Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - application by the Minister for an interim care order.

[2016]JRC082

Royal Court

(Family)

14 April 2016

Before     :		T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Crill and Olsen
Between	The Minister for Health and Social Services		Applicant
And	A (the mother)		Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF CHARLIE (INTERIM CARE ORDER)

Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister.

Advocate A. T. H. English for the Respondent.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        On 14^th March, 2015, the Court granted an interim care order to the Minister in respect of the child Charlie, (aged one week, this is not her real name) of the mother and approved the Minister's care plan, which includes an approval for the temporary removal of the child out of the jurisdiction for the purposes, together with the mother, of an assessment.  These are our reasons. 

2.        In support of the Minister's application we had available a number of reports including the initial statement of Ms Diane Burgess, a social worker, dated 10^th March, 2016, and an initial care plan filed on behalf of the Minister similarly dated 10^th March, 2016; the report of Robyn Scate, a social worker, of 18^th January, 2016; a pre-birth risk assessment dated 10^th February, 2016, a chronology and a report of Dr Carritt-Baker dated 22^nd May, 2013, a report of Dr Murray dated 26^th September, 2013, and report of Dr Hendricks dated 26^th September, 2015.  In addition we heard from Ms Burgess who gave evidence before us. 

3.        In essence the evidence given supported the Minister's draft threshold document.  Without going into the detail of all of the matters raised in the reports and in the evidence in essence it was established to our satisfaction that:-

(i)        There was a significant likelihood that the child would suffer physical harm because the mother had taken steps to conceal her pregnancy from professionals knowing that she had a problematic obstetric history and the baby would be at risk of physical harm.  The mother had suffered from gestational diabetes during the pregnancy and notwithstanding this difficulty had failed to comply with dietary advice.  There was therefore some risk that the baby would not have received the essential nutrients that it needed.  The mother had also failed to take properly prescribed medication in respect of her condition.  Further the mother opted to receive a general anaesthetic during childbirth against the advice of the medical professionals and the baby was born suffering from the effects of that anaesthetic.  

(ii)       The mother had told the professionals that she intended to stop breastfeeding after the first week but she had made no provision for this or the arrival of the child generally.  No clothes had been bought, baby formula or any of the essential equipment needed.  It is clear that the mother has resisted accepting the help of professionals in either procuring these items or indeed engaging generally by failing to accept medical advice. 

(iii)      The mother has also been the alleged perpetrator of domestic violence in the past, including in the presence of her children. 

(iv)      There was also a concern that the child would be at risk of suffering emotional harm by reason of the fact that the mother has no home for the child, no means of feeding her and no clothes for her.  The mother has two older children with whom she is only allowed indirect contact by reason of a Court order made in favour of her estranged husband.  Psychological assessments produced during the course of the proceedings giving rise to that Court order has suggested that the mother has symptoms of depression and anxiety over a prolonged period.  She does not appear to have sought any treatments since those reports were compiled and she appears to be withdrawn, isolated and anxious. 

(v)       The mother has also been secretive about the existence and care arrangements for her previous children.  It is unclear whether the mother has children over and above the child and the two children that are subject to the order of the Court. 

(vi)      The mother has failed to engage with any of the support agencies on a voluntary basis notwithstanding the difficulties that she has faced.  She has distanced herself and avoided engagement with the professionals and has been dismissive of their concerns relating to the child. 

(vii)     The mother was informed of what was happening before the Court today but declined to come.  Ms Burgess characterised the concerns about the child as high and characterised the mother's behaviour as avoidant and dismissive and highly mistrustful of authority.  Ms Burgess also points to the fact that the mother tends to contradict herself in communications with professionals although whether that is actual contradiction or a result of language difficulties we are not in a position to say.  She is, however, described in her behaviour as volatile and capable of "turning" very quickly. 

4.        As we have said, the mother was not present.  She had been appointed a legal representative on the legal aid system and Advocate English explained the endeavours that he had undertaken in order to make contact with the mother and secure instructions.  He had sought to attend upon her in hospital, had sent her a note both in English and in Thai.  He was, however, without instructions and appeared as a courtesy to the Court to inform us of the position. 

5.        We were also informed that the mother was fully aware of the nature of the application having, so we were told by counsel for the Minister, been sent appropriate documentation and letters both in English and in Thai.  Whereas the mother did not see the need for any intervention by the social services she was, so we were informed, content to undergo the assessment.  It is clear, as the evidence set out above has disclosed, that the mother does not engage with the social services or others who may be in a position to help her and appears from what we have heard to be deeply suspicious of their actions.  The extent to which this is a language problem or a result of the mother's psychological condition is something that we are currently unable to assess. 

6.        However we were satisfied that the mother was aware of the nature of the application and that it was progressing before the Court, and in the light of all that we have heard we were content to proceed in her absence. 

7.        In the light of the evidence we are satisfied that the threshold for an interim care order has been passed in that we are satisfied on the balance of probability that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstance of the child are such that the child is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to the child being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child.  We accordingly have considered what order we should make. 

8.        We have been greatly assisted by the evidence and input of the guardian, Eleanor Green, who supports the Minister's application as being in the best interests of the child.  In her evidence she states that:-

(i)        She has had the opportunity to read the papers and although she has not seen the mother she has spoken to the social workers involved.  There is to her mind a significant amount of unknown risk and there is uncertainty concerning the mental health of the mother.  In her view the mental health questions of the mother represent a risk factor and the parenting of the child and that that parenting is compromised by mental health factors. 

(ii)       There is an allegation of violence which, whilst she does not know very much about it, must increase the perception of risk. 

(iii)      Essentially there are a number of risk factors and a lot of the narrative relating to the live history of the mother is uncertain which of itself is worrying.  The guardian could not say why the mother was not prepared for the baby but she views this as another risk factor. 

(iv)      Accordingly she completely supports the requirement of the Minister for shared parental responsibility. 

9.        We have considered the various options available to us and it seems to us that the appropriate first stage is, as the Minister requests and sets out in his care plan, an assessment of the mother and child.  We are satisfied that that cannot be carried out with the same intensity and thoroughness needed in Jersey in the present circumstances as would be the case in the United Kingdom.  Furthermore the anticipated placement for that purpose, of 12 weeks' duration, is in Herne Hill, London and the mother was, we were advised, familiar with London and content to relocate there for the purposes of that assessment. 

10.      Counsel for the Minister addressed us on the criteria for agreeing the temporary removal of the child from the Island and we are satisfied that those tests are amply met in the circumstances.  

11.      Accordingly we have made an interim care order in respect of the child and approve the Minister's care plan, which includes the removal of the child temporary from the jurisdiction, in the company of the mother, for the purposes of an assessment. 

No Authorities