BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of G (Care Order) [2012] JRC 212 (16 November 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2012/2012_212.html Cite as: [2012] JRC 212 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Care Order - application by the minister for a full care order.
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats Fisher and Nicolle. |
|
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
|
And |
A |
Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF G (CARE ORDER)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002.
Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Applicant.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 10th October, 2012, the Court granted the Minister for Health and Social Services ("The Minister") a full care order in respect of G ("the child") pursuant to Article 24 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law").
2. The child has been known to the Children's Service since 1st June, 1998, when he was living with his birth mother. Following a troubled period in which the child and his birth mother did not have a home of their own, the child was admitted into care on 13th July, 1999, with the consent of his birth mother.
3. The child's birth mother subsequently made the decision to have the child placed for adoption. During this process, his father, the respondent, A ("the father") made it known to the Children's Service that he would like to be considered as a carer for the child.
4. The child was then placed into the care of the father and his partner and on 31st October, 2001, the father was granted an adoption order in respect of the child, and is therefore the only person with parental responsibility for him.
5. The child was four when he was adopted and was raised by the father and his partner (as part of their family, comprising one older and one younger child) until the age of thirteen.
6. On 11th June, 2009, the Children's Service received the following letter signed by the father:-
"Its taken a long time to send this letter, for the last year we have seriously considered having G taken placed in care. The past 3 month have been awful and we made him pack his bag ready for you to collect this week!! He was diagnosed with ADHD when he was 7. He has a file at CAMHS but with or without medication he lies and stealing is causing such a rift in the family. His step brother can't stand him, his step sister bearly spends any time with him. Myself and his stepmum have given up you can't do anything with him.
He now doesn't attend all his lessons and lies to staff at school. His latest is attempting to steal £20 from his fathers wallet. When I spoke to Mrs B at school they couldn't contact you for us, so they are aware we are at this point.
Action needs to be this week for the sanity of us all especially his brother and sister. His natural mother is aware but wants nothing to do with him."
7. Following a very difficult period for the child during which we were informed he was not allowed into the family home unless his father was there and was not allowed to eat meals with the rest of the family, he was admitted into D residential unit in December 2010; he had in effect been excluded from the father's family unit. The child found it difficult to settle into D and as a result was placed in E, a smaller residential unit where his behaviour has improved significantly.
8. There has been little to no contact between the child and his father, despite the child's attempts at instigating this and the attempts of the Children's Service to engage the father. On being informed on 30th April, 2012, of the Minister's intentions to initiate care proceedings in respect of the child, the father has still not engaged with the Children's Service.
9. Formal notice of the application has been served upon the father and the birth mother in accordance with the Law. In addition, the father has been served with the Minister's bundle. There has been no response from the birth mother but the Children's Service did receive a letter from the father on 8th October, 2012, stating that although he did not agree with all of the statements in the application, he gave his full consent to the Minister being granted a full care order for the child. He went on to state that he did not ask for regular contact with the child, as he could not make this a regular commitment. Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Children Rules 2005 the Court proceeded to hear the application in the absence of the father, it being proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the father had received reasonable notice of the date of the hearing.
10. The Court heard evidence from the social worker, Mrs Rachel Maguire. It was clear to the Court that she had a good relationship with the child (who is now 15) and that he both understood and supported the application. He did not wish to attend the hearing and was content to express his wishes and feelings through Mrs Maguire. We saw no need for the appointment of a guardian pursuant to Article 75(1) of the Children Law, which (unlike English law) is permissive in this respect.
11. Mr Robinson for the Minister had filed a threshold document and in view of the father's consent to the making of a care order and following the authority of Devon County Council-v-S [1992] 2 WLR 273, we were able to undertake a more limited inquiry.
12. There is no legal definition of child abandonment under Jersey law or, we were informed, English law. However, Mr Robinson drew our attention to Working Together to Safeguard Children (2010) where abandonment is classed as a form of neglect:-
13. Mr Robinson submitted and we accepted that the child had been the subject of neglect by the father, the only person with parental responsibility for him, in that he had been first excluded from the family unit and then effectively abandoned, as a consequence of which he had suffered significant emotional harm. The justification for this put forward by the father in his one letter is the child's behavioural issues and their effect upon the family, but the father's refusal to engage with the Children's Services and the Court process makes it impossible to understand the position better from the father's point of view and more importantly, to give him assistance in his dealings with the child. Without going into the threshold document in any detail, it suffices to say that the Court found that as a consequence of his exclusion and abandonment, the child was suffering (at the time the Children's Services first intervened) and is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to the child if a care order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child. Accordingly the threshold set out in Article 24 of the Law was met.
14. The Court proceeded to consider the welfare stage of the process following the guidance set out in the Court of Appeal decision in Re F and G (No. 2) [2010] JCA 051 at paragraph 8 as follows:-
15. With reference to the welfare checklist set out in Article 2(3) of the Law:-
16. Mrs Maguire informed us that the child is able to articulate his wishes and feelings well and had remained constant in his wish to remain living at E. It was significant that he wished to spend Christmas and his birthday there.
17. Mrs Maguire informed us that the child is generally fit and healthy and takes medication to manage his ADHD which needs regular review by CAMHS. His physical needs are met by the staff at E. He has complex emotional needs as a result of his childhood, compounded by his ADHD and therefore has an increased need for stability and acceptance. The staff at E are given the necessary support and guidance to manage these needs. In terms of education, the child has now moved from mainstream school to the alternative curriculum to complete his final year of compulsory education; the curriculum there is more vocational in nature and will therefore meet the child's needs more effectively.
18. The care plan recommends that the child remain placed at E. Although this unit is physically moving to another property, it is clear that the staff and other residents will remain consistent in so far as that can reasonably be achieved. This will enable the Minister to provide the child with an increased sense of security as well as promoting his sense of belonging and self-esteem. Whilst the Children's Service will continue to make efforts to consult with the father, a final care order would allow the child the reassurance that important decisions can be made in the father's absence.
19. The child is now 15. Reference has already been made to his ADHD. In terms of background, he was, as previously stated, given up for adoption by his mother, adopted by the father when he was 4 and raised by the father until he was 13 when he was abandoned.
20. The child has suffered significant emotional harm whilst in the care of the father due to his rejection, which continues.
21. The father has abandoned the child. His partner, who we were told was a key figure in the child's adoption and who we think wrote the letters signed by the father, has also abandoned him. Indeed, we were informed that she refused to acknowledge him when he said hello to her at school on 8th July, 2011. Such is the rejection that the child was not informed of the death of the partner's father, whom he regarded as a grandfather and who was important to him.
22. In terms of contact, we were informed that the child loves the father and wants to prove to him how much he has changed. This he cannot do, as there is no contact with the father, leaving him only to remember the "wonderful family" that has rejected him. Contact would need to be initiated by the father, who should engage with the Children's Service. It would need to be consistent, in order to avoid further rejection for the child.
23. The Court considered the range of powers available to it. No order would be insufficient to secure the emotional and physical welfare of the child with no one exercising parental responsibility. We accepted Mr Robinson's submission that a final care order is the minimum order that would allow the child's future to be secured and ensure that decisions that have been made are in line with the child's best interests and take into account his wishes and feelings. This would allow the child to feel "claimed" by his placement and secure in the knowledge that he will continue to have his needs met.
24. Accordingly, the Court made a final care order in favour of the Minister and approved the care plan.
