Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care Orders - application for approval of care plans and final care orders.

[2013]JRC040

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 February 2013

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats Marett-Crosby and Nicolle.

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF A B AND C  (CARE ORDER).

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Applicant.

Advocate C. Hall for the Mother.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Children.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        This is a case in which happily three young children, aged 5, 2 and 1 ("the children"), have been rehabilitated to the care of their mother ("the mother").  This achievement is attributable both to the commendable efforts of the mother, who has a history of heroin dependence, and of the Children's Service, the latter committing substantial resources towards what the experts have described as a "progressive" care plan. 

2.        It was not in dispute that the threshold criteria had been met and that a care order should be made, so that the applicant ("the Minister") could share parental responsibility with the mother and by so doing, safeguard the children from the possibility of any relapse; it being acknowledged that the longer she stayed abstinent, the less likely a relapse would occur. 

3.        The hearing took place on 26^th and 27^th November, 2012, and the Court heard evidence from Mrs Irene Hansford, senior practitioner at the Children's Service, Mr John Castleton, an adult psychologist, the mother and the guardian. 

4.        The issue for the Court was the speed at which the support for the mother provided by the Children's Service and other agencies should be reduced, but even that was resolved by the end of the hearing. 

5.        The oldest child and the two younger children have different fathers, but both fathers have abandoned any responsibility for them, placing all of that upon the mother; they play no part in their lives.  Neither father has parental responsibility. 

6.        The mother had a dire childhood.  Her father left before she was born and she was raised by her alcoholic mother, who died prematurely when she was 7.  She was then looked after by her elderly grandfather and grandmother; the latter was cruel and verbally abusive towards her.  She developed a heroin dependency from the age of 16 in the context of exploitative relationships with male drug users. 

7.        Without going into the detail set out in the chronology appended to the first statement of Miss Rosena Connor, the allocated social worker at the Children's Service, matters came to a head on 26^th May, 2011, when the Children's Service were requested to attend at the mother's flat in St Helier, where she was being arrested in relation to the finding of a commercial amount of heroin on the premises.  In her accommodation the police found a vast quantity of both used and unused needles in and around the flat, together with other drugs paraphernalia; conditions which the police believed were unfit for anyone to be living in, regardless of age. 

8.        It soon became apparent to the Children's Service that the two older children (the mother was then pregnant with the third child) had experienced chronic neglect of their global needs whilst in the mother's care.  The mother was taken into custody and the two older children placed in voluntary foster care. 

9.        The mother was released on bail on 9^th September, 2011, into accommodation provided by the Freedom for Life Ministry, who played a very supportive role for both the mother and expected child; the child was born on 22^nd September and cared for by the mother (with the support of the Freedom for Life Ministry) until 13^th October, 2011, the day before the mother's sentencing date before the Royal Court, when the child was taken into voluntary foster care. 

10.      On 14^th October, 2011, the mother was sentenced to 18 months' probation and 20 days' community service.  The sentencing court noted that she had detoxed in prison and was desperate for the opportunity to fight for her three children back.  As an exceptional act of mercy, the Court imposed a non-custodial sentence, to enable her to do so. 

11.      An interim care order in respect of all three children was granted to the Minister on 3^rd November, 2011, and assessments ordered from the Alcohol and Drugs Service and from adult and child psychologists, inter alia.  Under the first care plan, dated 27^th October, 2011, it was the preferred option of the Minister to work long-term towards the rehabilitation of the children with the mother.  It was envisaged that the mother would play a progressive role in their care once suitable accommodation had been secured for her and that she would work and engage fully with the Children's Service and the other agencies.  The plan refers to the "monumental task" ahead. 

12.      Mr John Castleton, an adult psychologist, in his report of 12^th March, 2012, stressed the importance of the mother breaking the cycle of her substance misuse and related lifestyle:-

"Most people are able to change, but motivation is a dynamic process that is influenced by internal (cognitive/emotional) and external (situational) factors....

In my opinion, [the mother] has the capacity to achieve change, but it is not clear whether she has the inner resources to maintain the commitment and engagement this process will require without intensive support."

13.      He advised that the first twelve months following dependence was a time of particular high risk of relapse, the risk reducing the longer the mother achieved remission and made progress with other positive life changes.  To make and maintain progress, she needed the kind of support structure that a family could offer. 

14.      Dr Bryn Williams, a child psychologist, said this in his report dated 15^th March, 2012:-

"Whilst I recognise the very serious concerns raised by the social worker and the child protection agencies it is my opinion that [the mother] has many positive parenting skills and fundamentally loves her children.  I very much share Mr Castleton's view, and the preferred option for the social worker, is that [the mother] and [the children] should work towards rehabilitation as a family.  However, I can only support this recommendation if sufficient support is provided to both [the mother], as detailed by Mr Castleton, and that with ongoing shared responsibility between her and the local authority she addresses the needs of [the children]  and, above all, maintains a safe and secure home environment.  I would reiterate my wish for this to be done with [the mother] and [the children] placed together in a foster family.  Mr Castleton recommends a period of six months for [the mother] to demonstrate sufficient capacity for change.  It is my view that in a period of 12 to 18 months [the mother] will be able to consolidate demonstrating safety to [the children] with the support of a foster family before being able to manage [the children] independently."

15.      At the experts' meeting held on 27^th March, 2012, it was noted that "an intensive package of support/therapy is needed for at least six months.  If [the mother] is making progress at that point, then it would be appropriate to start a gradually tapered level of input but it is likely that some level of intervention will be necessary for a much longer period". 

16.      In the second care plan dated 30^th April, 2012, it was noted that the Housing Department were in a position to provide three-bedroom accommodation for the mother and her contact with the children was therefore gradually increased; contact went well with the mother growing in confidence.  The accommodation was provided on 6^th July, 2012, and on 12^th July, 2012, the two older children were placed with the mother, through a process of gradual re-introduction. 

17.      Overnight support via three Residential Child Care Officers (RCCOs) on a rotational basis was put in place, supporting the mother in caring for the family from 18:30pm each night until 08:30am the next morning.  In addition, a family support worker attended two hours every day from Monday to Friday.  The mother worked well with both the RCCOs and the family support worker and on 1^st August, 2012, the youngest child was placed back into the full-time care of the mother.  

18.      Inevitably, there were periods of stress whilst the children settled in with some broken nights and challenging behaviour, especially from the oldest child, not assisted by the lack of routine over the summer holiday period.  The mother volunteered to the Children's Service that at one point late at night, she had a weak moment and called someone to ask for drugs, but fortunately they could not help and the moment passed.  It was to her credit that she was able to be open about this.  

19.      Care planning meetings took place every two weeks to review progress and other support was arranged for the mother, such as funding for nursery care for the oldest child close to the family home and arranging for the mother to attend a mothers' group with the youngest child.  

20.      Positive reports were received from the RCCO staff, who had soon reduced their role to observing rather than practically supporting the mother, from the Alcohol and Drugs Service and from the Probation Service (where she had successfully completed the "Offending is Not the Only Choice" programme and her community service).  The psychological assessment and therapy service recommended that the mother would benefit from in depth therapeutic work, which because it could be challenging it advised should not commence too soon lest it increase the risk of the mother relapsing. 

21.      Miss Connor reported that the mother had attended every meeting with her, was always forthcoming and engaged well.  She appeared open and honest and accepted advice and guidance that had been given to her, although she was requiring less support as her confidence increased. 

22.      Under the third care plan dated 22^nd October, 2012, it was recognised that more time was needed to safeguard the children against the possibility of the mother's relapsing, although her efforts and achievements since the children were returned to her care were to be commended. 

23.      Whilst acknowledging the need for flexibility, the third care plan proposed a gradual reduction in the support given to the mother, starting with the week beginning 22^nd October, 2012, and ending with the week beginning 14^th January, 2013, when the overnight RCCO support would have ceased.  The reduction would take place over two weekly intervals, at which there would be a review and a decision made as to whether the next stage of the reduction could be progressed.  

24.      Beyond the 14^th January, 2013, and assuming the reduction had proceeded as planned, support would include:-

(i)        Social worker visits both announced and unannounced; and

(ii)       Family support worker visits on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.  On Mondays and Wednesdays, the family support worker would assist the mother with evening mealtime and on the Friday, with the after school time period. 

25.      The support necessary for the mother would be reviewed at regular care planning meetings and the mother would be expected to continue to engage with the other agencies and to agree to further hair strand testing. 

26.      In her final statement, the mother suggested that the support should not start to reduce until after six months had elapsed from her resuming the care of the children, not during it.  In evidence, she clarified that she was intending to refer here to the role of the family support worker and not to the RCCOs.  Whilst she appreciated their presence, she did want her privacy back and having them there did give rise to an element of confusion on the part of the children. 

27.      The guardian was concerned with what he felt was a severe reduction in the support for the mother over the six months period and explored this with Mr Castleton in evidence.  Mr Castleton had originally suggested a foster family placement for the mother and children, but he congratulated the Children's Service on what he described as "the massive support" provided by them and the high level of coordination between the agencies achieved to enable this family to live together.  He confirmed that he agreed with the care plan and the proposed reduction in the support for the mother, which he felt was both practical and a good compromise in terms of the resources available.  If the RCCOs were no longer actively involved that denoted good progress, but ultimately the key factor was flexibility, so that the level of support could be reviewed if "things started to wobble".  Maintaining the RCCOs at their current level could be counter-productive if it was intrusive of the mother's privacy.  Clearly if the mother wanted that level of support to be maintained then that would be important, but if not, the proposed reduction was appropriate, provided flexibility was retained; the mother was not yet at a stage where she could lead her life as she wished and the children still needed protection. 

28.      Having heard the evidence of Mr Castleton and being comforted by the evidence of Mrs Hansford that the resources to support the family would remain available should the need arise, the guardian felt able to endorse the care plan.  In his final report of 20^th November, 2012, the guardian made a number of suggestions in relation to contingency planning, should it become necessary for the Minister to intervene in order to safeguard the children, and those suggestions were incorporated into a final care plan which was produced during the hearing and agreed by both the guardian and the mother. 

29.      The Court approached the two stages of the process, namely the threshold criteria and the welfare stage following the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Re F and G (No. 2) [2010] JCA 051 at paragraphs 5 - 8. 

30.      The agreement between the parties that the threshold criteria were met in this case enabled the Court to conduct a more limited investigation in this respect (see Devon County Council-v-S [1992] 2 FLR 244) but the evidence in relation to the mother's drug dependence and its effect upon the two older children and the conditions in which they were found by the police on 26^th May, 2011, put the matter beyond doubt.  At that date, both older children were suffering or were likely to suffer significant harm being attributable to the care given or likely to be given to them by the mother if no order were made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. 

31.      In relation to the youngest child, the relevant date was 22^nd September, 2011, being the date from which protective measures were put in place, and at which date we were satisfied that the youngest child was likely to suffer significant harm being attributable to the care likely to be given to her by the mother if no order was made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. 

32.      As to the welfare stage, the children were now rehabilitated with the mother who was being given very substantial support by the Children's Service and the other agencies, pursuant to a very progressive care plan.  As the guardian said, things had turned round very quickly and without in any way detracting from what the mother had achieved, the children still needed protection and that was best provided by a care order. 

33.      Accordingly, the Court approved the care plans for each of the children and made final care orders in respect of each of them in favour of the Minister. 

Authorities

Re F and G (No. 2) [2010] JCA 051.

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