Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care proceedings - approval of revised draft of directions and undertakings and Supervision Order and Residence order made.

[2015]JRC211

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 October 2015

Before     :		W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Blampied and Grime
Between	Minister for Health and Social Services		Applicant
And	A (the mother)		First Respondent
And	Hollie (through her guardian Eleanor Green)		Second Respondent
And	Joshua (through his guardian Eleanor Green)		Third Respondent
And	B (the grandmother)		Fourth Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF HOLLIE AND JOSHUA (SUPERVISION ORDER AND RESIDENCE ORDER)

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

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

Advocate H. J. Heath for the First Respondent (the mother).

Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the Second and Third Respondents (the children).

Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Fourth Respondent (the grandmother).

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        On 2^nd February, 2015, the Court sat to grant an application by the Minister for an interim care order in respect of Hollie (this is not her real name) and Joshua (this is not his real name), now aged 2 and 1 respectively.  Directions were given as a result of which the mother was assessed at Orchard House for her ability to parent the children.  Subsequently, the mother returned to the Island with the children and in June 2015, the children were placed with the grandmother and other directions were given in relation to the final hearing which was listed to take place between 22^nd and 25^th September. 

2.        In August the Minister filed a care plan in relation to the final hearing, with the necessary application that the children be freed for adoption.  This came as a surprise to the mother and the grandmother, particularly given that by directions of the Court in June, the Minister produced and filed a draft connected person's assessment in relation to the grandmother, who had applied for a residence order. 

3.        Further directions were given on 1^st September.  This was followed by an application on 14^th September by the Minister for an adjournment of the final hearing in order that a further assessment could be made of the grandmother's parenting style and approach.  This application was resisted by the grandmother, and the Court refused the application for all the reasons set out in Commissioner Clyde-Smith's judgment. 

4.        Subsequently the Minister changed position again, and at the time of the final hearing was supportive of the grandmother's application for a residence order, but contended that it should be accompanied by a supervision order.  The supervision order would contain a number of directions, the residence order would contain a number of conditions and there were some draft undertakings which it was suggested the grandmother should give to the Court in connection with these orders. 

5.        The position of the grandmother and the mother was the same.  In the days running up to the final hearing, they contended that threshold was not passed, but if it were, they would be content if a supervision order were to be made, coupled with the residence order in favour of the grandmother.  The terms of any directions, conditions and undertakings were not settled. 

6.        On the morning of the hearing on 22^nd September, the Court was informed that threshold had been agreed and a threshold document was lodged with the Court, signed by counsel for all parties.  The essential findings were these:-

(i)        The children had suffered significant emotional harm as a result of domestic violence between their parents. 

(ii)       The children had suffered significant emotional harm and were likely to suffer significant emotional harm as a result of the relationship between their mother and their grandmother. 

(iii)      As at the relevant date the children had suffered significant emotional harm and were likely to suffer emotional harm as a result of the mother's untreated mental health issues and her lack of capacity to care for the children. 

(iv)      As at the relevant date the children had suffered significant harm whilst in the care of their mother in the form of neglect. 

7.        Three lever arch files of skeleton arguments, Acts of Court and judgments, witness statements, expert reports and contact logs were before the Court.  The guidance contained in Devon County Council v S [1992] 2 FLR 244, namely that the depth of the investigation and the taking of oral evidence in making findings in respect of threshold criteria should reflect the reality that there is consensus amongst the parties to the litigation, particularly where those parties include a public authority with statutory duties and a guardian on behalf of the child, was adopted.  As was said in The matter of the T Children [2009] JRC 231, the Court was required to be satisfied that threshold was met, and there was a duty on the Court to make such enquiries as to the evidence as are appropriate to the case to reach that state of satisfaction.  In The matter of the T Children, there was no consensus between the parties because the mother rested on the wisdom of the Court.  Here there was an agreed threshold document the contents of which were supported by the voluminous documentation before the Court and as a result no oral evidence was taken.  The Court expressed itself satisfied that threshold had been met, and that it had jurisdiction as a result to consider the application by the Minister for a care order or a supervision order as the case might be. 

8.        The Court then heard evidence from Mrs Alison Paddle, a registered social worker specialising in assessments of children's attachments and as a children's guardian since 1991.  We had a lengthy written report from her.  In short summary, she supported the proposal that a residence order should be made in favour of the grandmother, she recommended some suggestions for the support of the grandmother, and she accepted that there was a need for a supervision order to be imposed in tandem with the residence order.  She did however, have some concerns about the shape of the directions, conditions and undertakings being suggested by the Minister in the sense that these seemed in her view to be over prescriptive, and there needed to be some scope for discussion, flexibility and change.  In her view the spirit in which these arrangements were to work was as important as the detail.  She thought it was important that the children retained contact with their mother, but it was also very important that such contact in the short term at any rate did not take place in the presence of the grandmother, because this was likely to lead to conflict between the two adults, the result of which would be harm to the children.  

9.        The Court also heard from Dr Joshua Carritt-Baker, a clinical psychologist. Dr Carritt-Baker has made a number of reports over the course of this year in relation to this family.  There is one passage in his report which we think needs to be set out in detail in the sense that it contains principles which we think are correct:-

"It might be noted here that both Ms Paddle and I have deliberately used the expression 'good enough care'.  I see that in paragraph 5.26 of the social workers final statement it is indicated that the children '... need parenting that is more than 'good enough'', essentially because the children had had difficult experiences.  The expression 'good enough care' is generally taken to mean that which is required by the child (REN) given the known set of facts and which corresponds with care that might reasonably be expected to be given by a competent parent or parental figure.  It is assumed that things like difficult previous experiences are factored into what constitutes good enough care and, accordingly, it cannot be the case that a child needs parenting that is more than good enough: by definition, what a child needs is good enough care."

10.      We agree with that approach.  If a child is likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the care or lack of it expected to be given by his or her parent falling short of what the parent might reasonably be expected to give, the threshold criteria are met and the assessment of significant harm must take into account the particular needs of the child. 

11.      In his evidence before us, Dr Carritt-Baker also supported the approach that a residence order coupled with a supervision order would be appropriate.  In his view, there was a hierarchy in the importance of the different issues facing this family, and by far and away the most difficult of those issues was the relationship between the grandmother and the mother.  In Dr Carritt-Baker's view, this was a key barrier to success in the children's upbringing - mostly because the grandmother would have to regulate her relationship with the mother in the best interests of the children. 

12.      Dr Carritt-Baker also expressed similar views to Mrs Paddle in relation to the directions, conditions and undertakings which had been drafted by the Minister.  He did not think that the care plan should be fixed on the less important issues, and he was rather concerned that some of the material was too prescriptive.  He had some hesitation about the language which was used, and he wondered whether the objectives might not be achieved in a slightly different way.  A good example related to one of the proposed undertakings to be given by the grandmother which was drafted in these terms:-

"That until further order, with liberty to apply, the fourth respondent will ... accept any visits from the Children's Service at her place of residence in order that the Children's Service may satisfy themselves that all is well with the children."

13.      Dr Carritt-Baker felt that this was too open-ended - but at the same time he would have hoped that the grandmother would not in fact refuse Children's Services access on any visit they wanted to make. 

14.      The Court also expressed some preliminary views about the directions, conditions and undertakings as drafted, indicating that there was a risk that these would in effect convert a supervision order into a care order.  To achieve that result would give the Minister a set of powers without having any of the statutory duties or obligations which are the necessary adjunct of a care order.  If it is right that the Children's Service should have those duties and obligations, then on the face of it the right course is to make the care order and thereby confer also on the Children's Service the powers needed to fulfil them.  But, if it were not right to impose the obligations, there was a question mark as to why the same powers should be conferred. 

15.      It is right to record, again in summary form, that there has been a history of dealings between the grandmother and the Children's Service, very largely concerning difficulties which have arisen in the life of the mother.  As a result of this history of dealings, it is fair to say that the levels of trust between the Children's Service, the grandmother and the mother are extremely low.  This is very regrettable, but it is completely understandable.  As far as the grandmother is concerned, the Children's Service have over the years not provided her with the support which she needed in dealing with the upbringing of her own daughter, the mother.  As far as the mother is concerned, she has not had the understanding and support which she felt was necessary, whether from the grandmother or from the Children's Service.  As far as the Children's Service is concerned, neither the grandmother nor the mother can be shown to have been consistent or trustworthy in delivering on the assurances or promises which they have made respectively from time to time. 

16.      All the documentation before the Court shows that the mother has had some real difficulties.  That documentation also shows that the grandmother does need support in a number of respects - support in relation to her care of her grandchildren, but also support in understanding what has gone wrong in the upbringing of her daughter in order that their relationship can be improved.  Mrs Paddle suggested that there were a number of areas where support to the grandmother could be given:-

(i)        A parenting course such as Triple P, Mellow Parenting or Incredible Years. 

(ii)       Psycho educational support on understanding emotional aspects of behaviour. 

(iii)      A therapeutic work with the mother and the grandmother about their relationship as outlined in the report of Dr Freda Gardner.  This would complement the existing therapy which the grandmother has with Dr Harrison. 

(iv)      Attachment related therapeutic interventions to strengthen attachments between children and their parents or grandparents, which are used when children change their main carer. 

(v)       Support over contact which might include a reduction in frequency coupled with other measures until such time as the relationship between the grandmother and the mother had increased in stability and reliability. 

(vi)      A family group conference to coordinate support for the grandmother from friends and family. 

17.      The Court adjourned early on 22^nd September in order that counsel could discuss further the draft directions, conditions and undertakings, and a revised draft has been tendered to us, agreed by all counsel, with the request that the Court approves it. 

18.      On 23^rd September we heard from the social worker Ms Tanya Tinari.  She considered that there was even more supportive work of the grandmother than is set out in paragraph 16 above but she was positive about the Care Plan she has written, which would be slightly amended to reflect the constructive discussions the previous day and would be the Child in Need plan.  This would be reviewed by the Independent Reviewing Officer every six weeks.  Ms Tinari would remain the allocated social worker for a further eight weeks only, because the case file would in consequence of these orders be passed from the Looked After Children team to the Children in Need team within the Children's Service. 

19.      The organisation of the Children's Service is a matter for the Minister: but we feel we should say that it is regrettable in our view that these departmental divisions will have the result that a social worker who has previously worked with the mother, who has been an important part in reaching a consensus in this difficult case and who in eight weeks' time will have established a relationship with the children, will find this case file removed from her.  As a result, a new social worker will have to start afresh in building relationships with the grandmother, mother and children; for it is clear that family support is key.  One might have hoped that the island is small enough that these artificial divisions could be avoided where the consequences are such as these. 

20.      We also heard from the guardian who was supportive of the proposals made.  In her view, the fact that there was a consensus was the most positive thing to emerge.  There were risks attached to the placement with the grandmother but the support provided should address the vulnerabilities.  Ms Green was slightly concerned about the potential risks at the end of the period of the supervision order.  We took those risks to include both the possibility of serious arguments between the grandmother and the mother in the presence of the children, which would destabilise them and possibly cause them significant emotional harm; and the possibility of argument between the grandmother and the mother leading to contact being withheld.  Ms Green was reassured by Ms Tinari's evidence that there would be a full review of the arrangements in the Children's Service after nine months.  Such a review could lead to an application for the supervision order to be extended or indeed a formal contact application.  

21.      We understand and agree with the guardian's concerns and we think the review in nine months' time will be an important audit of this family's progress. 

Conclusion

22.      We are pleased to approve the revised draft of the directions and undertaking and we congratulate all counsel and the parties for their willingness to shift their positions.  We hope that that willingness to do so will prove embryonic in a new relationship between the grandmother and the Children's Service.  On her side, she needs to appreciate that, whether they are right or wrong (and very often in these family cases it is hard to be absolute about what is right or wrong because there are simply shades of opinion between two extremes), social workers do have the best interests of the children at heart and are genuinely anxious that they should not suffer emotional or physical harm.  As far as the Children's Service is concerned, it appears to us that the amended directions, conditions and undertakings do show that the social workers have recognised that they must allow a measure of independence to the grandmother in her providing good enough parenting of these children, consistent with the residence order and the supervision order.  The list of recommendations set out in paragraph 16 above is a daunting list and it is likely that some prioritisation is necessary and that the Children's Service need to approach that with sensitivity as to the grandmother's needs.  On the other side, the grandmother must recognise that these are all initiatives designed to help her. 

23.      It is clear that much work is left to be done.  As we have made plain during the course of the hearing, the revised directions of the supervision order must of course be complied with, but if they do not prove to be enough, it is always open to the Minister to apply to the Court for amended directions.  In a sense the grandmother and the mother are being conferred a wider area of discretion on trust - and they will best justify that trust by working hard afresh to achieve a good relationship with the social workers allocated to assist with their case.  

24.      It is important too that the Children's Service provide practical support as recommended by the experts.  That support should recognise that the grandmother will need time with her grandchildren uncluttered by a series of meetings, which can impact upon the everyday care which she needs to give them.  At the end of the day, it will be about compromise on all sides to achieve the best chance of a successful outcome. 

25.      We wish to say a few words especially to the mother as well.  She is still very young and her life is before her.  It seems to us from the papers we have read that there is an opportunity for the underlying causes of the difficulties which she has faced to be addressed by appropriate therapy.  We urge her to take it.  All the papers in this case which she has had the opportunity to read will have shown her how things have gone wrong but also how they can go right.  With dedication and commitment from both her and the grandmother, she will have the possibility of a greatly improved relationship with the grandmother, and with her children.  It is important to recognise that there will almost certainly be times over the next months when things do not go so well.  It is then that the grandmother, mother and social workers will have to dig deep into their reserves of patience and remember to show the mutual respect which has led to the present agreement. 

26.      In the circumstances we make a supervision order for a period of one year on the terms set out in the draft order presented to us and we note the undertaking given by the Fourth Respondent, with liberty to apply, that she will not knowingly permit the mother to have contact with the children other than as directed by the Children's Service and in the event that such contact takes place unwittingly, she will remove herself and the children forthwith from any situation in which such contact might continue. 

27.      We also make a residence order in respect of the children in favour of the grandmother pursuant to Article 10 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Devon County Council v S [1992] 2 FLR 244.

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