Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - continuing proceedings in relation to the interim care order.

[2015]JRC082

Royal Court

(Family)

27 April 2015

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Crill and Morgan

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA (CARE ORDER)

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Minister.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for the First Respondent.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Second Respondent.

Advocate T. V. R. Hanson for the Third Respondent.

Advocate C. R. Dutôt for the Fourth Respondents.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 12^th March, 2015, following a four day final hearing, the Court requested the Minister to reconsider his care plan for Barbara ("the child") who is ten months old, namely that she be freed for adoption.  The key issue for the Court was whether the possibility of the child being cared for within the family by her maternal aunt and her husband ("Mr and Mrs E") had been fully and fairly explored, so that it could be said that nothing else than adoption would do. 

Background

2.        We set out the background by way of summary.  The child is the only child of the first respondent ("the mother") and the second respondent ("the father") and both hold parental responsibility.  The mother has a seven year old son from a former relationship who has resided with his father since July 2012 under a residence order. 

3.        The mother has enduring health and substance misuse issues.  She had a historical diagnosis of schizo-affective disorder, but her diagnosis has been formally established as an "Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder".  There have been frequent admissions to Orchard House, and indeed she was admitted to Orchard House in the week prior to the hearing, which she did not attend.  In her position statement, she candidly accepted that she was not able to care for the child.  Her goal was to get well enough to care for her and in the meantime, she wanted the child to live with Mr and Mrs E, and thus be kept within the family. 

4.        The father has a long history of substance misuse and concomitant offending.  He has 23 convictions for 128 offences which include 7 offences against the person from 2007 - 2014.  On 7^th March, 2014, he received a custodial sentence of 7 months and 2 weeks for assaults on his half-brother and his sister (most of which he had already served on remand).  These assaults took place in the presence of the mother, who was there at that time and pregnant with the child.  On 17^th July, 2014, he was convicted of being drunk and disorderly and a driving offence for which he was fined and bound over with the expectation that he engaged with the Drug and Alcohol Team.  This he has done.  In Mr Gafoor's oral report, he describes the father as presenting as "an inarticulate and socially inept individual with few meaningful social relationships and interests" but he confirms that the father has made a concerted effort to be abstinent from alcohol.  The father sought a residence order in his favour with a managed and phased transfer of the child's care to him.  If the Court felt unable to make such an order, he supported the child being cared for by Mr and Mrs E.

5.        The report of Dr Mark Jones, a consultant paediatrician at the General Hospital, states that the mother's pregnancy was complicated by her mental ill health and use of medications prescribed by her attending psychiatrist.  After the child was born, she was taken into the Special Care Baby Unit due to difficulties with her breathing and feeding.  The child did not require treatment for drug withdrawal and her feeding improved with the support of a speech and language therapist.  She was discharged home to the care of the mother with a package of planned support. 

6.        There followed what can only be described as a chaotic period with the mother, clearly unable to cope, placing the child with various members of her family.  Sabrina Charpentier, the social worker at the time, calculated some 17 moves in all, involving the maternal grandmother, the maternal great-grandmother, a paternal aunt, and a maternal great-aunt.  On 24^th August, 2014, the mother moved the child to Mr and Mrs E. 

7.        At the first interim care order hearing on 2^nd September, 2014, the Court noted that as Mrs E worked and had two young children of her own, this was only intended to be temporary.  The mother's plan, supported by the family, was for the child to be cared for by the maternal grandmother pending the carrying out of assessments.  The Minister's care plan was for the child to be placed with foster carers for reasons which could be summarised as follows:-

(i)        There was evidence of acrimony in the wider family, in essence between the maternal grandmother and the paternal aunt. 

(ii)       There was a need to assess the maternal grandfather, as the Children's Service's records showed that in or around 1989 the maternal grandmother's first child (by an earlier relationship) had made allegations of sexual abuse against the maternal grandfather when she was a young child.  She subsequently went to live with and be brought up by her own grandparents and no action was taken by the police or the Children's Service.  There was also a record with the police protection unit of an allegation made in 1999 by two boys of sexual abuse by the maternal grandfather at the harbour.  Again, no action was taken by the police, as the witnesses were seen as unreliable.  The maternal grandparents had since brought up seven children of their own (including Mrs E) and there was a short period some years ago when the maternal grandmother left the home, leaving the maternal grandfather looking after all of the children. 

(iii)      Difficulties might arise between the maternal grandmother and the mother over the mother's contact with the child which the maternal grandmother would have to regulate, and if such difficulties did arise, it could impact adversely upon the mother's relationship with the child. 

(iv)      As the mother had done with her first child, there was a possibility that she might distance herself entirely from the child, which would again be to the child's detriment. 

(v)       The maternal grandmother had previously withdrawn from a connected person assessment and may do so again, which would result in a further change of placement. 

8.        Advocate Fitz, for the mother, argued that there were real advantages for the child being cared for in the interim by the maternal grandmother and disadvantages if she were to be placed with foster carers.  The advantages were:-

(i)        The child already knew the maternal grandmother. 

(ii)       The maternal grandmother was an experienced mother who had brought up six children.  One of her (now adult) daughters is disabled and she cares for her with support from the wider family. 

(iii)      The maternal grandmother lives in a five bedroomed house with the maternal grandfather and two of the mother's brothers.  They gave evidence before the Court and raised no concerns in relation to their home and the safety of the child within it. 

(iv)      If the maternal grandmother were to be approved as a long term carer for the child, then there would be no need for the child to move home again. 

(v)       The maternal grandmother had informed the Court that she was not aware of the complaint made by the two boys against the maternal grandfather in 1999, but in any event, she had no concerns in relation to the maternal grandfather.  Advocate Fitz had pointed out that these complaints were made a quarter of a century ago and no action was taken.  There was no real risk of sexual abuse in respect of a baby of four months of age, something which Mrs Ferguson, on behalf of the guardian designate, had accepted in cross-examination. 

(vi)      The maternal grandmother had said she would work cooperatively with the Children's Service and was prepared for her and the maternal grandfather to be assessed.  As mentioned above, she had at an earlier stage been reluctant to undertake that assessment because she questioned why at her age it was necessary and when she had successfully brought up six children. 

9.        The disadvantages were as follows:-

(i)        The child would move to complete strangers in what would be a short term foster placement.  If the maternal grandmother was assessed in due course as being her long term carer, then the child would have to move again from the foster carers with whom she would by then have established a relationship.  In short, if she stayed with the maternal grandmother, she may not have to move again.  If she moves to foster carers, she will have to move again whatever happens, either to the maternal grandmother or to long term foster carers. 

(ii)       Whilst the welfare of the child was the Court's paramount concern, the maternal grandmother had expressed concern (as had the mother) as to the impact upon the mother's mental health of the child being placed with foster carers and that could not be ignored as a deterioration in her mental health could affect her ability to maintain contact with the child. 

10.      The Court was persuaded by the arguments put forward by Advocate Fitz, concluding that the child should remain within the family under the care of the maternal grandmother whilst assessments were carried out.  The Minister's application was therefore adjourned to enable the Minister to reconsider the care plan. 

11.      The maternal grandmother then withdrew herself for consideration as an interim or long term carer for the child in order, as we understand it, to avoid the potential damage that could be done to the family by an inquiry into the allegations of historic sexual abuse made against the maternal grandfather. 

12.      The parties reached agreement however as to the interim arrangements for the child pending assessments and that was that she should remain with her aunt, Mrs E, under an interim care order in favour of the Minister.  An agreement had been entered into between the Children's Service and Mrs E dated 16^th September, 2014, by which she had agreed inter alia to reduce or stop her working hours so as to become the child's primary carer and to be present during contact between the child and the maternal grandfather, pending further assessment.  Mr and Mrs E also put themselves forward as long term carers for the child for which a connected person's assessment would need to be carried out.  

13.      The amended care plan provided for the mother to have contact with the child for two hours five days a week, supervised by Mrs E.  It was also anticipated that the father would have contact with the child twice a week.  On the 17^th September, 2014, the Court approved the amended care plan and contact arrangements and made an interim care order in favour of the Minister, adjourning her application for a care order. 

14.      Following the making of the interim care order, the case was transferred within the Children's Service to the Children's Service Permanence Planning Team and Diane Burgess became the allocated social worker on 2^nd October, 2014.  At a "looked after child" review held on 16^th October, 2014, (which Mrs E walked out of) and a multi-agency meeting held on 17^th October, 2014, concerns were expressed regarding the child's weight, feeding routine, multiple carers, lack of attachment and conflict within the extended family.  The Children's Service wrote to Mrs E on 17^th October, 2014, confirming these concerns.  A protection plan was put in place under which inter alia Mrs E was to ensure that she was the child's primary carer. 

15.      On 23^rd October, 2014, the child was admitted into hospital for a period of assessment due to concerns about her faltering growth, her general presentation and the impact upon her of being exposed to multiple care providers (meaning Mr E, Mrs E, the mother, the father and the maternal grandmother if not other members of the family).  Over four days, and following a change in her feed, she gained weight and Dr Jones concluded that she had been underfed, in part due to difficulties in her feeding routine.  He also said she had shown remarkable improvements in her social interaction over a few short days in hospital, suggestive of under stimulation at home. 

16.      At a meeting at the hospital on 30^th October, 2014, Diane Burgess informed Mrs E that on the child's discharge from hospital, she would be placed in foster care.  In a short letter dated 30^th October, 2014, Diane Burgess explained that in the assessment of the Children's Service, the child's needs could not be met in the current family placement because it did not give the child the stability and consistency she needs to thrive and develop.  In response to this, Mrs E saw no point in continuing with the connected person assessment of herself and her husband that they were part way through. 

17.      The mother initially opposed the child being taken into care, but subsequently consented.  The child was therefore placed with foster carers when she was discharged form hospital on 4^th November, 2014, where she remains. 

18.      By letter dated 7^th November, 2014, Advocate Dutôt, on behalf of Mrs E, gave notice that she disputed that the concerns raised in Diane Burgess's letter of 30^th October, 2014, were attributable to the care Mrs E had provided and sought reconsideration of Mr and Mrs E as a long term carer for the child.  On 7^th January, 2015, Mrs E filed an application for a residence order, or in the alternative to be considered as the child's primary carer under a final care order, and to be joined to the proceedings. 

19.      On 12^th January, 2015, Mr and Mrs E's own children (aged 6 and 7) were placed on the child protection register under the category of sexual abuse as a result of concerns arising as to the ability of Mrs E to protect her own children from the risk of sexual abuse by the maternal grandfather. 

20.      On 31^st January, 2015, by consent the Court adjourned Mrs E's application to be joined to the proceedings and directed a review of the papers by an independent social worker to opine on whether there was any merit in assessing Mr and Mrs E further, and if so, what the duration of any further assessment would be, bearing in mind the child's time frame and the existence of parallel child protection procedures in relation to Mr and Mrs E's own children.  The report prepared by Vaneta Storrod received on 6^th February, 2015, concluded that there should be no further connected person assessment of Mr and Mrs E.  No one else within the wider family had been assessed by the Children's Service as being capable of meeting the child's needs. 

21.      On 16^th February, 2014, by consent, the Court granted leave for Mr and Mrs E to be joined to the proceedings.  The final hearing took place on the four days commencing the 2^nd March, 2014. 

22.      There is of course much flesh to be placed on the bones of this bare summary of the background.  The Court heard evidence from Vaneta Storrod, Mr Gafoor, Dr David Briggs, the forensic psychologist, Dr Jones, Sarah Wakeham, the social worker within the Children's Service who carried out the connected persons assessment of Mr and Mrs E, Diane Burgess, Alison Tandy, a senior social worker within MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub), Sarah Clarke, the health visitor, the father and the guardian, Elsa Fernandes.  

Threshold criteria

23.      It was not in dispute that the threshold criteria under Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") was met and the Court was able, therefore, to conduct a more limited inquiry following the guidance given in Devon County Council v S [1992] 2 WLR 273. 

24.      Because of concerns over the mother's mental health and her relationship with the father, the child was placed on the child protection register before her birth.  Without setting out in this judgment the underlying evidence, the risk of neglect and emotional harm to the child can be summarised as arising out of the following:-

(i)        Misuse by both parents of drugs and/or alcohol. 

(ii)       Domestic violence on the part of the father. 

(iii)      The inability of both parents to prioritise their child's needs above their own. 

(iv)      The inconsistency of a primary carer with the mother moving and removing the child to and from various members of the family. 

(v)       The mother's mental health issues.  Prior to discharge from the hospital in June 2014, the maternity staff had raised concerns about the mother's mental health, reporting that she was in an agitated state, distressed and claiming to hear the voice of "Beanie".  The mother had reported in the past that she had slapped her son as "Beanie's voice" was telling her to do it.  

25.      In the view of the guardian, the child suffered actual harm at least in the period when she had been released into the care of the mother at a time when the father, who was assisting her, was still drinking heavily.  The father's description of that period amply illustrates how harmful an environment it was for the child. 

26.      The relevant date is 17^th July, 2014, being the date when the Minister placed the child with extended family members, and the Court was satisfied that at that date, the child was, at the very least, likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child, if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give (Article 24(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Children Law.  The Court therefore had jurisdiction. 

Welfare stage

27.      Turning to the welfare stage and the welfare checklist under Article 2(3) of the Children Law, it could be assumed that the child would wish to remain with her birth family, if the parents or someone else within the family was capable of meeting her needs. 

28.      The mother by her own admission was not capable of doing so.  The Minister had considered the capabilities of the father and all other members of the families of both the mother and the father and concluded that none were capable of meeting the child's needs, hence the care plan for her to be adopted and the application for her to be freed for that purpose. 

29.      We took both the application for a full care order and for the child to be freed for adoption together, so that we could consider the whole issue in the round, following In the matter of the T Children [2009] JRC 231. 

30.      In reality, there were two candidates within the family who put themselves forward at the hearing as being capable of meeting the child's needs, namely the father and Mr and Mrs E, and we take them in turn. 

The father

31.      The father had been psychologically assessed by Dr Briggs.  His report refers to the father's dysfunctional family background and maltreatment with which he had coped by externalising issues and resorting to delinquency, violence and substance misuse.  His occupational history was described as "unimpressive" and it was arguable, said Dr Briggs, that his history is not that of a sustained healthy intimacy to age appropriate partners.  He had sustained his use of substances, particularly alcohol, and quoting from paragraph 47 of the report:-

"He has the potential to react aggressively and violently under certain circumstances and particularly when intoxicated and feeling under threat.  When intoxicated, his capacity for rational behaviour is diminished.  His difficulties predispose him to volatile and dysfunctional intimate relationships in adulthood and I am not surprised that there have been concerns of some aspects of intimate partner violence in this case in his relationship with [the mother]."

32.      At the time of the psychological assessment (6^th and 20^th November, 2014,) the father reported to Dr Briggs as having been abstinent from alcohol for several months (an abstinence which he has maintained since) but:-

"[The father] appreciates that it is too soon to say that his difficulties with alcohol are resolved.  Indeed, he was candid at interview in saying that there are issues he needs to resolve before he would be comfortable in assuming care of [the child] and he anticipates that it may take some two years to achieve this state .... [the father] does not believe he is in a position to promote safe, effective and sustained care of [the child] at this point in his life nor will he be able to do so until he resolves the issues which have underpinned his alcohol misuse and until he has demonstrated a significant period of abstinence.  I agree with him."

33.      As Dr Briggs reminded us in evidence, the father's criminality started at an early age and continued until as recently as last July.  Psychotherapy had been recommended in order to address some of the issues but the prognosis of his engaging with therapy was questionable.  There had been no long period of abstinence from alcohol other than in prison and in Dr Briggs' view, it would be an experiment for the child to be placed in the father's care after only five months or so of such a change and in the light of the history. 

34.      Mr Gafoor supported the father's claim to have been abstinent from alcohol since July 2014.  He found surprising the Lextox report that an analysis of the father's hair showed he had consumed chronic excessive levels of alcohol from mid-June 2014 to mid-September 2014.  This was because if the father had been drinking after July 2014, it would have been apparent.  His pattern of drinking was uncontrollable and led very quickly to his either being arrested or to running out of funds.  When he did drink, he became aggressive and irrational. 

35.      Diane Burgess advised that during contact (which he had attended consistently), the father was able to manage the child's basic care needs, although he still found some practical tasks such as putting on her coat or changing her nappy challenging.  She said that the father had worked openly and honestly with the Children's Service throughout his assessment but in her view, he lacked the emotional intelligence necessary to parent the child, who as a result of her early life experiences needed reparative care from someone more intuitive who can focus on her needs and restore her faith and confidence in adults.  His approach to parenting was simplistic, a view echoed by the guardian.  In both their views, he was simply not skilled enough to parent the child to the level she needed to grow and develop. 

36.      Dr Briggs, Diane Burgess and the guardian were all at pains to stress the progress the father had made since last July in being abstinent from alcohol, which we accept he has been, and in attending the weekly contact sessions with the child without fail.  He had obtained a place in the St Matthew's Church "back to work scheme" and provided a good reference from the Reverend Phil Warren.  Given the care of the child, he proposed to look after her full time.  He said he would have support from his sister (who had sole care of her own seven year old child) and from his father (whose involvement in the child's life had been peripheral) to whom he could talk over the telephone.  

37.      It is clear that the father loves the child and wants to be the best father he can for her.  His current accommodation of a room and shared toilet was obviously unsuitable, but if given her care, he would apply for better accommodation.  He was seeking a planned and managed transfer of the child's care to him with ongoing support from the Children's Service and other agencies. 

38.      In evidence, the father said this- "As long as I stay off alcohol I will be OK."  Leaving aside the issue of his innate parenting skills, this raises an insuperable problem.  To entrust such a young child in need of reparative care to a person with such a recent history of alcohol abuse and violence would be grossly irresponsible.  His own assessment last November, with which Dr Briggs agreed, that he needed at least two years to demonstrate that his issues with alcohol were resolved was surely right, and such a period of time would not be in the child's timescales. 

39.      When asked what had changed since last November, he said that his past was now further away and he was more positive for the future, but the reality is that nothing has happened in that intervening period to change that initial assessment. 

40.      In conclusion, we accepted the advice given to us that the father was not capable of meeting the child's needs within her timescales. 

Mr and Mrs E

41.      The child was formally placed with Mr and Mrs E under the care plan approved by the Court when the interim care order was granted in favour of the Minister on 17^th September, 2014, (although at the request of the mother, the child had been with Mr and Mrs E since 24^th August, 2014).  That placement had been assessed as suitable by the previous social worker, Sabrina Charpentier.  Mr and Mrs E had confirmed that they wished to be put forward as the child's long term carers and they were advised of the need for a connected persons' assessment that Sarah Wakeham would undertake and of the level of intrusion and intensity that such an assessment would involve. 

42.      Diane Burgess took over responsibility as the social worker for the child on 2^nd October, 2014, and by 30^th October, the decision had been taken to remove the child from the care of Mr and Mrs E and place her with foster carers.  The reasons for that decision are set out in detail in a letter from Diane Burgess to Mr and Mrs E of 18^th December, 2014, but the main reasons can be summarised as follow:-

(i)        The Children's Service had concerns about the child's weight, the number of persons apparently caring for her and conflict within the family as discussed at the Multi-Agency meeting on 17^th October, 2014.  That led to the letter written to Mrs E on that date (referred to at paragraph 14 above) in which it was stressed that Mrs E should make sure she was the primary care giver.  The letter also raised the need for the Children's Service to assess the allegations of historic sexual abuse against the maternal grandfather and it required that the child should not be left with the maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather unless Mrs A was there for the duration.  The maternal grandmother had apparently refused to discuss the allegations against her husband with the Children's Service and she was not considered able to protect the child from that risk.  Mrs E countersigned that letter, agreeing to its terms, but then informed Diane Burgess that she did not agree with it.  Mrs E said she had relied on the support of the maternal grandmother in looking after the child from the outset and in her view, there was no risk in the child being left with the maternal grandmother.  As we shall see, Mrs E had good reason for believing this to be the case, but this led Diane Burgess to feel that Mrs E was not able to openly and honestly work with the Children's Service. 

(ii)       The child's lack of weight gain.  It is acknowledged that the child had feeding problems from the outset, but there was a concern over the number of people in the family involved in her care and over her presentation - she would seem to be watchful, to stare and to be hard to engage and smile.  It was felt that there was limited interaction between Mrs E and the child and that Mrs E's own emotional presentation was impacting upon her. 

(iii)      Whilst in the care of Mrs E, the feeding chart was to be kept with the child at all times in order to give a true and accurate reflection of the child's feeds and who had been feeding her.  This was a crucial working tool, but it was not being completed and used by Mrs E as requested by Sarah Clarke, the health visitor.  

(iv)      There were concerns over Mrs E's own relationship with the mother.  There had been arguments and raised voices, on occasion in front of Mrs E's own daughter. 

(v)       The child had improved in the hospital when admitted for observation and Dr Jones had concluded that she had been underfed and had shown remarkable improvement in her social interaction in the short period that she was there, suggestive of under stimulation at home. 

43.      Diane Burgess told us in evidence that the family were all focused around the needs of the adults.  It was as if chaos were unfolding around the child - a whirlwind around her.  She had regularly worked with family acrimony as families do not always agree but the mother and Mrs E were not able to hold the child in mind.  It was all about them.  There were some very abusive telephone calls from Mrs E for which she often apologised after.  There was constant anger and acrimony towards her which she found very difficult to manage.  She accepted that the decision about the child remaining within the family was very emotive and could not imagine what it would feel like but it was a question of what the threshold of conduct should be.  

44.      Sarah Clarke, the health visitor from Family Nursing and Home Care, explained that because of the child's initial needs, the mother had been provided with an enhanced level of support.  Since moving to Mr and Mrs E on 24^th August, 2014, her weight gain had slowed, which was inconsistent with the feeding history as reported by Mrs E.  Mrs E was asked to start a feeding chart, as the child was being cared for by a number of carers, and all of them needed to be aware of when her feeds were due and how much she was taking.  A "slow flow teat" known as the "Haberman teat" was introduced and Mrs E showed a good understanding of how to use it.  In evidence, Sarah Clarke explained that the feeding chart was not a clinical chart as such, simply a note book which was there to aid communication between the child's carers and the professionals involved.   

45.      At a visit on 14^th October, the child did not seem to be interested in feeding in the way she would expect but the meetings with Mrs E were rushed as she was working and they often took place after school when the other children were present - it was a busy household.  Mrs E brought the child to the St Martin's clinic on 21^st October when her weight was found to be static.  Her weight gain had been steady at the 9^th centile but had now diminished to the 2^nd centile.  After discussion with Diane Burgess, it was decided to have the child admitted to the Robin Ward of the general hospital for observation. 

46.      In her report, Sarah Clarke said that the child lacked a consistent routine as she spent a lot of time being transported from her current home to the mother's flat for contact or to the Le Bas Centre for contact with the father.  She also spent time being cared for by the maternal grandmother because of Mrs E's work commitments.  In cross examination, she agreed however that Mrs E was doing a competent job as the child's carer and the child was up to date with her immunisations. 

47.      We have already set out the conclusions reached by Dr Jones in his report of 31^st October, 2014.  In evidence, he told us that he could only speculate as to the reasons for the child's improvement whilst in the Robin Ward but felt it would be attributable to familiarity with the staff and regular feeding.  The Haberman teat would have helped, as would the change made to the child's feed to Infantrani, a calorie enhanced feed.  She seemed reluctant to feed and the nurses were skilled at overcoming this - it was a question of persistence.  He had very limited personal observation of Mrs E on the ward, but the nurses had reported that her interaction was limited.  He accepted that Mr and Mrs E were present in the ward and would therefore have contributed to her improvement. 

48.      The connected persons' assessment, which normally takes some twelve weeks to complete, was terminated part way through on 30^th October when Mrs E was informed that the child was being placed with foster carers.  Sarah Wakeham produced a report on the work that had been completed and it raised a number of concerns about the capacity of Mr and Mrs E to look after the child long term.  It is fair to say that her main concern related to the emotional wellbeing of Mr and Mrs E (she accepted that there was much for them to be emotional about) and its impact upon the child and the family dynamics.  She recommended that all of the issues she had highlighted be thoroughly explored as part of a full connected persons' assessment should Mr and Mrs E wish to resume the child's care.  She advised that this should be done prior to the child being returned to their care. 

49.      The issue of the allegations against the maternal grandfather had arisen as part of the assessment.  Mrs E was open to discussing this with Sarah Wakeham and did agree to supervised contact between the child and the maternal grandfather, but she did not feel that he was a risk, describing the allegations as "rubbish".  This led Sarah Wakeham to include amongst the concerns listed in her report, Mrs E's ability to work with the Children's Service and to protect the child from risks.  Sarah Wakeham agreed that Mrs E had consistently asked for more information in relation to those allegations. 

Maternal grandfather

50.      As can be seen interwoven into this are the allegations of historical sexual abuse against the maternal grandfather.  The information that was disclosed as being known to the Children's Service at the time of the interim care order is set out at paragraph 7(ii) above, but the allegations dated back to 1989 in relation to the maternal grandmother's first child (we will refer to her as "D") and 1999 in relation to the two boys.  It was accepted at the stage of the interim care order that these allegations would need to be assessed to ascertain whether the maternal grandfather posed a risk to the child. 

51.      Alison Tandy, a senior social worker, gave evidence to explain the process that was subsequently followed.  MASH is a multi-agency group comprising representatives of the police, health and education, to which all such matters are directed.  They wrote to Mr and Mrs E on 30^th September, 2014, in the following terms:-

"Dear Mr and Mrs [E]

Re [The children of Mr and Mrs E]

The MASH is a new process for responding to enquiries of concern regarding children and young people in Jersey.  The MASH is represented by a multi-agency team of professionals from areas such as Children's Service, Police, Health and Education who together consider the most appropriate way to respond to an enquiry and what action if any should be undertaken. 

An Enquiry was received regarding a possible concern for your children whilst in the care of their maternal grandfather.  The Enquiry was processed through the MASH and the decision is that there is no evidence to suggest that your children are at any risk of harm. 

The concern raised is not new information and has been assessed twice before. 

As any parent, you are advised to always consider who cares for your children and their safety whilst in the care of others. 

The Enquiry will now close."

52.      Alison Tandy explained that this letter resulted from a referral by Sabrina Charpentier which was not detailed and was difficult to link.  A more detailed referral was then made by the Permanence Planning Team on 16^th October, 2014, which MASH decided needed to be assessed in relation to the risk not just to the child but to the other grandchildren including the children of Mr and Mrs E.  No letter was sent to Mr and Mrs E retracting the letter of 30^th September, 2014.  Alison Tandy then made an unannounced visit to the home of Mr and Mrs E to discuss this and for Mrs E to sign an agreement stating that she would supervise her own children when at the maternal grandfather's home.  She had, of course, agreed to supervise any contact between the child and the maternal grandfather, but this agreement related to her own children.  Alison Tandy said that on that and on other occasions Mrs E swore at her and was hostile, accusing her of blackmail and threatening members of staff.  She could hear the maternal grandmother and the paternal aunt swearing in the background.  Mrs E refused to sign the agreement.  Mrs E was invited to a meeting on 6^th November, 2014, which she did not attend, but Alison Tandy made a second home visit on 11^th December, 2014, which she said went well.  At that meeting, Mrs E did not agree to the allegations in relation to the maternal grandfather and again refused to sign an agreement. 

53.      The report to and minutes of the initial child protection conference in relation to the children of Mr and Mrs E held on 12^th January, 2015, which was attended by Mrs E, shows the following:-

(i)        Both of the children of Mr and Mrs E were seen at school by a social worker and there was no indication that either of them held any negative conceptions of their grandfather or that they had been exposed to any anti-social or harmful behaviour.  Their school records show that they were generally healthy children who had been adequately supported to meet their medical needs by their parents and did not appear to have suffered any unusual patterns of illness or injury. 

(ii)       The headmistress advised that Mrs E had worked well with the school.  The children's attendance at school was very good and the mother had always attended parents' consultations.  In general, the school had a very good relationship with the family, who took advice and undertook additional parenting classes outside the school. 

(iii)      There had been a domestic incident involving Mr and Mrs E in August 2007, but it was not a current issue for the children who had given no account of it.  

(iv)      D was spoken to by the police on 15^th December, 2014.  She confirmed that abuse had occurred, but she had moved on with her life and did not wish to make a formal complaint.  

54.      Mrs E informed the meeting that the children looked forward to visiting their grandparents and felt safe and happy spending time there.  Mr and Mrs E had never encountered any evidence that the children were at risk of harm from the maternal grandfather with whom, in their view, their children had a positive relationship.  Mrs E advised that it was not fair to them to be deprived of that relationship in respect of such old allegations in respect of which no new evidence had been presented. 

55.      Notwithstanding all of this, the decision was taken to place their children on the child protection register under the category of sexual abuse.  It was clearly an emotional meeting.  At one point Mrs E advised the meeting that she would leave Jersey with the children, but she did ultimately state that she was happy to work with the professionals.  The action plan proposed that a core assessment would be written within 40 days to be presented to the independent reporting officer prior to the next child protection conference.  It was proposed that a Mr Rob Tucker, a specialist in this field, would review the paper work to see if there was any validity in the allegations made by D.  He then advised that the core assessment should be completed first and has since informed the Children's Service that he cannot start work until May 2015 due to other commitments. 

Independent social worker

56.      In the light of Mr and Mrs E's wish to resume the care of the child, an independent social worker, Vaneta Storrod, was jointly instructed to advise, on the papers, whether a full connected persons' assessment of Mr and Mrs E should be completed.  She advised that it should not, for reasons which can be summarised as follows:-

(i)        Mrs E had made conflicting statements at the child protection conference on 12^th January, 2015, as to whether she would work with the Children's Service in respect of her own children, which was of concern. 

(ii)       Mr and Mrs E had initiated a formal complaint against the Children's Service which needed to be investigated.  This appears to be a misunderstanding of the papers as there is no evidence that such a complaint has been made. 

(iii)      Mr and Mrs E would be subject to two protocols, the first relating to their own children and the second relating to the child.  In her view, the first would not allow the completion of the second.  A connected persons' assessment in respect of the child could compromise the current child protection plans for Mr and Mrs E's own children for which personal references would need to be compiled and assessed for family as well as friends.  It was possible there could be a vested interest for a "historical positive image" to be created or promoted whilst it is now known there could be further inquiries made into alleged inter-familial historical abuse. 

(iv)      There appeared to be a pattern developing of Mrs E's inability as a primary carer to acknowledge, accept and consistently work with the Children's Service to safeguard the welfare of the children in her care at different periods of time. 

(v)       In the event of Mr and Mrs E continuing with their connected persons assessment a significant period of time would first need to elapse to reflect that the couple can safely protect their children from alleged inter-familial sexual abuse, co-operate with the Children's Service and develop a sense of personal emotional resilience to distressing past memories and to the future intervention and challenges to their parenting by social workers.  They would be required to undertake a great deal of work and would most likely need to set aside substantial and uninterrupted time to focus on the assessment and still meet the needs of their birth children and themselves.  How they would be able to establish this when they are already committed to engaging with the child protection plan for their own children and significant working hours would seem to be highly problematic. 

(vi)      Having read the papers she was not confident that the couple could cope in emotional terms with further social work intervention in the form of a connected person's assessment. 

(vii)     A completed connected person's assessment of Mr and Mrs E would not be appropriate, timely or informative as to the potential safety and stability of the placement of the child with them.  The validity of the entire assessment could be questioned by childcare experts if the application were to be presented before a fostering panel.  Approval of foster carers by a panel is only made on very strict guidelines.  The final approval process could not be established or ratified by any panel if there were ongoing Children's Service child protection plans in place for the birth children. 

(viii)    A further connected persons' assessment at this time would not be in the interests of Mr and Mrs E as she believed they could feel emotionally vulnerable and wary of the intervention concerning the Children's Service.  In her view, it would be in their best interests to solely focus on meeting the needs of their own children and co-operating with the current protection care plan to ensure the future safety of their own children.  

57.      It would appear from the report that Vaneta Storrod based her conclusions on the following, namely Mrs E had agreed to reduce her working hours and by implication had not done so; she had not been able to produce the feeding chart when requested by the health visitor, keeping the information instead on various bits of paper rather than the document provided to her; the child had failed to gain weight in her care in contrast to a period when placed by the mother with a paternal aunt; she withdrew from the connected persons' assessment on 30^th October, 2014, without giving a specific reason, giving the impression that the actions of the Children's Service were conspiratorial against her and if she felt that the contact arrangements were making it difficult for the child to establish a primary attachment with her, then she should have self-reported that concern to the Children's Service.  

Mr and Mrs E

58.      Mr E informed us that he was now head chef at the establishment which employs him, working 60 - 70 hours a week.  He would take the children to school in the morning, and in a break in the afternoon, he would pick them up from school returning to work at 5pm where he would stay until 11pm but not later.  He had two days off each week.  It felt good to have the child living with them and to give her love as if she was their own, but he felt the Children's Service never gave them a chance in the short time that she was with them.  Mr E says that they asked the health worker whether the milk could be changed but were told no - however it was changed in the hospital.  They did sign the chart all the time apart from himself and the maternal grandmother whose writing was bad.  They would put the information down on a piece of paper which Mrs E would fill in the next day.  It was a book, not a chart. 

59.      When the child was in hospital, he took two weeks off as it coincided with half term.  He would go into the hospital at about 8 o'clock in the morning because he knew the child would be alone and would pick her up and play with her.  If necessary, he would change her nappy.  Mrs E would come about 1 o'clock and would be there until 7:30 - 8pm. 

60.      He felt that they should have a chance to look after the child and to give her love.  He fully supported his wife in every decision she had made in relation to the child, but the last few months had been very hard.  It was like an empty box that the child needed to fill.  His presentation in Court was emotional but he said it was because he missed the child just as he would miss his own children and had not seen her since she went into foster care.  He felt the Children's Service had planned this all along. 

61.      He was open about the domestic incident that had taken place in 2007.  There had been an argument.  He had been drinking.  What he did was wrong and he would never do it again.  Yes, there had been an argument with the mother when voices had been raised because he disagreed with what she was doing.  She was not making an effort for the child and even if she did come to see the child, would not spend time with her.  He confirmed, however, that they would listen to guidance from the Children's Service and work with them but they would want the Children's Service to work with them, not against them.  He felt that they had not been given a chance to show what they could do.  

62.      Mrs E told us that the placement of the child with them by the mother on 24^th August was quite sudden and unplanned.  The whole family was happy and excited to have her come and stay for a while.  The child had been a difficult feeder from birth and she noticed that she was losing milk out of the sides of her mouth.  She tried changing from a No 1 teat to a No 2 teat and raised her concerns with the health visitor, asking if the feeding difficulties could be due to her tongue tie with which she suffered or due to the milk that she was being given.  In the health visitor's view, it was neither of these matters, but she recommended trying a Haberman teat which led to some improvement in feeding.  The Haberman teat has three lines representing different flows.  Mrs E was recommended to try the lowest flow (No 1) then wind the child, then try the next level of flow working through three levels in that way.  She thinks she was given the Haberman teat about a week before the child was taken into hospital and during that short time she did notice less milk was coming out of the sides of her mouth.  She had also tried weaning the child at the health visitor's suggestion with baby rice which she had done in the presence of the health visitor, but the child would not take it. 

63.      She was asked to take the child to the Robin Ward which she did.  Whilst there, the child was put on different milk with more calories, which seemed to make a big difference.  During her time in hospital, the child had five feeds, as she had at home.  Because of her commitment to her own children, she was unable to do the first and last feeds each day.  It was agreed therefore that the hospital would do the first and last feeds and she would do the middle three feeds.  The only times that they were not in attendance at the hospital was when the mother and father were having their contact, as it was part of their established contact regime to feed her and change her nappy. 

64.      When Diane Burgess told her that the child was going into foster care, she was very upset.  She felt they had been treated very badly and not given a proper opportunity to care for the child.  She was asked if she wanted to continue with the connected persons' assessment and could see no point in continuing if the Children's Service had no real intention of allowing her to care for the child, but she did not feel that way now. 

65.      Yes, she had walked out of the Looked after Children's meeting on 16^th October, 2014.  She felt everyone was placing the blame upon her and that she was not good enough.  She walked out crying.  She had not told Diane Burgess that she would not abide by the terms of the letter of 17^th October, 2014, in particular in relation to contact with the maternal grandfather, but she did say that she disagreed with it. 

66.      At the outset, she had two jobs, which she was reluctant to give up as she had no idea how long the child would be with her.  She might not be able to get those jobs back and she had her own family to consider.  Following the making of the interim care order she did, however, reduce her hours by giving up one of the jobs as a health care assistant, so that she worked on the two days that Mr E had off during the week.  Before the agreement was signed, she had relied upon the maternal grandmother to look after the child when both she and Mr E were at work. 

67.      She finds it very difficult to believe the allegations against her father and could not understand why they had not been sorted out long before.  Her children were 6 and 7 and yet it was only now that these historic allegations were being raised as a serious issue.  The child had previously been in the care of the maternal grandparents with the knowledge of the Children's Service and indeed, the mother's first child was cared for by the maternal grandmother for several months when the mother was admitted to Orchard House. 

68.      She attended the child protection conference on 12^th January, 2015, and was dismayed that her children had been placed on the child protection register because of these historic allegations.  Her sister had a child protection conference in the same week, and her children had not been put on the register.  Mrs E could not help wondering whether her children had been placed on the register because she was putting herself forward as a carer for the child.  She did agree to supervised contact with the maternal grandfather and offered to stay overnight in the same room as the children if they were to go for a sleepover (which was a family ritual for them which they enjoyed).  She understood that even this may have to stop.  

69.      It was hard dealing with the mother.  It was as a result of Mrs E's intervention that the mother had been admitted to Orchard House in the week prior to the final hearing.  She accepted that she had described the mother in the past as selfish, putting her needs before those of the child.  She found the mother's illness difficult to accept and it was only when the mother's psychiatrist, Dr Garcia, had explained her diagnosis and she had researched it on the Internet that she began to understand it.  

70.      The care plan for the child required that the mother have two hours' contact five days a week.  That meant her being taken and fetched so that in reality, half the day was gone.  In addition, the child had to be taken to the Le Bas Centre for two hours twice a week, so that the father could have supervised contact.  It made it hard for the child to develop a primary attachment to Mrs E, as her time alone with the child was more limited than she would have liked.  The fact that Mrs E could not drive also placed a further burden them.  

71.      She was not given any document by the health visitor to record the child's feeding, as suggested by Vaneta Storrod.  She bought a notebook and set down the date, time and ounces consumed together with the name of the person feeding.  It wasn't always kept in a bag with the child and she accepted that it wasn't always available for the health visitor. 

72.      She did not find the child placid or watchful.  She had a recording on her phone (which we did not see) of the child giggling, smiling, rolling over and grasping her toys.  She did not remember anyone at the Children's Service raising this with her.  Diane Burgess was concerned about acrimony in the family but every family has its ups and downs.  Hers was a large family.  She had her own family now and kept herself very much to herself. 

73.      She did not think she had been abusive over the telephone with Diane Burgess, but she had been frustrated and angry.  She had been cross when Alison Tandy had come to her house without notice and no explanation.  She did in fact safeguard her children by not leaving them with the maternal grandfather unattended, but she had consistently asked for more information about the allegations so that she could have a clearer picture.  She only got that information some 2½ weeks prior to the final hearing.  That showed that D had first made a disclosure in early 1987 at the age of 5.  The matter came to the attention of the police and social services in 1989, when it was concluded there was not enough evidence to charge the maternal grandfather.  The Children's Service remained involved however, and a child protection conference was convened on 20^th February, 1990, to discuss risks posed to the children of the maternal grandparents.  Despite the detailed concerns raised at the conference, the decision was made not to place the children's' names on the child protection register. 

74.      She agreed that at the child protection conference held on 12^th January, 2015, she had threatened to leave Jersey.  She thought that by doing this the Children's Service would not be involved any more, but in the end, she did agree to work with them.  A social worker has now been allocated in relation to her own children and she is working constructively with the Children's Service.  The social worker has visited the home on 27^th February, 2015, and she has agreed to protective measures in the interim. 

75.      She accepted that raising her voice with the professionals was not acceptable but she had got very upset.  She accepted it was all about her emotions and the way she felt.  In future, she would think before doing it - she thought she could do this.  Her family was no different to any others.  There was conflict within the extended members.  She would protect the child from this.  Her own children were in the same position.  

Decision

76.      We were concerned here with orders that would result in the permanent severance of the child's ties with her family and we had regard to the principles set out in Re B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33 and the English Court of Appeal decision in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 (cited with approval in the case of In the matter of M (Care Order) [2013] JRC 234) requiring the Court to assess the evidence vigorously in order to be satisfied that nothing else other than adoption will do.  We would cite this passage from the judgment of Sir James Munby in Re B-S at paragraph 22:-

"22     The language used in Re B is striking.  Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear.  Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption - care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders - are "a very extreme thing, a last resort", only to be made where "nothing else will do", where "no other course [is] possible in [the child's] interests, they are "the most extreme option", a last resort- when all else fails", to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do"; See Re B paras 74, 75, 77, 82, 104, 130, 135, 145, 198, 215".

77.      We agreed with the Minister that the father could not meet the needs of the child within her timescales and, in the light of the mother's accepted inability to do so, we would have agreed that nothing else other than adoption for the child would do.  

78.      The issue for the Court came down to whether the child had been given a fair chance to be looked after within the family by Mr and Mrs E.  There were troubling aspects of their conduct but despite the difficulties, we felt unable to agree that this option had been fully explored for the following reasons:-

(i)        The mother had taken the child to Mr and Mrs E without notice and, certainly until the interim care order on the 17^th September, 2014, Mr and Mrs E had no locus in her life.  She came with an existing feeding problem.  They were at the whim of a mother who was both volatile and mentally unwell.  The records show the mother interfering in the child's life in an unhelpful way right through to her time at the Robin Ward.  Mr and Mrs E had their own children to look after, with Mr E working long hours as a chef and Mrs E part-time as a health care assistant.  It would not be reasonable to have expected her to give up her work and the security provided for her family for what may have been a very temporary arrangement.  Under the circumstances, she relied very much on the assistance of the maternal grandmother. 

(ii)       Once the interim care order had been made, Mrs E did reduce her working hours.  She produced an email from her employer showing that she last worked for them in the week beginning 15^th September completing four hours.  Her diary shows the hours that she had worked for the General Hospital under a "zero hours" contract as totalling 37.5 hours for the whole of the month of October. 

(iii)      Whilst the care plan expected Mrs E to be the child's primary carer, the contact arrangements seriously undermined that objective.  Contact had to be given to the mother two hours five days a week and to the father, two hours two days a week, during which it is expected that they would both feed and change her.  The child needed stability after an initially chaotic start to her life and, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear to us that these contact arrangements were not in her interests.  To be fair to Diane Burgess, she inherited this care plan and her email to the health visitor of 14^th October, 2014, raised that very concern (a concern clearly shared by the health visitor-see paragraph 46 above):-

"I am going to forward a copy of this email to the guardian because I am concerned the level of contact that has currently been agreed in the court care plan is having an effect upon [the child's] health and well-being".

(iv)      The criticisms of Mrs E over the so called feeding chart we feel have been exaggerated.  We find that Mrs E did keep what was in effect just a notebook which was made available, but not on every occasion.  The health visitor, in her evidence, regarded it as much a tool for the carers as for the professionals. 

(v)       Great emphasis has been placed upon the improvement the child showed whilst in the Robin Ward, for which the nurses (who work in shifts) were given the major credit.  What became clear, however, during the evidence, was the time devoted by Mr and Mrs E each day that she was there, with Mrs E giving three out of the five daily feeds.  That consistent care, combined with the change in the milk, the Haberman teat and the fact that for the first time in the child's life she was in one place was more likely than not to have been the cause of her improvement. 

(vi)      We note from the hospital records provided to us at the end of the hearing, that even after Dr Jones had prepared his report, feeding difficulties continued.  The note for 3^rd November, 2014, shows that there had not been adequate weight gain - only 25g in four days - and the need for the feed to be topped up through a nasal tube.  The use of a nasal tube was not something we were able to discuss with Dr Jones when he gave evidence.  The health visitor's addendum report goes on to state that the foster carers also had difficulty in feeding the child when she was placed with them.  Indeed, the health visitor told us that there had been a recent weight loss. 

(vii)     Mrs E's emotional reaction, after such commitment, to being told that the child would not be returning to their home, but would instead be going to foster carers, was understandable.  We note that she continued to visit the child in hospital every day until the child was discharged (as demonstrated by the hospital notes).  It would have taken some time for Mr and Mrs E to recover from this outcome, but they did so.  They have applied for a residence order and to be parties to the proceedings.  Mr E attended to give evidence and Mrs E attended for the whole of the hearing. 

(viii)    The difficulties in the relationship between Mrs E and the mother is understandable in the light of the mother's mental ill health.  We can understand that it was only after Mrs E had researched the diagnosis that she came to have a greater understanding of the way the mother might behave. 

(ix)      The allegations of historical abuse made against the maternal grandfather have hung like a dark cloud over the child's ability to remain within her birth family and this aspect of the case is unsatisfactory.  It was the prospect of an assessment of the risk he posed that resulted in the maternal grandmother removing herself as a potential carer for the child; the natural candidate, one would have thought, within the family for such a role.  She is aged 54 and has brought up seven children successfully, as far as we are aware.  The allegations were flagged as requiring assessment at the first of the interim care order hearings on 2^nd September, 2014.  That assessment has yet to take place and the expert Roy Tucker will only be able to attend to it in May of this year.  We are now advised by the independent social worker that that assessment should be completed before any recommenced connected persons' assessment of Mr and Mrs E. 

(x)       Mrs E informed us that she had a good relationship with her parents and it is clear that her children do as well.  It is not hard to imagine how any mother might react to allegations of this kind being raised against her own father, who had brought the entire family up without any intervention from the Children's Service.  Yet after all this time these allegations were now being raised in respect of her own children.  On top of this, Mrs E had received the letter from MASH confirming in absolute terms that the risk had been assessed twice and there was no evidence to suggest that her children were at risk of harm.  The inquiry, she was told, had been closed.  No letter of retraction was sent.  Instead, a social worker arrived at her house unannounced requiring her to sign an agreement restricting contact between her children and the maternal grandfather.  She then had to face the stigma of her own children being placed on the child protection register for sexual abuse and her own family being subjected to a core assessment. 

(xi)      It seems to us that given these unusual facts and in particular the letter from MASH, Mrs E had good reason to question the existence of a risk, but in our view, despite her protestations, she did agree to act to protect her children.  Bearing in mind the evidence from the school and from the children themselves, we are left feeling that the decision to place her children on the child protection register was heavy handed. 

79.      Whilst we respected the advice of the independent social worker, she had given that advice on the papers without the benefit that we have had of hearing the evidence.  On the basis of that evidence, we had reached conclusions which differed from her own in relation to the facts.  We found that no formal complaint had been made against the Children's Service; Mrs E had reduced her working hours; she had maintained the feeding chart--a note book she had acquired-- and she had withdrawn from the connected person's assessment for understandable reasons.  We do not regard as fair the suggestion that she should have self-reported the contact arrangements that had been approved by the Court and imposed upon her.  In any event the health visitor and social worker were aware of the problems they were causing. 

80.      We can appreciate the importance of protocols, no doubt based on lessons learned from past experience, but those protocols cannot, in our view, override the interests of a child in any given case and if it is in the child's interests for the connected persons' assessment of Mr and Mrs E to be recommenced, it should not be delayed by the need to assess the allegations of historic sexual abuse made against the maternal grandfather, an assessment that had already been delayed for an unacceptable length of time.  In our view, they should run in parallel notwithstanding the pitfalls Vaneta Storrod alluded to. 

81.      Sarah Wakeham was unable to reach a conclusion as to Mr and Mrs E as carers because the assessment had terminated before her work had been completed and we concluded that the child's interests required it to be completed as soon as possible.  We thought that there were reasonable prospects that that assessment would be successful and of the child being cared for in the family by Mr and Mrs E, but if not, then at least everyone concerned would be able to say to the child in the years to come that we did do everything we reasonably could to keep her within her birth family. 

82.      The guardian, through no fault of her own, had only been able to visit the child once when she was with Mr and Mrs E but she supported the care plan and agreed with the advice of the independent social worker.  For the reasons given above, we have not accepted that advice.  A strong argument against a recommencement of the connected persons' assessment of Mr and Mrs E was the issue of delay and the general principle set out in Article 2(2) of the Children Law that any delay in determining a question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child concerned but in the context of a proposed adoption and the permanent breaking of family ties that this would involve, we felt that a delay to complete the assessment of Mr and Mrs E would be both planned, purposeful and justified. 

83.      We had reached a position where, for the reasons set out above, we did not agree with the care plan for adoption.  We therefore adjourned the matter for the Minister to reconsider his care plan.  In doing so, we made the point that freeing the child for adoption required the consent of both the mother and the father (both have parental responsibility).  That consent was not forthcoming and in our view, as the matter then stood, that consent was not being unreasonably withheld by them because we would agree with them that the child had not been given a proper opportunity of being cared for within the family by Mr and Mrs E.  We would not, therefore, have dispensed with their consent under the provisions of Article 12(1)(b) of the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.  The child could, as a consequence, be left in limbo with the Minister refusing to reconsider the care plan and the Court declining to free her for adoption.  As Advocate Colley said, she had never experienced an impasse of this kind arising in Jersey before, nor had we, and we could only hope that it could be avoided.  Consideration should also be given, we felt, to a psychological assessment of Mr and Mrs E, bearing in mind the concerns expressed as to their emotional wellbeing and the potential impact of this on their capacity to meet the child's needs.  Mr and Mrs E said that they would co-operate with any such assessment.  

84.      Advocate Fitz felt that it might be perceived by the family that a connected person's assessment of Mr and Mrs E would fail, because the professionals would have made up their minds that the child should be placed for adoption.  We think that this perception on the part of the family, if it exists, is misplaced and fails to give proper credit to the professionalism of the officers of the Children's Service involved.  We were particularly impressed by the professionalism of Diane Burgess and the way that she gave her evidence and responded to sustained (but perfectly proper) cross-examination.  In the end, and having heard all of the evidence, we have differed from her view, that of the independent social worker and that of the guardian, that a connected persons' assessment of Mr and Mrs E should not be completed.  We are confident that if the connected persons' assessment recommences, it will be done in a positive, open-minded and timely manner. 

85.      We need to stress the importance of co-operation between Mr and Mrs E and the Children's Service.  That co-operation would appear to exist in relation to their own children but their relationship with the Children's Service over the child has been difficult.  Diane Burgess and Alison Tandy reported that they had suffered verbal abuse at the hands of Mrs E and other members of the maternal family.  Mrs E accepted that she had raised her voice on the telephone and had at times been angry and frustrated, but she did not think she had been abusive.  We are inclined to think that, whatever she intended, she came across to the officers as abusive on occasions, and that is quite unacceptable.  We can understand how events such as these can give rise to high levels of emotion but the officers of the Children's Service are doing a very difficult job and they deserve to be respected and protected from such conduct.  We trust that for the child's sake, at least, there will be no repetition of such conduct. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Devon County Council v S [1992] 2 WLR 273.

In the matter of the T Children [2009] JRC 231.

Re B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33.

Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

In the matter of M (Care Order) [2013] JRC 234.

Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.