Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - application by the Minister for a care order and supervision order.

[2016]JRC186

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 October 2016

Before     :		W. J. Bailhache, Esq., and Jurats Olsen and Sparrow
Between	The Minister for Health and Social Services		Applicant
And	(1)   A (the mother) (2)   B (Sally's father)		Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF OLLIE, CAMERON AND SALLY (CARE ORDER/SUPERVISION ORDER)

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

Advocate S. L. Brace for the Minister.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for the Mother.

Advocate M. R. Godden for Sally's Father.

Mrs Elsa Fernandes as Guardian for the Children.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This judgment concerns an application by the Minister for a care order in respect of Ollie (this is not his real name) aged eleven, and Cameron (this is not his real name) aged eight, and a supervision order in relation to Sally (this is not her real name), aged six.  The mother is mother to all three children.  The fathers of Ollie and Cameron have not been given notice of these applications because their respective whereabouts are unknown.  They do not have parental responsibility and we have proceeded in their absence.  Sally's father co-habited with the mother for some time in the same household as Ollie and Cameron, and is the father of Sally.  Ollie and Cameron were subject to an interim care order on 22^nd October, 2015, and have been in foster care since 29^th September, 2015, when they moved into the care of the Minister with the mother's agreement.  On 22^nd October, 2015, the mother gave an undertaking to the Court not to permit Sally's father to have contact with Sally unless directed by the Children's Social Services and on that basis Sally continued to live with her mother pending the final hearing. 

2.        When it came to the final hearing, the Court had available to it the final statement of Miss Jade Allchin, the social worker currently allocated to this family, together with the initial statement of Ms Robyn Scate, the social worker first appointed to the family; we also had the benefit of a multi-agency chronology; expert reports from Dr Parsons, a consultant forensic psychologist; from Dr Tania Engelbrecht, a consultant psychiatrist; reports from Mr Gafoor, director of Jersey's Alcohol and Drug Service and Dr Mair Edwards, a clinical psychologist, and Dr Catherine Howden, the Medical Adviser for Looked After Children at the General Hospital.  We also had statements from the mother and from Sally's father, and we heard oral evidence from both Dr Howden, Ms Allchin and Mrs Fernandes, the children's guardian.  We say at the outset that all parties were agreed both that threshold had been passed and secondly that on the application of the welfare test, the care orders ought to be made in respect of Ollie and Cameron, and a supervision order in respect of Sally, and that the care plans be approved. 

3.        We also saw Cameron in Chambers in the presence of the guardian and his foster carer.  Cameron, who seems a delightful little boy, told us that he wanted to go back to live with his mother.  We have had to think carefully because the wishes of the child are an important consideration; but at the end of the day we reached the conclusion that at his age, his wishes do not reflect what is in his best interests. 

4.        Having considered all this material, we have resolved to grant care orders in respect of Ollie and Cameron and have approved the care plan and our more detailed reasons now follow:-

Threshold

5.        There was an agreed threshold statement.  In relation to Ollie and Cameron, it was agreed in particular that they have suffered significant neglect and would be likely to suffer significant neglect as a result of the parenting provided by Sally's father and the mother.  The primary problem was that when they all lived together, the family unit as a whole appeared to consist of the mother, Sally's father and Sally in one group, with the mother partially invested in Ollie and Cameron.  Their needs were secondary to hers.  By way of example, in stark contrast to Sally, there was little evidence of the boys living in the family home - their bedroom contained only a single bed, a mattress on the floor, a cupboard in which their toys were locked away, and a light fitting with no bulb.  The conditions were such that, for a visitor, there was no indication that the boys lived there, except for their beds.  They could not read, nor play in their bedroom once it was dark, because there was no bulb in the light socket and the toys were locked away in the cupboard.  Furthermore the boys both had suffered and were likely to suffer significant emotional harm as a result of the parenting provided.  The Minister did not maintain any allegation of actual physical harm to the boys, perpetrated by Sally's father, but he acknowledged that he engaged in punitive parenting and that the boys were "terrified and scared" of him.  Through their parenting, the boys suffered significant rejection and criticism, and this in turn has caused them to reject and be critical of others and of themselves.  As far as Sally is concerned, she is likely to suffer significant emotional harm as a result of the parenting her step-brothers have received, and that she is likely to receive.  She had been witness to shouting, inappropriate discipline and emotional harm; her mother fails to provide consistent boundaries and avoids her oppositional and defiant behaviours, and her father has long-standing anger management difficulties and emotional difficulties resulting in him rapidly becoming irritable and angry.  Sally is a very vulnerable child with significant global developmental delay, and as a result of the lack of boundaries in the home environment is likely to become a behaviourally challenging child who could pose a risk to herself and to others. 

6.        The medical evidence from Dr Howden demonstrated clearly that both Ollie and Cameron had suffered as a result of the environment in which they lived when in the family home, in that their growth rates both in terms of height and weight markedly slowed during that time such that from being about average, they dropped to the lower centiles of the population; and equally markedly increased after they were taken out of that environment and placed into care.  In Ollie's case, Dr Howden put the lack of growth down to emotional stress; in Cameron's case, she considered it was a mixture of stress and lack of food. 

7.        The Court finds these allegations established, and is in no doubt that threshold has been passed in relation to all three children. 

The Welfare Test and Care Plans - Ollie and Cameron

8.        We start with the arrangements in respect of the two boys.  As far as their wishes are concerned, they both wish to return to live with their mother, although Ollie did say in August this year that of the two options of going home or into long-term foster care, he did not know which he wanted.  As we have indicated, Cameron was clear with us that he wanted to go home to his mum.  That view, which both children have, is unsurprising.  As the guardian told us, they love their mother and indeed, on the mother's behalf, Advocate Corbel told us that she loves all three children very dearly and wants only what is best for them.  This, however, is a classic case where love of the child is not enough.  The analysis of the parents and of what has actually happened to these boys in their young lives to date inevitably leads to the conclusion that the mother is not able to provide them with the care which they need to help them become healthy adults.  Insofar as the mother is concerned, she experienced an emotionally neglectful childhood which was disruptive and unstable.  She has experienced dependent domestically abusive and harmful relationships which she could not leave, despite her partner's treatment of her.  The connections between the mother and her two boys have been hindered by her own attachment issues and by inconsistent parental discipline.  Her previous relationships, intravenous drug use and changes of partner have negatively impacted on her ability to be emotionally attuned and responsive to the two boys in their formative early years.  The mother accepts the evidence, albeit she wishes it were not as it is. 

9.        Since the boys moved in to foster care, they have each of them grown significantly in height, and put on weight.  They seem now to be physically healthy, albeit there are real concerns about their emotional state.  The evidence from the social worker was that they needed better than good enough parenting at this stage to repair the damage which had been done.  They have made extremely good progress in foster care but they still present some challenging behaviours. 

10.      The care plan which the Minister proposes has the two brothers placed in long-term foster care in individual placements, preferably on-island with a therapeutic plan of intervention delivered by the CAMHS service.  It is unfortunate that the present carers will not be able to continue looking after Ollie and Cameron on a long-term basis, and so far the Minister has not been able to identify suitable long-term carers on the island.  Ms Allchin told us that work is continuing in that respect, and we very much hope that it is successful as we share the view that it would be better, in the light of their family and friendship contacts, and the fact that they know that this island is where they come from, that they are brought up here if possible.  Of course if that should not prove to be possible the Minister will have to return to Court seeking approval for an off-island placement. 

11.      The recommendation is that the boys should go into individual placements because they both need one-to-one care and there would be a high risk of a placement breakdown if they were put together.  That recommendation is supported by the evidence of Dr Edwards and we understand why it has been made. 

12.      As far as contact is concerned, Ollie and Cameron currently see their mother twice per week, supervised for a period of two hours.  Over the next seven months, the care plan proposes a gradual reduction of direct contact between Ollie, Cameron and the mother, so that each of Ollie and Cameron has supervised contact for two hours a month, and every second month these will be combined.  In addition there will be contact for two hours every school half-term, supported and supervised.  Ollie and Cameron may contact each other through social media, and other indirect forms of contact, and will no doubt have the opportunity for direct contact with each other, dependent on the development of their relationships in the future.  It is suggested that contact between Ollie and Cameron should be "regularly reviewed to ensure [it is] beneficial to both boys".  We agree with that and agree also that the frequency will depend on any progress or difficulties in the sibling relationship. 

13.      We have considered the care plan carefully, and considered also the various potential disposals of the proceedings having regard to the welfare test.  Having reviewed all that material, we are quite satisfied that it is right to grant the Minister's application for a care order and to approve the care plans, and we do so. 

The Welfare Test and Care Plan - Sally

14.      As far as Sally is concerned, the situation is a little different.  She has remained in her mother's care with her father residing away from the family home and was made the subject of a Child Protection Plan from October 21^st 2015.  Her basic care needs have been met to a good enough standard of care by her parents but it would have been confusing and frightening for her to see the abuse of the boys.  She has been witness to shouting, inappropriate discipline and the harm inflicted on her brothers.  Her additional complex needs as a result of her global developmental delay also means that she will have been confused as she would not have been able to make much sense of what was happening around her.  According to the social worker, she already presents with challenging behaviours and it is uncertain if these needs are organic or environmental as a result of an underlying difficulty, or parenting.  Her behaviours include aggression towards others, oppositional and defiant behaviours and sudden mood changes.  Dr Edwards suggests that as she gets older, Sally will become more frustrated when she is unable to express her wishes to others, and that is likely to lead to more challenging behaviours.  Unless this is well managed "she will become a seriously challenging child in late childhood / early adolescence, placing her parents / carer / teachers at risk of physical harm". 

15.      The overall outcome of the assessments is that Sally needs to be provided with the opportunity to be raised within her immediate family with a high level of support and intervention from Children's Services.  It is acknowledged by the Children's Service that there is a significant risk that she will develop further behavioural and challenging difficulty.  Whilst the no order principle is clearly the least interventionist approach and maintains the status quo, the Court accepts that it is not enough to ensure Sally's safety and wellbeing whilst the plan for her progresses.  The Court has considered whether a care order for her would be more appropriate, allowing the Minister to share parental responsibility for Sally.  We have had regard to the guardian's evidence to us that the family have not yet had the chance to prove their capabilities in respect of Sally, and also her view that if the concerns in respect of a child are so high that a care order is necessary, the child should not be at home.  On the other hand here, both parents have made significant progress since the date of the Children's Service intervention.  Sally's father acknowledges his need of support and, in the guardian's view, the family ought to be given a chance, recognising that the Minister can of course return to the Court to seek to convert the supervision order into a care order if there should be a deterioration in the position. 

16.      The care plan for Sally is therefore that she will remain in the care of her mother.  The mother has agreed that she must stop giving in to her daughter, and the father has stated that he is addressing his issues.  He is now in full-time employment, which has resolved his feelings of low mood and anger and he has been of the view that it was his unemployment which has played a very large part in the difficulties which occurred in the home.  However, he is undertaking work with the Drug and Alcohol Service and the Jersey Talking Therapies Service which he believes has helped him significantly.  He says that he understands why he could not progress with unsupervised contact with Sally in the short-term, but he hopes to address his emotional difficulties in order to satisfy the professionals that the risk has been reduced.  Sally currently sees her father, on a supervised basis, for a period of two hours per week.  The overall aim is to consider reintroducing him into the family home, and contact will be regularly reviewed in the hope that there will be a move towards a staged reunification plan, as guided by the professionals working with Sally's father. 

17.      The Court is therefore satisfied that the circumstances with respect to Sally are those referred in Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law"), and the Court therefore has placed Sally under the supervision of the Minister for a period of twelve months.  Power is conferred on the Minister under Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the Law to give directions requiring Sally to meet with the Minister, such meetings to take place at home, school or in the community on a planned and unplanned basis, and will be subject to review.  Sally is also required to attend any group activities or appointments as directed by the Minister, and to participate in any other requirement reasonably in Sally's best interests.  By consent, the respondents are required to comply with sub-paragraphs 1(a) and 1(c) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the Law, and in particular:-

(i)        The First Respondent is:

(a)       To take all reasonable steps to ensure that Sally complies with the directions given by the Minister, including any directions in respect of contact with her half siblings, Ollie and Cameron, and contact with Sally's father;

(b)       To require Sally to participate in any other appointment or activity reasonably required in her best interests, including the speech and language therapy service;

(c)       To access support for Sally as may be required;

(d)       To continue to work with the family support worker.

18.      Sally's father is required to continue to engage with the Jersey Talking Therapy service or such other therapeutic service that may be reasonably recommended by the Minister. 

19.      In addition, the First and Second Respondents, by consent are required to:-

(i)        Meet with the Minister as reasonably required. 

(ii)       Attend core group meetings, to take place every four weeks, with the supervisor and other professionals as required to review the supervision plan. 

(iii)      Continue to engage with parenting support services at the Bridge or elsewhere as required. 

(iv)      Continue to engage with the Drug and Alcohol Service as required. 

(v)       Engage with the reunification plan including engaging with the parenting advice given by the family support worker who will attend one in four of the contact sessions set out in the reunification plan and. 

(vi)      Participate in any other requirement reasonably in Sally's best interests. 

20.      It is clear that Sally needs some special care and that the mother and Sally's father will have to work hard to get themselves into the position where they can properly provide that care.  The supervision order is intended to help them in this respect. 

21.      As we said in Court, the Respondents, particularly the mother, has had to face some difficult decisions in the course of these proceedings.  She is to be commended for putting her children's interests before her own.  It is a sad thing that the family has had to be broken up, but we are in no doubt that it is in the best interests of each child that this decision has been reached. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.