Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - reasons

[2023]JRC070

Royal Court

(Samedi)

3 May 2023

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Austin-Vautier and Cornish.

 

IN THE MATTER OF GG AND HH (CARE ORDER)

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

Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Applicant.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the First Respondent.

Advocate L. K. Helm for the Second Respondent.

Advocate R. E. Colley for the Third and Fourth Respondents and the Guardian.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        On 13 April 2023 we made final orders in this case.  We now give our reasons for so doing. 

2.        The case concerned GG now aged 7, and HH now aged 5.  The last substantive application before this Court was determined on 6 May 2022.  On that day the Minister made an application for an Interim Care Order in respect of the two children.  The judgment noted that the Mother and Father were parents of GG, the Father having parental responsibility of GG by agreement and said 'The biological father of HH is unknown'. 

3.        Subsequently a DNA test revealed that GG and HH are full siblings.  The Father has had difficulty accepting this and that is a matter which is still not known to HH, although all parties accepted that this is a matter that she should become aware of in due course. 

4.        At the hearing on 6 May 2022, the Court held that threshold was satisfied; made an Interim Care Order in respect of both children in favour of the Minister and made various consequential orders. 

5.        It was not disputed that the threshold for making the Supervision Order now sought by way of a Final Order (for a period of twelve months) by the Minister was met in this case.  Our findings in respect of threshold satisfy us that the children had, at the date the proceedings were issued, suffered or were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given by their parents (on the evidence the Mother) were satisfied because:

(i)        GG had suffered a non-accidental injury on or about 28 April 2022, namely two friction burns on his back which were caused by the Mother's then partner;

(ii)       The children had suffered ongoing physical neglect with poor hygiene as noted by GG's school;

(iii)      GG's health needs had been neglected by the Mother.  He was soiling himself, biting the wooden frame of his bed and often hungry;

(iv)      The Mother lacked insight into the children's needs and her parenting was neglectful.  The children were inadequately supervised given their age, with GG reported to have taken a knife from the kitchen and threatened another child outside the home who was bullying him; and finally

(v)       The children were at risk of exposure to domestic violence owing to the conduct of the Mother's then partner.  Such behaviour was consistent with a Claire's Law Disclosure made in respect of her then partner's history - there having been seven domestic incidents between May 2019 and September 2020 involving the man in question and a former partner of his and other incidents with previous partners, some of which were serious.

6.        Many of the difficulties that the children experienced were a consequence of the Mother's struggle with her mental health.  Matters have improved for both children since the Interim Care Order was made.  The Mother's mental health and her ability to cope has significantly improved.  The Mother self-referred to Jersey Talking Therapies and attended the Peri-Natal Health Support Unit.  She is now better addressing her physical as well as mental health needs.  She has a new partner and they have recently had a child together born in 2023.

7.        The Mother still struggles to attend all her appointments but overall the situation is improved.  The Mother has also undertaken work with her Independent Domestic Violence Adviser who reports that the Mother is showing a good understanding of how to avoid negative relationships in the future.  Her current partner is regarded as being a good influence on her and likely to make a positive impact on her care for HH.

8.        GG moved into his Father's care on 8 October 2022.  No concerns have been expressed regarding the ability of his Father to care for GG.  The Father's new partner (they have also recently had a child born in 2023) gets on well with GG.  GG's behaviour is still extremely challenging from time to time.  GG can be easily distracted and finds it difficult to focus.  GG and HH see each other every day at school. 

9.        The Father had made an application for a Residence Order which was not opposed by other parties and we granted.  We asked if it was necessary for there to be a Contact Order made in favour of the Mother and were told it was not necessary, as contact would proceed and is proceeding by consent with the parties cooperating well in the interests of GG.  GG is staying alternate weekends at his Mother's, residing there on a Saturday night. 

10.      There were no concerns in relation to the Father's parenting and no order was required beyond the Residence order made in his favour. 

11.      The Mother clearly still required support and the Minister was content to seek a Supervision Order being made for twelve months.  We are satisfied that such an order was in the interests of HH.  We considered her best interests and the welfare checklist before coming to this conclusion and also scrutinised the proposed Supervision Plan with care.  We were concerned that the draft Supervision Plan envisaged a rapid and dramatic reduction in assistance to the Mother moving from twice weekly now (mid April) to monthly by July, i.e. reducing from eight times a month to once a month.  The Mother still requires a significant amount of support and there is no clarity as to how she will deal with the needs of HH and the new baby at the same time.  The Mother is likely to require significant support and the Supervision Plan was altered to reflect the Court's concerns and the reduction in assistance for the Mother will only occur when it is in the interests of HH and her Mother.  HH will remain a Child In Need to ensure that she will have support.  The Minister will help in assisting the Mother to recall and prioritise appointments for herself and HH and Child In Need meetings will continue on a four-weekly basis.  In relation to the Mother's long-standing difficulties with attachment, the Minister agreed with the Guardian that she would be provided with support and guidance from the Family Support Worker informed by training and advice from the Fostering and Adoption Team.  We noted that the Guardian observed that the Mother had been able to develop a cooperative and trusting relationship with the professionals supporting her family which bodes well for the Supervision Order.  The Guardian nonetheless went on to say:

"While there are aspects of her parenting that have improved during proceedings, like the state of the house and the one-to-one time she spends with HH when she can be loving and warm, there is no evidence this would be sustained if the support she is receiving were to be removed."

12.      We made it clear that we would expect the Minister to be alive to the need for a renewal of the Supervision Order for a further period of twelve months if that were necessary. 

13.      The Guardian observed the relationship between GG and his Father was 'full of positive reinforcement, warmth and acceptance'.  Nonetheless, GG continues to struggle at school.  GG has been referred to CAHMS and he may have a neurodevelopmental condition equivalent to his Father who has a diagnosis of ADHD. 

14.      Whilst the Guardian agreed that no public law children order was necessary in the case of GG, Dr Murray recommended that the Father and his partner may need practical support in the first year of the life of their new child from professionals.  The Father indicated that they would welcome such support. 

15.      Accordingly, we made the orders sought by the parties being satisfied that they were in the interests of both children.  Nonetheless, we endorse the Guardian's observation that:

"The most important element for the Minister to consider in this case is the long-term support this family will require as the risk for the children are likely to reappear due to [the Mother's] vulnerabilities and the heavy reliance on outside controlling guidance to provide for the children's needs."

16.      Neither the Mother nor her partner experienced a 'caring and loving upbringing' and the Guardian quite properly observes:

"Breaking this inter-generational pattern of neglectful care requires an enduring intervention, however it would come with the benefit of the children being able to remain with their parents."

No Authorities