn on the agreement of the Minister to return the child to her care, subject to the entry into a Contract of Expectations between the Mother and the Minister.
15. The Minister's final threshold document noted that PP had been exposed to domestic violence in utero and was likely to be exposed to further domestic violence. The Mother was vulnerable to engaging in relationships that featured domestic violence. In addition, she had been sexually assaulted by a male known to her in her own home in recent months. Although the Mother and Father had expressed the wish to live together and co-parent, and had intermittently continued their relationship, it was noted that the Mother tended to minimise the nature of the assaults that the Father had committed on her and the Father had a history of domestic violence.
16. It was also the Minister's view that PP was likely to suffer harm due to the Father's problematic relationship with alcohol: at the time of the hearing he was serving a prison sentence in relation to alcohol-related offences. He had not demonstrated an ability to benefit from professional intervention in relation to his use of alcohol having committed offences following attendance at the Alcohol Study Programme. The Minister was of the view that PP was likely to suffer harm due to the Mother's own childhood experiences and fluctuating mental health which would impact on her parenting capacity. The Mother had not engaged with mental health support at the commencement of the proceedings and had told social workers that she was worried about "coping", not being able to look after herself and was worried that she might "take it out on the baby" by shouting and screaming. She had described feeling overwhelmed and unable to be a hands-on parent due to her mental instability. Her support network was limited, unstable and potentially unsafe and accordingly PP was at risk of exposure to risky adults in the community. The Father had two young children from previous relationships with whom he had no contact, nor did he contribute financially to their upbringing.
17. At the hearing we heard evidence from (1) PP's Social Worker ("G"); (2) Dr Tanya Engelbrecht, Consultant Psychiatrist ("Dr Engelbrecht"); (3) Dr Ashutosh Kaushal, Consultant Psychiatrist ("Dr Kaushal"); (4) Mrs Susan Henney, Independent Social Worker ("Ms Henney"); (5) (", Family Support Worker ("H"); (6) Dr David Briggs, Consultant Clinical and Forensic Psychologist ("Dr Briggs"); (7) Ms Jane Parsons, Practice Manager, Fostering and Adoption ("Ms Parsons"); and (8) ("J"), Guardian ("the Guardian"). Neither the Father nor the Mother wished to give evidence and we accept that the Mother would have found it a traumatic experience. As a result we did not draw any adverse conclusions from her failure to give evidence.
18. G outlined the basis for her concerns in relation to the Mother's ability to care for PP. She was concerned at the Mother's relationships with both the Father and other individuals who had a propensity to acts of domestic violence and, in relation to certain of the individuals, a history of sexual offences. Her concern was in relation to the indirect impact that these relationships might have on PP and the fact that the Mother would not be emotionally available to him. He was likely to find this confusing. She described the Mother's engagement with PP as inconsistent noting that the Mother was not always able to prioritise PP's needs above her own. She told us that when PP stayed with E she had noticed an improvement in his emotional state and that since he had been returned to the care of his Mother his emotional state had deteriorated and he had been "clinging" to E. She felt that PP needed a consistent caregiver. In relation to the Father's relationship with PP she was concerned at his lack of motivation towards the relationships with his two existing children.
19. She expressed the view that PP should have as normal a life as possible without too much State invention. She said that although the Connected Person Assessments were not yet fully complete that of F was positive and E's assessment was underway and nearly complete.
20. In relation to the Father's contacts with PP whilst in prison these had been meaningful. She was concerned at the Father's consumption of alcohol. On the Father's release from prison she suggested that it would be appropriate for him to have contact with PP initially for one period per week, the contact to be supervised as on previous occasions.
21. G accepted that when things were going well for the Mother she would engage with social services but when they were not, there was a lack of engagement. The Mother could be proactive, but this was not consistent. She accepted that the Mother was able to meet some of PP's emotional needs but was only able to do so when she was given a high level of support from external services, which meant that it tended not to be sustained. She stressed that it was important that the Mother followed the expert advice in relation to treatment for her ADHD as this would assist her in her relationship with PP. She felt that it would be beneficial for PP to have a continuing relationship with his Mother.
22. G was asked by Advocate Helm why, given that the Final Care Plan referred to a placement with either F or E, the Minister's position was now that the placement should be with F and she was asked when this changed and why. Although she explained that this was a service decision, she understood that although the assessments of both individuals as carers were likely to be positive the family connections made F more suitable. She accepted that there was still no final plan in relation to contact. In relation to the proposed placement with F the plan was to move PP to F's care, if approved, almost immediately after the court's decision.
23. G was asked by Advocate Davies how confident she was that the Father and Mother would not resume their relationship once the Father was released from prison, despite their claims that the relationship was over. G stated that she was not confident and that this was a significant concern, particularly given that both parties had not been honest in the past about the extent of their relationship. She was also asked how F would cope if they did resume their relationship. She responded that F's consistent view was that her priority was PP and that she would therefore keep PP safe.
24. Dr Engelbrecht's evidence related to the Father and given that there was no suggestion that he have day to day care of PP it was principally relevant to the degree of contact that he might have. Dr Engelbrecht found that the Father displayed traits of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and said that such individuals have a tendency to act impulsively and without consideration of the consequences of their actions. The Father could become overwhelmed with his own issues, at which point he would be unable to prioritise PP's needs. She said that the Father displayed a past pattern of demanding, critical and chaotic relationships, instead of co-operative communicating. His erratic and dramatic behaviour could cause PP distress and anxiety. She said that the Father had not managed stressful situations proactively with resilience and without using alcohol. She suggested that he would benefit from psychological intervention in the form of Emotional Coping Skills training for his traits of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. The Father had informed Dr Engelbrecht that he was willing to undertake the Emotional Coping Skills training but he had expressed concern that his work might affect his attendance. The Father did not view his use of alcohol as problematic and did not appear to fully acknowledge the negative consequences of his alcohol use. Dr Engelbrecht suggested that this could affect his prognosis negatively, as it made helping him see where changes were required, difficult. She did however note that he stated "I have come to terms with my limits... I won't drink a large amount again... I don't have a choice... I'll do it for [PP]...".
25. Dr Kaushal's evidence related to his diagnostic assessment of the Mother for ADHD. He concluded that she suffered with prominent ADHD symptoms that had persisted into her adult life. He explained that she had a previous diagnosis of anxiety and depression as well as emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) and was currently utilising prescribed antidepressants. He also concluded that there was a strong possibility that she suffered from PTSD stemming from adverse childhood experiences and repeated exposure to traumatic domestic violence. He thought that she may in addition be on the autism spectrum. He regarded these diagnosed/undiagnosed comorbid conditions as being likely to affect her ongoing behaviours and her response to appropriate treatment for ADHD. He made clear that she would need support from multiple agencies working cohesively to address the various conditions and to enhance the outcome of specific therapeutic intervention. In relation to the PTSD his view was that treatment for this would be best carried out by the psychologist that she had been seeing and ADHD could be treated with medication. However the length of time that the medication would take to make an impact would depend on whether she was also on the spectrum, which would require any medication to be introduced gradually. If that were the case he suggested that within five to six months there was likely to be an improvement in her condition but if she was not on the spectrum, and therefore the medication could be introduced at a more significant rate, then he would expect to see an improvement within ten to twelve weeks. In relation to accessing medication he indicated that there was a long waiting list on the Public Health system but the Public Health Department could prioritise her, in which case she might be able to commence treatment by May. He noted that the Mother suffered from a number of disabilities, the sum of which had a greater impact than the individual components.
26. Ms Henney was requested to make a Parenting Assessment report in respect of the Mother and Father. She had concluded, in her first report, as follows:
"(The Father) is reluctant to take advice and can present as aggressive, this is exacerbated if the advice is given by a female. I do have concerns about (the Father's) attitude towards women, he has assaulted [a family member] in the past and has perpetrated domestic abuse on his partners, he has also been rude towards women supervising contact and has been rude to me twice in contact. (The Father) did act on advice given to him by ["L"] during contact.
(The Mother) has demonstrated that she can maintain changes, however her parenting can be affected when she is stressed, anxious or depressed.
As stated above the parents both minimised domestic abuse and do not think it formed part of their relationship.
(The Mother) struggles to prioritise [PP] when she is stressed, anxious or depressed and at those times can be more abrupt with [PP] than she normally is.
[PP] is at risk of neglect due to (the Mother's) mental health if this is not managed through therapy and support from mental health services."
27. Ms Henney noted that the concerns identified by G reflected the issues which were highlighted initially and showed that the Mother had been offered a great deal of support and at times had been able to engage and act on advice, however this had not been consistent. In relation to the suggestion that both parents have supervised contact on a weekly basis she recognised that PP was attached to his parents but suggested that they needed to demonstrate their commitment to him on an ongoing basis as the evidence gathered by her suggested that they had not been able to prioritise PP's needs. In evidence Ms Henney explained that the Mother's inability to offer consistent care could be harmful emotionally to PP and make him anxious and unable to concentrate. Her view was that given PP's age it was important for a decision to be made on his placement without further delay as he was at a crucial stage in his development.
28. As the Family Support Worker H had had significant contact with the Mother, helping her to understand PP's development needs, assisting her with budgeting, providing emotional support and assisting with referrals to other agencies. Her visits to the Mother were on a regular basis and sometimes unannounced. She was guided by the allocated social worker as to when visits were required. The Mother had had three different social workers and H accepted that whilst the Mother's relationship with the first two had been very positive her relationship with G had at times been difficult. She said that the Mother had engaged well at times although there were inconsistencies in her engagement and times when she had cancelled appointments. She did however recognise that at times the Mother's mental health issues prevented her from accepting support.
29. Dr Briggs had prepared reports on both the Father and the Mother. His opinion was that were the Mother and the Father to resume their relationship this would carry the risk of intimate partner violence. He suggested that the likelihood was that there would be episodes of tension and of PP being exposed to parental acrimony and arguments if he was in their joint care. He said that it was difficult to predict the likely occurrence of significant physical violence were the relationship to resume but his suspicion was that it would not be frequent although it could be of high intensity.
30. In relation to the Mother he said that her history was "littered with adversity" and that there were features of her presentation and history which were suggestive of traits of a borderline personality disorder. She was also vulnerable to depression. He had advised that the Mother required psychotherapy to help her overcome the legacy of childhood adversity and she was now accessing Schema therapy under professional guidance and support of ("M"). He was concerned that the Mother described feeling overwhelmed and stressed although she appeared to have the support of various family members and friends. He said that she was ambivalent about social work support but had been candid in saying that at this point in time she found it difficult to trust anyone. He suggested that this raised implications as to whether she could be relied upon to be pro-active in her relationship with social workers. She needed stability and therefore those who were caring for her needed to ensure that there was a framework of stability for her.
31. Dr Briggs noted that the Father displayed unpredictable reactions to threats and in relation to any contact that was arranged for him with PP. Therefore there was a need for F to recognise when the Father was becoming agitated or distressed to a point where it could spill over and impact PP. Given his unpredictability F would have a role in ensuring that he was going to attend when contact was arranged.
32. In relation to the Schema therapy Dr Briggs said that he was pleased to note that despite initial difficulties in relation to attendance these had been ironed out and there was now a willingness on the part of the Mother to engage. He said that it was absolutely vital that this therapy continued as it would help the Mother understand why she has the difficulties that she does. When asked by Advocate Davies whether he felt that the Mother had done her very best he responded that there was considerable evidence of her "hanging in there" despite the undoubted difficulties and he had an overall sense of the Mother trying to do her best.
33. Ms Parsons was the person responsible for carrying out the Connected Persons Assessments in relation to the F and her husband. She described the process that was followed, starting with a Viability Assessment which was an initial assessment to see if a full Connected Person Assessment should be carried out. The Viability Assessment took up to two weeks and focused on the background of the individuals, their education, parenting ability and housing. If positive then the Connected Persons Assessment would take some twelve weeks. This was more detailed and required additional background checks, more extensive interviews and a medical examination. Once the Connected Persons Assessment was complete then, if positive, it would be referred to the Fostering Panel who would make the decision as to whether the individuals were appropriate as PP's carers. She explained that the Panel was due to meet on 18 April.
34. During the course of her cross-examination by Advocate Davies it became clear that Ms Parsons, when she carried out the assessment on F and her husband, had not read Dr Briggs's report and had a very limited knowledge of the issues in relation to the Father concerning domestic violence. Given that it was proposed that PP be placed with F and her husband who would have an important role in ensuring that the Father's behaviour would not be allowed to impact PP, yet without an understanding of that behaviour Ms Parsons had clearly not been in a position to carry out an accurate assessment of their ability to deal with it.
35. J, the Guardian, noted that from early on in the proceedings the Mother had told professionals that she loved PP and wanted to be able to care for him. The Mother had her own concerns about her ability to provide long term care for PP and she had always appeared aware of the challenges that she would need to overcome to give PP the stability and safety that he required. The Mother was relatively conscious of the concerns voiced by the professionals, but was not convinced that with a longer-term intervention, support, and supervision she would not be able to provide good enough parenting to PP. The Guardian also mentioned that the Mother felt that she was being penalised by her difficulties even when this did not stem from her. In relation to the Father she said that he was clear that if the Mother would not be considered able to remain caring for PP, he would like him to be placed with F. The Guardian recalled that when she visited F at her house she was looking after PP and that it was evident that PP felt at ease in F's house and in the care of the F, who was attentive and loving towards PP. He returned the affection with smiles and hugs.
36. The Guardian noted that the Mother had struggled with changes of social workers during the course of the proceedings. She said that as could have been expected, her working relationship had not been as easy or positive with three different social workers allocated to PP during that period. She believed that this had impacted on her ability to remain engaged and to ask for support. She noted the Mother's view that "she has been set up to fail" although she considered that, in the main, the support provided by Children's Social Care had been sufficient during the proceedings. She explained that high levels of support were provided at the beginning and removed slowly as time progressed. She said that in hindsight, she believed that the timing to withdraw some of the support had not always been optimum, for example when the Mother declined Family Support Worker intervention while she was still in the Mother and baby unit or when she asked for home visits to be further spaced in November 2022. However she accepted that some of these changes were requested by the Mother and declining her request might have hindered the Mother's ability to continue to develop as a Mother.
37. She noted that PP is a very loved baby who was receiving care and attention not only from his parents but from close family members and friends. His development would suggest that his immediate needs were being fulfilled by his carers. She felt that whilst the arrangements for PP had worked well whilst his care was shared by E and F no consideration had been given to this becoming a permanent arrangement. She understood that the Mother would oppose this arrangement as she believed it would not provide PP with the desired stability.
38. The Guardian expressed the view that one of the major worries about the Mother's capacity to care safely for PP was related to her mental health stability. In relation to the Schema therapy she said that it was easy to understand why the Mother would avoid deeply engaging in therapy and why she would be fearful of exploring historic painful experiences, although this work was essential to prevent those emotions from controlling future behaviour and would allow her to focus on PP's needs over her own. A further concern was the Mother's dismissal of the risks that domestic violence poses to children and thus to PP. There were several examples of the Mother minimising violence against herself. She noted that it was unfortunate that the Mother's previous life experiences had increased her tolerance towards any violence directed at her, and pointed out that one cannot therefore be certain that she would be able to identify similar risks for PP. Given that the Mother had suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse throughout her life, she struggled to identify the signs that would lead her to avoid or leave potentially dangerous situations. It was not clear that she would be able to prioritise her and PP's safety over her romantic relationships.
39. The Guardian stated that it was unfortunate that the Mother's ADHD was not diagnosed until February 2023 and that she had not been receiving extra support for her neurodevelopmental needs during the proceedings. However she had doubts that any extra support would have been enough to improve her parenting of PP as there were other elements identified by Dr Kaushal impacting her behaviour, such as her adverse childhood experiences and the domestic violence experienced by her.
40. The Guardian did not support the Minister's application for a Full Care Order and recommended that the court should extend the current Interim Care Order instead. Whilst she acknowledged that delay was generally not in the best interests of children, PP's practical living arrangements would not change as a result of this, and it would enable the court to have clear evidence about what final order was needed. She recommended a period of six months for the Minister to support and test the arrangements resulting from the Connected Person Assessment before considering PP's main carer's application for a residence order. A contact agreement between the parties and those involved in PP's care would ensure that PP continued to develop his relationship with all the significant people in his life.
41. Responding to questions in cross-examination the Guardian expressed the view that F and her husband would be excellent carers for PP. Her main concern was the family relationships and how they would deal with the Father: in her view F was not aware of the extent of the issues with the father. She noted that F had made certain comments which the Guardian characterised as excuses for the father's violent behaviour. She said that it was important that this matter was addressed with F.
42. In the Guardian's view there were two main issues that could put PP at risk and which had not yet been diminished:
(i) The first was the Mother's mental health issues. She felt that there was still a long way to go in dealing with this.
(ii) The second was the issue of domestic violence and the Mother's acceptance of partners who had a propensity to behave violently within the home. She felt that this would require considerable effort from the Mother to overcome.
43. The Guardian stated that there was what she described as a "massive risk" if PP remained with his Mother, in particular the issue of consistent care and the Mother being emotionally available, in addition to the issue of domestic violence. In terms of timescales she felt that the next few months were crucial given that after a child is two years old any psychological damage suffered is more difficult to overcome and there were only seven months left before PP attained that age.
44. Towards the end of the hearing we were advised by Advocate Benest that the Mother now accepted that PP should be placed with F. We recognise that this must have been a very difficult and distressing decision for her to take, given that we have no doubt that she is a loving and caring Mother. It also demonstrated that the Mother is able to place PP's interests before her own and for that she is to be commended.
45. The Care Plan provides for PP to be placed immediately with F and her husband. Given that at the time of the hearing, he was staying with F we were satisfied that this would not result in any undue disruption to either PP or his Mother.
46. In relation to contact with his Father, PP was taken by F to see him in prison. Upon the Father's release it is proposed that contact will initially be once a week supervised by the Children's Social Care Service for two hours.
47. In relation to contact with the Mother, contact will be similarly supervised by the Children's Social Care Service once a week for two hours with place and duration being reviewed after the first week. Whilst the initial period is less that enjoyed by the Mother prior to the hearing we recognise that PP needs a period to settle into his new routine.
48. We find, and it was agreed by the parties, that the threshold criteria for the making of an Interim Care Order under Article 30 of the Children's Law have been met.
49. We have considered the non-intervention principle but find that it is in PP's interests for an order to be made.
50. We appreciate that the hearing was very difficult for the Mother. Although she attended throughout most of the hearing she clearly found it distressing and chose not to give evidence, although her views were expressed on her behalf by her counsel, Advocate Benest. We make no criticism of the Mother for not giving evidence and understand her reasons for not doing so.
51. In the words of Dr Briggs, the Mother has "a history littered with adversity", which has given rise to a vulnerability to mental health difficulties. Whilst she may be able to evidence periods of good basic care of PP this is not consistent and there may therefore be periods where PP is placed at risk, both physically and emotionally.
52. PP and his Mother are fortunate in having a close support group in the form of F and her husband and E. Both F and E have been able to provide care for PP during periods when the Mother was unable to do so but this is clearly disruptive to him at a crucial time in his development when what is required is stability of care.
53. It is unfortunate that it required these proceedings to shine a spotlight on the Mother's mental health issues and for her to start receiving the diagnoses and consequential treatment that she needs for what are clearly very complex mental health issues. In this connection we were disappointed to note that in the draft Care Plan that was examined and discussed towards the end of the hearing the Minister was not prepared to accept the wording suggested by the parties that "The Minister will be pro-active in supporting (the Mother) to access mental health services as this is in [PP's] best interests" but instead wished to "continue to offer support". Given that it is proposed that the Mother will continue to have a role in PP's life, albeit not as his principal carer, we would urge the Minister to recognise that a) there may be occasions when the Mother does not follow up on offers of support as a result of her mental health issues rather than because of a genuine unwillingness and b) the Mother's mental health will have a direct bearing on the contribution that she can make to PP's future development. We were concerned to note that a number of criticisms were made by the Children's Social Care Service of the Mother's failure to attend appointments for therapy or diagnosis when it was clear from the expert evidence that such failures were likely to be the result of her mental health difficulties. In such circumstances to "offer" support rather than being pro-active may not be sufficient.
54. We are satisfied that, subject to positive Connected Person Assessments, both of F and her husband or E could provide the stable home environment that PP needs but we recognise that F may have the advantage of being able offer a direct family connection and can in addition ensure that he is brought up recognising the different cultures of the home countries of his Mother and Father.
55. It became clear during the hearing that the accommodation of F and her husband is limited in size with only two bedrooms available for them and their younger son. We would urge the Child Care Service to assist them in finding and financing more suitable accommodation.
56. Given the inchoate nature of the Care Plan, the late decision to identify the preferred carer and the incomplete Connected Person Assessments, we were content for an Interim Order to be sought at this stage, but only on the basis that a more permanent placement will be sought in a resumed hearing in July.
57. Having considered the matters required of us by Article 2(3) of the 2002 Law we were satisfied that the order sought by the Minister should be made and we so ordered.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.