Care proceedings - reasons for the orders made
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Dulake and Berry |
Between |
Minister for Children and Education |
Applicant |
And |
(1) A (the Mother) (2) B (the Father) (3) VV (the Child) (through his legal representative Advocate Kate Donohue) (4) C and D (the Grandparents) |
Respondents |
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Minister.
Advocate M. R. Godden for the First Respondent
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Second Respondent
Advocate K. H. Donohue for the Third Respondent
Advocate L. K. Helm for the Fourth Respondents
judgment
the COMMISSIONER:
1. At the conclusion of the hearing on 6 December, the Court made a Supervision Order in respect of the Third Respondent ("the child"), a Residence Order in favour of the Fourth Respondents, who are the maternal grandparents of the child ("the Grandparents") and various ancillary orders. What follows constitutes our reasons for making those orders. Although listed for a contested hearing, the matter ultimately proceeded by consent. Accordingly, this judgment can be comparatively brief.
2. At the hearing, the Court had the benefit of statements from the responsible social worker, the interim practice manager of the Fostering and Adoption Team, the First Respondent ("the mother") and the Grandparents, as well as a detailed report from the Guardian, Laura Cardinal.
3. As to expert reports, the Court received psychiatric reports from Dr Briggs on the father and the mother, a risk and parenting assessment on each parent from an independent childcare consultant, Sarah Bateman, and psychiatric / substance misuse reports on both parents from Dr Engelbrecht, as well as reports from Dr Ruddy as treating psychiatrist in respect of the mother.
4. The mother and the father are both care leavers and have had troubled upbringings. They are still both comparatively young.
5. The mother has mental health issues and is diagnosed as suffering from schizoaffective disorder. This is an episodic disorder which affects her thoughts and emotions and may affect her actions. When unwell, the mother may lose touch with reality and experience thought disorder, delusions or hallucinations. She has also been diagnosed as suffering from ADHD.
6. She has been a regular user of cannabis over many years and it is the view of Dr Engelbrecht that the mother has been psychologically dependent on cannabis in the past. The mother is prescribed a monthly antipsychotic depot injection to assist her mental condition. She has over the years been both a voluntary and detained patient at Orchard House. According to Dr Engelbrecht, these admissions have usually been due to a relapse of her psychotic illness when she does not take the prescribed psychotropic medication and her state is worsened by cannabis use.
7. The father also suffered a significant adverse childhood experience and is vulnerable to depression and anxiety. He is also diagnosed as suffering from ADHD and Dr Engelbrecht states that he shows traits of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. He was referred to Adult Mental Health when he was eighteen. At one stage he had a serious alcohol dependence, being physically dependent by nineteen, but the reports suggest that is no longer the case, although he does still drink at times. He also has a long history of drug misuse dating back to his early adolescence. He has been smoking cannabis daily since the age of seventeen and has also taken many other drugs.
8. The child was born in the summer of 2022 and has been on the Child Protection Register under the category of neglect since before his birth because of concerns about the ability of the parents to provide appropriate parenting. Those concerns have materialised following the birth as summarised briefly below when we consider the question of threshold.
9. In late March 2023, the mother took an overdose of unprescribed medication. She was taken to hospital and her condition was at one time described as critical.
10. In early April 2023, partly as a result of the concerns over the mother's mental health, it was agreed between the parents and the Minister that the child would reside with the father and have supervised contact with the mother as well as overnight contact with the mother on a weekly basis supported by the Grandparents.
11. The Minister's concerns about the parenting given to the child led to the Minister applying for a Care Order on 3 May 2023. The matter came before the Court on 6 June and an Interim Care Order was granted. The Interim Care Plan envisaged that the child was to remain in the care of the father with supervised contact with the mother. The father was supported by the social work team and family support workers. Shortly following the Interim Care Order hearing, the mother was re-admitted to Orchard House but was subsequently discharged on long-term leave on 17 July 2023.
12. Following the grant of the Interim Care Order, there was a period of relative stability with the child being looked after by the father with considerable support from the Children's Service and others. However, in early September, there was a material deterioration in both the physical and emotional state of the father. He reported feeling exhausted and unwell and there were reports that he had relapsed in relation to the degree of his drug use. It became difficult for the Minister to undertake out of hours home visits to check on the child's welfare. Indeed, on 10 September, during a home visit, when the child was supposed to be in the care of the father at his home, the father presented false information about the child's whereabouts.
13. As a result of his state, the father agreed on 13 September to the child being placed with the Grandparents as a temporary respite arrangement. However, he was still feeling unwell and unable to take care of the child on 18 September, and on that date the Minister made the decision, in accordance with the Interim Care Plan, to place the child in the care of the Grandparents for a period of up to twelve weeks pursuant to Regulation 19(3) of the Children (Placement) (Jersey) Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 Regulations").
14. On 23 September, the father was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking offences. During a search of his home address, the police seized drugs and drugs paraphernalia. He was released from police custody on bail but, immediately following his release, he was said to have been physically assaulted by three men and it is alleged that this was related to his arrest and the loss of drugs that were seized by the police. Despite suffering significant injuries to his right eye, the father refused to report the assault to the police. On the same day, the mother alleged that she was also physically assaulted when she attended at the father's address to check on him. The father remains under investigation for offences of possession with intent to supply class A and class B drugs.
15. The child has remained in the care of the Grandparents since then, with both the father and the mother having contact.
16. For the reasons discussed below, it is not possible for the Minister, under the auspices of a Care Order, to place the child on a long-term basis with the Grandparents because of the terms of Regulation 14(1) of the 2005 Regulations. The Grandparents having now applied for a Residence Order, the Minister proposes that such an order be made, but that the Minister is also granted a Supervision Order for twelve months with a view to offering support and assistance to the child and the Grandparents for that period. These were the two applications which came before the Court on 6 December and, as already stated, both were supported by the father and the mother, the Grandparents and the Guardian.
17. Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 provides that a threshold must be satisfied before the Court can make a Care Order or a Supervision Order, which threshold is expressed in the following terms:
"(2) The court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied -
(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child, or
(ii) ..."
18. The Minister has prepared a threshold statement, which is supported by the evidence placed before the Court. In view of the fact that no party, including the mother and the father, disputes that threshold is satisfied in this case, we do not think it necessary to describe the matters relied upon in any detail. Suffice it to say that the following matters are relied upon as showing that, as at the relevant date of 3 May 2023 (being the date of the Minister's application for a Care Order), the child was at risk of suffering significant physical and emotional harm:
(i) Since the birth of the child, the police have been called to intervene at domestic disputes between the father and the mother on ten occasions and have filed seven child protection notifications.
(ii) The relationship between the father and the mother is a volatile one. For example, at a review child protection conference, they were verbally aggressive towards one another, even in the presence of professionals, making mutual allegations against each other of alcohol and cannabis misuse and domestic violence.
(iii) Neighbours have complained of noise coming from the home address, alleging constant fighting, banging, crying and loud TV noises coming from within the property. On 2 November 2022, the father left the home address in the night with the child following a verbal argument between the parents, which awakened neighbours.
(iv) The child has been present during verbal and physical altercations between the parents, which have included punching each other, kicking each other and throwing objects at each other.
(v) The child is at risk of suffering significant harm as a result of neglect stemming from the parents' inability to provide safe, consistent and attuned care. The child's lived experience is unsafe, chaotic and characterised by parental acrimony precipitated and exacerbated by parental unstable mental health and parental substance misuse.
19. We have carefully considered the material before us and agree that the threshold test is satisfied. Accordingly the Court has jurisdiction to make a Care Order or a Supervision Order.
20. We move on therefore to consider what, if any, orders should be made in the child's best interests. We remind ourselves that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration and have regard to the welfare checklist at Article 2(3) and the no order principle at Article 2(5) of the 2002 Law.
21. We begin by agreeing with the Minister and the Guardian that it would not be in the child's best interests to return him to the care of either the mother or the father at this stage. To their credit, neither parent has submitted that that would be the right course, despite the fact that both clearly love the child and wish very much that one or other of them should in due course resume care of him.
22. It is in these circumstances that the Grandparents have very commendably stepped forward and have applied for a Residence Order so that the child remains in their care. The Minister and the Guardian, as well as the parents, support the making of such an order. This requires us to consider the position of the Grandparents. In this respect we have been much assisted by two statements from Ms E, the interim practice manager for the Fostering and Adoption Service, and by the report of the Guardian.
23. The Grandparents have had their difficulties in the past. They were at one time both heroin addicts. The effect of this on their ability to parent properly led to the mother and to the mother's younger sister being removed from the Grandparents' care.
24. However, they have been abstinent from drugs for many years, to such an extent that the younger sister was returned to their care and the care order discharged. They also have a younger son who is only a few years older than the child and who has been living in the care of the Grandparents since his birth. The Grandparents both remain in contact with the Drug and Alcohol Service but no concerns about any return to drug use on their part have been identified.
25. The reports show that the child is thriving in the Grandparents' care. They are providing a good standard of care to their grandson, the home is maintained to a good standard, he is in a good routine and he shows positive bonds with his grandparents and other children. The Grandparents have engaged fully with the assessment process and work well with the Children's Social Care Services. They keep the Services up to date about any progress, concerns or issues and have been open and honest with all the professionals. They clearly wish both parents of the child to have good family time with the child.
26. As Ms E states at paragraph 9.7 of her latest report, the placement of the child with his Grandparents is not without risk when one reviews their history. However, taking into account the fact that they have been free of drugs for nearly ten years, their continued engagement with the Drug and Alcohol Service as a protection, and the positive way in which they have been caring for the child, the Minister's conclusion is that placement with the Grandparents is in the child's best interests and that this can be done through a Residence Order, coupled with a Supervision Order in order to enable the Minister to have continued involvement for at least twelve months.
27. As we have stated earlier, the Guardian is of a similar view and both parents are also content that a Residence Order should be made. This will of course confer parental responsibility on the Grandparents and, in the absence of a Care Order, will mean that they have responsibility for making all key decisions about the child, although they have made it clear that they will seek and rely upon advice from the Minister.
28. Having considered all the material before us, we agree with the recommendation of the Minister and the Guardian. In our judgment, the child's best interests would be served by making a Residence Order, coupled with a Supervision Order for twelve months and accordingly that is the order which we made.
29. We should add that both parents have expressed the hope that, at some point in the future, the child will be rehabilitated to the care of one or other of them. The reports before us do not rule out that possibility and it is accepted by all concerned that both parents love the child and wish to do their best for him. We certainly hope that they can succeed in their aspiration. But, if this hope is to be achieved, it will be essential for both the mother and the father to work hard on the challenges which they each face and to take advantage of all the professional help which is on offer. We encourage them to work conscientiously on the areas of difficulty.
30. Before the hearing it appeared that there was a difference between the Minister on the one hand and the Guardian on the other as to the level of contact which each parent should have with the child following the making of a Residence Order. The Guardian favoured more generous contact than was proposed by the Minister. Of course, following the making of the Residence Order, decisions as to the level of contact will be legally for the Grandparents, but they have made it clear they would wish to be advised by the Minister, particularly during the period of the Supervision Order.
31. The Minister's proposal seemed a little restrictive and we are pleased to say that discussions took place between all the parties immediately before the hearing. The Minister adjusted his position and the resulting proposal had the agreement of all the parties. In due course, it may well be appropriate and possible to increase contact further, but this should occur at a measured pace having regard to what is the best level of contact for the child, as it is his best interests which should determine the level of contact.
32. We would mention a point which was raised at the hearing. One might think that a possible order in this case would have been for a Care Order to be made but with a placement by the Minister with the Grandparents. This would have the advantage of the Minister continuing to have responsibility for the child in circumstances where the Grandparents had in the past faced challenges.
33. However, as Ms E explained, that was not possible in this case. Because of their past difficulties, the Grandparents could not be approved as foster parents under Regulation 14 of the 2005 Regulations, and one can well understand that when considering they should be approved as foster parents generally. Regulation 14(1) provides that, except in the case of an immediate placement for up to twelve weeks pursuant to Regulation 19 (which was the power used in September to place the child with the Grandparents) "..a child shall not be placed with any person unless the person is approved by the Minister as a foster parent under this Regulation".
34. Accordingly, if a Care Order had been made in this case, it would not have been possible for the Minister to place the child with the Grandparents, even though all parties agreed that they were the best persons to look after the child.
35. It occurs to us that Regulation 14(1) may be expressed in unduly restrictive terms and we wonder whether it could be varied slightly so as to confer a discretion on the Minister to place a child who is the subject of a Care Order with a person who is not an approved foster carer if that person is a member of the child's extended family. Clearly this would be a power to be exercised cautiously but it might give some additional flexibility in a case such as the present and result in an order which is well suited to a child's best interests. It is not unusual for children who are the subject of a Care Order to be placed in the care of relatives.
36. We accept that such an amendment may raise wider considerations of which we are not aware, but we would invite the Attorney General and the Minister to consider whether an amendment of the Regulation along those lines would be advantageous.
Authorities
Children (Placement) (Jersey) Regulations 2005.
Children (Jersey) Law 2002