In the matter of Z (Care Order) [2014] JRC 018 (22 January 2014)

judgment the commissioner: 1. In this case, all of the parties, other than the father, were in agreement both that the threshold had been met and with the care plan put forward by the Minister, essentially that the child, who is aged two, should remain within the family under the care of his paternal grandfather and with the safeguard of a final care order. The father, who does not have parental responsibility, had disengaged from the child and the process. 2. The child has been diagnosed with VATER Syndrome, which is a pattern of related birth defects. He was born with a malformed right wrist, a hole in his heart and problems with his trachea. Until September 2012, he lived with the mother and father who were both consuming high levels of alcohol giving rise to incidents of domestic violence. The parents separated in September 2012. On 12 th September, 2012, the mother informed social workers that she could no longer cope with the child, who was then placed with his maternal grandmother and her partner for one week. Having been returned to the mother's care, she attended the General Hospital on 8 th October, 2012, saying that she could not manage the child, who was again placed with his maternal grandmother until 2 nd November, 2012, when, because of difficulties between the mother and the maternal grandmother, he was placed with foster carers for a week before being returned to the maternal grandmother on 14 th November, 2012. The child experienced five changes of care in a period of some two and a half months. 3. The child remained in the maternal grandmother's care until February 2013 when both mother and the maternal grandmother requested that he be placed in foster care. The maternal grandmother has a daughter with learning difficulties, and she and her partner felt that they were not in a position to care for the child long term. 4. An interim care order was made on 13 th February, 2013. The Court ordered a psychological assessment of both the mother and the father, which was undertaken by Dr Joshua Carritt-Baker, a chartered clinical psychologist. His report of 2 nd May, 2013, was in some respects positive about the father but limited because of his lack of engagement. Subsequently the father withdrew from the assessment process and on 18 th September, 2013, was sent to prison for breach of a community service order in relation to one count of grave and criminal assault and another count of common assault. He was due to be released on 14 th January, 2014. 5. Dr Caritt-Baker's report on the mother did not rule her out as a carer for the child but emphasised the importance of psychological interventions to allow her to care for the child without posing a risk to him. He advised that the interventions would be relevant to both her general well-being and her alcohol use. 6. Based on this advice, at a hearing on 20 th May, 2013, the Minister sought an adjournment of the final hearing in order to allow the mother to engage in this therapeutic process. Unfortunately the mother did not do so. 7. The Children's Service did not proceed with a Connected Persons' Assessment of the maternal grandmother and her partner. Whilst it was acknowledged that they would continue to play a significant role in the child's life, it was as grandparents (as they had requested) not as carers. The paternal grandfather was recommended for approval as a kinship carer at the Fostering Panel meeting on 9 th October, 2013, and the child was placed with him on 7 th November, 2013. 8. It was accepted by the mother and agreed by the guardian that on the relevant date, namely 7 th February, 2013, when the Minister initiated protective measures, the threshold criteria under Article 24(2)(b) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 were met in that the child was likely to suffer significant harm due to the care being given to him if an order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. That being the case it is not necessary for this judgment to go into the detail of the evidence. In broad terms, the parents' binge drinking and psychological difficulties resulted in an inconsistency of care provided to the child, placing him at risk of emotional harm and neglect. The mother's criminal offending relating to drugs and alcohol misuse is extensive with, for example, seven incidents involving the police between January and August 2013. The parents' problems were coupled with their inability to engage with professionals. The mother has been unable to cope with the care of the child, with his special needs, subjecting him to emotional harm when he is abandoned by her. The mother's own volatile relationship with the maternal grandmother has limited her own family support. 9. Dr Tim Malpas (a consultant paediatrician) expressed concerns, during a medical examination on 10 th October, 2012, that the child had lost weight. He subsequently reported concerns about the child's lack of routine and structure at home. It was his opinion that the mother was not coping with his care and said that he would have child protection concerns if the child was returned to the mother's care. 10. In the light of the evidence the Court agreed that the threshold had been met. To be fair to the mother, whilst accepting that the threshold criteria was met, she explained that in August and September 2012 she suffered what she said amounted to a breakdown resulting in her being unable to meet the child's needs. The child suffered a series of complex medical problems which combined with the breakdown in her relationship with the father, led to her being unable to cope. 11. The Court had some sympathy for the mother and understanding for her situation in the circumstances in which she found herself and the challenges she faced. It was very encouraging to note that the mother had now engaged with psychological services and the final report from Dr Gafoor of 30 th October, 2013, was positive. 12. In terms of the welfare test, the Court had regard to the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051 at paragraph 8:- "For this purpose it is well established that:- (i) The child's welfare is the paramount consideration (Article 2(1) the 2002 Law. (ii) Any delay in determining a question with regard to the upbringing of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child (Article 2(2)). (iii) The Court must have regard to the seven matters ("the welfare checklist") set out in Article 2(3). (iv) The Court must not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order (Article 2(5)). (v) Before making a care order the Court must scrutinise the care plan prepared by the Minister for the child including scrutiny of the Minister's proposals for contact, and invite the parties to comment on them (Article 27(11))." 13. In terms of the welfare checklist, the child was too young to express any views, but it could be assumed that he would wish to remain within his family. He has special needs and it was clear that within the family the paternal grandfather was capable of meeting those needs. He had been thoroughly assessed and was very committed. 14. At the time of the final hearing on 26 th November, 2013, the child had been with the paternal grandfather for some three weeks and although it was early days, the placement was going well. Miss Laura Stark, the social worker, who gave evidence before us, stressed the importance of the family members supporting this placement. The care plan proposed that there would be a six month assessment to confirm whether the family were able to do so for the benefit of the child and if they could, whether the child would then need to remain subject to a care order; a residence order may at that stage suffice. 15. Initially, the care plan had proposed reducing contact between the mother and the child to some four times a year in order to allow the child to settle in with the paternal grandfather. As a result of concerns expressed in particular by the guardian, this had been reconsidered by the Children's Service. In discussions with the mother and the paternal grandfather, both are willing to support and work with a greater level of contact, which is now provided for in a revised plan which was supported by the mother and the guardian and which the Court approved. We share the optimism of the guardian that this family can work together in the long term best interests of the child, but nevertheless a care order, as opposed to no order or a residence order, was appropriate because there remained risks as to whether the family can support the placement, something which the Children's Service can assess over the next six months. 16. In the premises, the Court approved the care plan and contact arrangements and with the consent of the parties (other than the father) made a final care order. Authorities Children (Jersey) Law 2002. Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051 . Page Last Updated: 18 Jan 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII