Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - residence and supervision order

[2021]JRC020

Royal Court

(Family)

25 January 2021

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Dulake and Austin-Vautier

 

IN THE MATTER OF ZZ (CARE PROCEEDINGS)

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

Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Applicant.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the First Respondent.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Third Respondent.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Fourth Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 16^th November 2020, the Court granted the Applicant ("the Minister") a supervision order in respect of ZZ ("the Child"), who is now eight years of age, and a residence order in favour of her maternal grandmother, C ("the Maternal Grandmother"), with whom the Child had been living since October, 2019.  These orders were made with the consent of A ("the Mother") who remains actively involved in the Child's life.

2.        B ("the Father") had not engaged with the process and had no involvement in the Child's life.  The Court was satisfied that the Father had been served with the application of the Minister and was aware of the date of the hearing.  In the circumstances, the Court resolved to continue with the proceedings in his absence pursuant to Rule 17 of the Children Rules 2005.

3.        There have been earlier proceedings in respect of the Child in which the Court had granted the Minister a supervision order.  In its unpublished judgment of 4^th September 2018, the Court said there were two significant factors which affected the Mother's ability to provide safe and consistent care for the Child, namely alcohol misuse (which consisted of binge drinking, rather than continuous misuse of alcohol) and her association with violent men.  The Mother had engaged in a number of programmes, had stopped misusing alcohol and was not in any relationship.  Such was her progress that the Child (who had been living with the Maternal Grandmother) was reunified with the Mother and a supervision order, supported by the guardian, was considered the most appropriate order to be made.  The Father did participate in those proceedings and was enjoying supervised contact with the Child.  He was granted parental responsibility.

4.        The threshold document prepared for these proceedings recites that since the previous proceedings, the Mother had lapsed into serious alcohol misuse, to which the Child has been exposed, and continued to form inappropriate relationships.  On the 3^rd October 2019 the former social worker made a home visit and found the Mother under the influence of alcohol or drugs and acting bizarrely.  Subsequently the Child went to stay with the Maternal Grandmother where she has remained ever since.

5.        In her report of 13^th January 2020, Dr Tanya Engelbrecht, a consultant psychiatrist, said this at paragraph 14.68:

"She (the mother) has a history of superficial engagement and sometimes disguised compliance with services.  She verbalises a wish to engage in services, but in reality her engagement can be short lived.  In spite of intensive support from a range of services over time, [the Mother] persisted in choosing a lifestyle which is detrimental to her daughter's welfare and development."

6.        In his report of 24^th September 2020, Mr David Briggs, a forensic clinical psychologist, said this at paragraph 5(d):

"I am pessimistic as to [the Mother's] ability at this point in time to sustain care for [the Child] on a long-term basis, i.e. care that is predictable, safe and free of the burden of the Child witnessing her mother's episodic periods of problematic drinking and/or her mother associating with violent and/or alcohol misusing partners.  (I am uncomfortable in being so blunt about these matters.)

It strikes me that it is important to adopt a long-term perspective when analysing the concerns in this case.  [The Mother] had been provided with opportunities in the past to address her difficulties.  She has not availed herself of those opportunities.  She had the wake-up call of the Supervision Order.  That had not impacted on her sufficiently to prevent concerns re-emerging.  She has persisted in forming problematic relationships and has evidenced periods of alcohol misuse.  As noted above, she lacks insight into the concerns in this case.

In my opinion [the Mother] lacks essential precursors for change."

7.        The threshold document stated that the Mother had recently formed a relationship with a Mr D, and there had been five police reports in relation to domestic violence incidents perpetrated by him.

8.        At a pre-proceedings meeting on 7^th November 2019, the Mother agreed to hair strand testing and the results, which were received on 8^th January 2020, indicated that she had used alcohol excessively over the three months prior to the test.  The results also detected that the Mother had used Diazepan, Nordiazepan and MDMA, although not to a significant level.  Subsequent hair strand testing received during the course of the proceedings on 6^th July 2020 and 30^th October 2020 indicated excessive alcohol use.

9.        At a review meeting on 4^th February 2020, the Minister was minded to extend the pre-proceedings process, so that the Mother could be given the opportunity to engage in the recommendations of Dr Engelbrecht as to how to address her issues.  The Mother was unable to listen to the ongoing concerns and left the meeting within a few moments of it commencing. 

10.      Subsequently, the Mother informed the former social worker that she did not fully understand Dr Engelbrecht's recommendations and she was given the opportunity to meet with Dr Engelbrecht on 10^th February 2020, so that they could be explained further.  The Mother did not attend that appointment.

11.      On 12^th March 2020, the pre-proceedings process came to an end and the Minister issued these care proceedings, which were delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, but during this period, the Childs welfare was not compromised, as she remained in the care of the Maternal Grandmother.

12.      It was the position of the Minister that despite the previous court intervention and the opportunities provided to the Mother, she had not engaged in the treatment recommended by Dr Engelbrecht to address the cause of her issues and she lacked insight into the concerns.  She had not made the necessary changes within the Child's timescales that would enable her to safely care for the Child consistently.  The Child requires stability and permanence to provide for her long-term needs and those will be provided by a residence in favour of the Maternal Grandmother and a 12 months' supervision order.  The Mother accepted that the Child should remain in the care of the Maternal Grandmother.

13.      The Court heard evidence from the current social worker, which had to be conducted by videolink.  Due to the weakness of the link, her evidence was supplemented by the evidence of her senior manager.  The Court also heard evidence from the Guardian, Eleanor Green.

14.      The parties agreed, and in the case of the Maternal Grandmother did not contest, that the threshold for the making of a supervision order under Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 had been met and the Court agreed.  The Court therefore had jurisdiction to make a supervision order.

15.      There were no contentious issues in relation to the care plan and contact arrangements.  The Mother was already actively involved in the Child's life, taking her to and from school and returning her to the Maternal Grandmother's home, where they spent time together.  A number of future contact arrangements had been agreed with the Minister, including the possibility of the first overnight stay with the Mother.  The terms of a written agreement between the Mother, Maternal Grandmother and the Minister had been agreed, outlining the expectations of the Minister for keeping the Child safe, and which set out support to be provided by the Minister to the Mother, one of the issues identified by the Guardian who said this at paragraph 4.3 of her report:

"[The Child] wants and needs a healthy relationship with her mother and to spend time with her.  This rupture is unlikely to be repaired unless her mother is able to properly address her own needs, which means that (the Mother] needs a) easy access to the right therapeutic interventions, b) social supports and c) effort and willingness to work hard and make changes for the sake of her daughter."

16.      The Guardian also expressed her concern at paragraph 3.7 of her report, that whilst the Child appears generally happy, she lacked a sophisticated awareness of the reasons why she was unable to be cared for by the Mother, and the Mother and the Maternal Grandmother had little idea how to talk to her about what she had experienced.  The senior manager confirmed in her evidence and was confident that this would be addressed by the social worker as part of the Child's life story work. 

17.      In terms of the welfare checklist, the Child is well settled with the Maternal Grandmother and at school.  She wanted to go back to the Mother, but this was not possible as the Mother was not capable of meeting her needs and as stated above this needed to be explained to her.  The Child complained of going "backwards and forwards" between the Mother and the Maternal Grandmother - she did not want to be a "yo-yo".  This would be prevented by a residence order in favour of the Maternal Grandmother, under which she would have parental responsibility, and which would underpin and secure the placement.  That would be combined with a twelve-month supervision order in which support and advice will be given to the Maternal Grandmother, in particular in relation to the regulating of contact between the Mother and the Child and should the Father attempt to make contact.

18.      These two orders were the least interventionist approach and the appropriate orders for the Court to make and to which all of the parties consented.  As the Court said at the hearing, it was fortunate that the Maternal Grandmother had been able to step in and provide a home and security for the Child within the family.

Authorities

Children Rules 2005. 

Children (Jersey) Law 2002