Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC191

Royal Court

(Family)

29 September 2011

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Morgan and Kerley.

 

IN THE MATTER OF UU

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

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Minister.

Advocate C Hall for the First Respondent.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Second Respondent.

The Guardian present and not represented.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for a full care order in respect of UU who is ten.  An interim care order was made on 2^nd December, 2010, and the background is described briefly in that judgment.  In short, UU's mother has been an alcoholic.  Prior to the interim care order there was a long history of her leaving UU unsupervised, introducing him to strangers who were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and letting him witness unnecessary aggression and possibly inappropriate sexual behaviour.  There is ample evidence in the reports before the Court that UU has suffered emotional harm and neglect as a result of the mother's alcohol abuse.  A summary of the concerns is to be found in the agreed threshold statement which is in the papers before us. 

2.        In order to make a care order the Court has to be satisfied that the threshold set out in Article 24(2) of the Children's (Jersey) Law 2002 is met.  That is as follows:-

"(2)     The court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied -

(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -

(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give the child..."

3.        As we have said, there is an agreed threshold statement which sets out the significant harm and the courses thereof.  That statement has been agreed by the mother, by B the birth father and by the guardian.  We have had a number of reports; there was the initial report from Sarah Jenner at the time of the initial care order; there is an updated report from Justine Cook, the social worker from the Children's Service; there is a report from Sandy Gaskins the psychologist, an alcohol and drug report from Mr Gafoor, a psychological report from Dr Byrn Williams, a psychiatric report from Dr Harrison and, of course, the report of the guardian.  Having considered all the evidence before us we are quite satisfied that the threshold criteria are met.  UU has suffered significant harm; this was suffered, of course, as at the date of the interim care order following which protective measures were put in place. 

4.        Having decided the threshold criteria are met, we must then move to the second stage, namely whether a care order or some other form of order should be made.  In this connection the relevant approach is set out at paragraph 8 of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Re F and G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051.  The paramount consideration is of course UU's welfare.  We also have regard to the welfare checklist set out in the statute and the no order principle encapsulated in Article 2(5) of the Law. 

5.        As explained in the Court's previous judgment, the interim care order became necessary because the mother left the home where she was living with UU and with E, her then partner.  At the time of the interim care order, care of UU was being shared between E, mostly at weekends, and D the maternal grandmother.  At that stage it was hoped that perhaps a residence order would be the right outcome in due course.  But since then there have been various developments.  Firstly, and most importantly and encouragingly, the mother detoxed in November 2010, and all the evidence suggests that she has remained clean of alcohol since then.  Secondly, relations between the mother and the grandmother have been re-established; there was tension in the relationship following the decision of the mother to leave E and UU, but all is now well in that respect.  Thirdly, E has withdrawn from these proceedings.  He no longer wishes for contact with UU.  This is most certainly not UU's fault.  It is clearly a consequence of the anger which E feels in respect of the mother.  But E's decision has hurt UU and we have no doubt that UU regards this as a rejection by E, which has not been good for him. 

6.        The consequence of these various changes is that UU is now in the full time care of his grandmother, but in view of the mother's progress the long term aim is for UU to return to live with his mother, provided that she maintains her freedom from alcohol.  However, it is not felt that a residence order in favour of the grandmother would be sufficient at present, as this would place responsibility on the grandmother to decide when UU could perhaps go back to live with the mother and this is too much responsibility.  Accordingly, the Minister submits, and all the other parties including the Guardian, agree, that a care order is required in order to give that responsibility to the Children's Service.  So what is proposed is that UU should continue to live with his grandmother for the time being and she has been approved as a kinship carer. 

7.        The aim will be to work towards UU going to live once again with his mother but, as we say, this depends upon her remaining free of alcohol.  The evidence from the expert reports before us suggests that she needs to be clear of alcohol for two years before there will be sufficient confidence that she has broken her dependence and that UU can safely return.  This will also of course be affected by the position of F with whom she lives.  He too has an alcohol problem but he too is taking active steps to try and conquer it. 

8.        In terms of contact the mother sees UU very regularly at the moment and Miss Cook described the gradual increase there has been and we are very pleased that there is this high level of contact at the moment and that it is working well.  This can only be to UU's benefit.  We also heard that it is hoped in due course to move to staying contact, although this does depend upon an assessment of F and further work has to be done. 

9.        In terms of contact with B, the birth father, that has been rather sporadic in the past.  We heard today of a new development in that unfortunately B has lost his current employment, which took him away from the Island a great deal and made the practicalities of contact more difficult.  However, it has to be accepted, and we think B accepts, that there also needed to be more commitment from him.  He has assured us through his counsel today that he appreciates the importance of a father figure for UU and the importance of that father figure being there for him on a regular basis; so we very much hope that he will pursue what he has said through his counsel, namely that with the agreement of the Children's Service, he will increase the amount and regularity of contact which he has with UU.  The important thing is that UU should be able to depend upon his father and not be rejected by him; he has been rejected too much in the past by male figures and it would be terrible for him if he were to suffer any further rejection.  So we very much commend B for his approach and hope that he is able to see that through. 

10.      So, all in all, the care order is supported by the mother and by the father and it is also supported by the guardian.  We are satisfied that the making of a care order is in the best interests of UU and we therefore make it.  We approve the care plan and we note the contact arrangements; there is no need for us, we think, to make any order in relation to contact.  It appears to be working well by agreement and by arrangement with the Children's Service. 

11.      Before concluding we would like just to say this, and first of all to the mother.  We have read your statement; we believe that you now understand the harm that your drinking has caused to UU in the past but we want to congratulate you most warmly on the steps you have taken since November 2010.  All of us are aware how difficult it is to conquer an alcohol addiction, there are many, many cases of people who have tried and failed but there are also success stories and we commend you for your determination; it is very important for UU and we wish you every success in keeping up your progress.  If you do, there is every possibility that this will lead to UU and you residing together, which in the long term must be the best outcome for him.  We wish you continued success in what you have achieved. 

12.      Secondly, we would like to commend the grandmother.  It cannot be easy for somebody of her age suddenly to take on the primary responsibility of looking after a boy of ten.  So we thank her; we wish her well and we congratulate her on what she has done to date.  We would also like to endorse the comments which the guardian has made in his report about the very constructive work done by Miss Cook.  Nobody knows of course how things will turn out, but there are real grounds for optimism in this case and the Children's Service has worked very constructively with everyone in order to try and bring this about; so we commend them for it.  We would also in passing thank the guardian for his contribution.  He has clearly played a most constructive part in all this and his report was very clear, well structured and helpful. 

13.      So with those comments we make the care order as requested. 

Authorities

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

Children's (Jersey) Law 2002.