Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care Order - reasons for granting final care order.

[2012]JRC173

Royal Court

(Family)

3 October 2012

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Breton and Milner.

 

IN THE MATTER OF F (CARE ORDER)

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

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

Advocate C. Hall for the Mother

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Father.

Advocate H. Heath for the Child.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        On 10^th July, 2012, following a five day hearing, the Court granted the Minister a final care order in respect of F ("the child") who is aged two years and we now set out our reasons.  

2.        The care plan envisaged providing the child with a permanent placement with an adoptive family.  Normally, the Minister would have made an application for a freeing order, pursuant to the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961, at the conclusion of the hearing, but in the circumstances of this case, the Minister had agreed that the application for a freeing order should be made and dealt with at a slightly later hearing, assuming a care order was made.  This was due to the mother's specific needs as described below. 

3.        It was agreed by the mother that the threshold criteria had been made out and the main issue that engaged the Court over a hearing which lasted five days was whether the mother was capable of offering the child good enough parenting and whether on her application the proceedings should be adjourned to allow a further assessment of the mother's parenting ability by Serendipity, a family assessment centre in Devon, England.  The father had effectively ruled himself out as a potential carer.  His counsel, Miss Fogarty, attended the hearing, but she had not been instructed to ask any questions or make any submissions. 

4.        The Court heard evidence from Dr Bryn Williams, a child psychologist, Rosena Connor, the social worker, Anthony Williams, a social care consultant, the mother, Dr David Briggs, an adult psychologist, Dr Amitta Shah, an adult psychologist and Gill Timmis, the guardian ad litem.  The hearing was conducted at a slow pace to enable the evidence to be interpreted for the mother. 

5.        The child was first placed with foster carers on the 8^th June, 2011.  Prior to the imposition of the interim care order on 21^st June, 2011, the mother was referred by the Children's Service to the Psychological Assessment and Therapy Service, who advised that she was performing at a level of cognition that would be considered in the range of learning difficulty with an IQ of 65.  When the interim care order was made, the concern was whether the mother had the capacity to give instructions to her lawyers and she was referred to Dr Shah for this purpose.  Dr Shah assessed her cognitive functioning using a different methodology but the overall conclusions with regard to her level of cognitive functioning were similar.  In her report of 6^th September ,2011, she advised that the mother did have the capacity to instruct lawyers and to conduct the proceedings but there were a number of factors that would impact on and restrict her in that process:-

(i)        She did not understand or speak any English and therefore would need an interpreter. 

(ii)       Because of her low level of cognitive functioning there would be limitations on the speed with which she could process information, her ability to grasp concepts and also to remember everything she had been told with regard to the proceedings. 

(iii)      She had been born and brought up in Madeira with very different cultural and social parenting norms and expectations.  She lacked exposure and experience of English culture, court and legal procedures, social services and professionals. 

(iv)      She had financial difficulties and had been out of work for some time.  She was desperate to be in employment and at times her priorities were dictated by her financial need. 

(v)       She presented as someone who had been under a lot of stress.  She was very angry and became easily irritable and upset if she did not like the way things were done, or if she did not like what was being discussed.  In such situations, the mother seemed to react by being non co-operative, non-communicative and showing a defiant and hostile attitude.  At such times her listening comprehension and communication skills are likely to become impaired.  If the mother develops a positive rapport and is calm and comfortable, her ability to listen, attend, understand and communicate appropriately would be enhanced. 

Dr Shah gave a number of suggestions in the way in which the mother could be supported. 

6.        Dr Shah went on to note what she described as unusual aspects of the mother which could not be explained by her language difficulty, low intelligence, cultural factors or stress, some examples of which were:-

(i)        Professionals had repeatedly found it difficult to connect with the mother and engage with her. 

(ii)       The mother's difficulty in engaging with the Children's Service and refusing to co-operate with them. 

(iii)      The mother's behaviour in contact and the concerns about her levels of spontaneous interaction and play with the child. 

(iv)      The mother's tendency to have fixed views and to adhere to these rigidly. 

(v)       The mother's difficulty in coping with being watched at contact and told what to do. 

(vi)      The mother's decision from time to time not to go to contact although she misses the child. 

(vii)     The mother's irritation, anger and withdrawal when she does not like what is being said or suggested. 

These factors made her question whether the mother had an underlying disorder in the autistic spectrum which she said it was important to have explored for the purpose of the proceedings. 

7.        That assessment was ordered by the Court on 7^th December, 2011, but was delayed as a consequence of the mother being reported missing on 16^th December, 2011.  It was not until February 2012, approximately eight weeks later, that she was found in a derelict building in a very poor physical and psychological condition from which she did not recover until March 2012. 

8.        In her report of 31^st May, 2012, Dr Shah confirmed that the mother had an underlying autism spectrum disorder (autism) together with learning difficulty.  Autism, she advised, is a complex developmental disorder which causes social and communication impairments and unusual patterns of behaviours.  The mother's condition of autism would explain various aspects of her difficulties in social situations, her social isolation, and her tendency to develop fixed views and the observed difficulties in her spontaneous interaction and play with the child during contact.  She advised that the mother showed secondary difficulties which are often seen in people with autism which included the following:-

(i)        Difficulties in emotional regulation shown by being detached or reacting emotionally in a disproportionate way to the situation. 

(ii)       Difficulties in problem solving, in managing life situations, organisational skills and in prioritising; these difficulties are partly related to her intellectual impairment (learning difficulty) and partly to cognitive difficulties associated with autism. 

(iii)      A tendency to become involved in inappropriate/abusive relationships. 

(iv)      A tendency to withdraw totally, to shut down and suffer temporary mental breakdown when overwhelmed and stressed by her life situation.  The mother had had a breakdown whilst in Madeira and more recently in Jersey as described above.  Descriptions of her physical and mental state after she was found were indicative of a breakdown characterised by total withdrawal, autistic "shutdown" and subsequent temporary mental health breakdown.  During these episodes, the mother is unable to ask for help but is responsive to help and support when offered and able to recover relatively quickly.  

9.        It is helpful to take the evidence of the experts in the order in which their reports were produced.  Dr Briggs was instructed to prepare a report in respect of both parents, but the father failed to attend.  His report of 3^rd November, 2011, advised that by virtue of her modest cognitive functioning, depression and defensive/poorly insightful traits the mother's parenting capacity was significantly impaired.  This was compounded by the situation she found herself in and there was poor infrastructure to support her care of any child.  The child would be at serious risk of neglectful parenting if in his mother's sole care.  Whilst on occasion she may achieve good enough care of some of his basic needs, she would have difficulty in sustaining this care.  He had concerns as to her ability to attend to the child's safety and he was particularly pessimistic as to her likely ability to respond longer term to the child's emotional and psychological needs.  In his opinion, she would be unable to protect the child from any partner who was prone to physically and/or psychologically abusive parenting practices. 

10.      Dr Briggs made no particular recommendation for treating or intervention in the mother's case.  He was pessimistic that even with intensive supervision, surveillance, monitoring, counselling and skills training that she would be able to provide a level of care for the child that would reassure the agencies involved that the child was not at risk.  Her prognosis both with and without treatment was poor.  His concern was with the child's timescales and he did not recommend building a platform for risk management here on the notion that the mother will respond swiftly to any intervention, nor that such change will be sustained.  In all, he did not support the mother having full time care of the child either as sole carer or with the father. 

11.      The father had shown little commitment to the child following the imposition of the interim care order, but during the hearing of 6^th January, 2012, at a time when the mother had gone missing, he asked to be considered as a sole carer and did attend upon Dr Briggs for an assessment.  He also asked for contact to be resumed, but he only attended three sessions, the final one taking place on 17^th February, 2012.  In his report of 14^th February, 2012, Dr Briggs had the impression that the father's personality rendered him vulnerable to difficulties in sustaining healthy intimacy within relationships as he is self-focused, poorly empathic and unsophisticated in his ways of dealing with the demands of healthy intimacy.  Taking into account this and other issues, he feared that his parenting capacity may be compromised. 

12.      Dr Briggs was asked to prepare an addendum report following the mother's disappearance and with the benefit of the first report of Dr Shah of 6^th September, 2011.  Sadly, as he put it, his opinion had not altered as a result of his re-examination of the mother and his reading of the other papers:-

"In essence therefore I believe that [the child] would be at risk of neglectful parenting if in his mother's sole care and I do not believe she has the ability to respond longer term to his emotional and psychological needs or the ability to protect him from others.  This is not a case sadly where treatment, counselling or therapy is likely to bring about a change in the mother's parenting capacity within a timescale that meets [the child's] needs."

13.      In evidence, Dr Briggs told us that there were many parents with learning difficulties; that was not the issue.  The issue was the mother's capacity to parent.  She had limited insight and could not have the care of the child without support which would verge on surrogate parenting for many years, which he did not think viable.  Her infrastructure was compromised in that her employment was seasonal; her accommodation unstable; she had no access to friends to support and challenge her and it was unknown whether she might resume a relationship with the father or with another person.  There were many unknowns and the risk of neglectful parenting is high when the infrastructure is compromised. 

14.      He accepted in cross-examination by Miss Hall that by the time of the second report the mother's demeanour had changed for the better as a consequence of her terminating her relationship with the father and residing in the Women's Refuge, but these changes were not sufficient, in his view, to remove the risk of neglectful parenting.  He did not support a further assessment.  It was possible that during such an assessment matters might improve but he was pessimistic that it would be adequate or sustained.  

15.      Dr Shah, when preparing her report of 31^st May, 2012, had the benefit of Dr Briggs' report of 3^rd November, 2011, on the mother.  She advised that her diagnosis of autism only strengthened Dr Briggs' report and provided additional underlying biological aetiology of the mother's difficulties and psychological profile.  She shared all of Dr Briggs' concerns with regard to the mother's ability to parent and care for the child on her own.  In response to the question as to how her disorder affected her ability to parent the child, she advised as follows:-

"[The mother's] impairments due to Autism and Learning Difficulty have a lot of implications with regard to her ability to parent [the child], both now and in the future. 

[The mother] does not have the skills to interact, play with, or provide a level of stimulation which would be appropriate for his needs.  [The mother] will not be able to be proactive or empathetic with [the child's] needs, preferences and feelings. 

[The mother] is likely to 'switch off', become passive and withdraw into her own world.  At these times, she will not be able to attend to [the child] or be vigilant with him.  There will be a risk of [the mother] being neglectful of [the child's] safety needs.  As [the child] grows older and the parenting becomes more complex, [the mother] is unlikely to be able to cope. 

[The mother] is also vulnerable to forming inappropriate relationship and being exploited.  Due to her passivity and difficulties in problem solving, she will not be able to protect [the child] from any negative consequences of future relationships. 

[The mother] is likely to remain socially isolated without adequate social support networks while she is in Jersey.  She is not aware of her own limitations and is likely to try and cope on her own.  If she cannot cope, she will not be able to ask for help.  [The mother] also remains at risk of the type of breakdown she has had previously.  If this happens, she will withdraw totally and 'shut down' and will not be mentally fit to be able to look after [the child]."

16.      She further advised that in view of the mother's autism, learning difficulty and lack of insight into her difficulties and needs, she was unlikely to be able to parent the child even with intensive full-time assistance, and was unlikely to be receptive to assistance and guidance with regard to parenting.  She has the unrealistic belief that she can parent the child on her own without support, and is likely to hold on to this belief.  Although some improvement of functioning was possible with training and support, the improvement would be at a superficial level and would never become spontaneous or generalised.  It was highly unlikely that her functioning could be improved to the extent to be able to parent the child.  She went on to say that the mother herself needs help and support and she was very concerned about the mother living on her own and trying to cope with life with minimal support. 

17.      In evidence, Dr Shah expressed deep sympathy for the mother, who clearly loved the child, who she would never intentionally harm.  She asked whether there was any possibility of the mother and child being supported by her family in Madeira, knowing that there was no family support in Jersey, as in other cases it had been possible for autistic mothers to parent with the support of grandparents.  However, in answer to questions from Miss Hall, she was clear that the mother herself, even in an institution or extended family, could not parent the child on her own - that would always be done by someone else.  Dr Shah advised strongly against a further assessment by Serendipity, advising that any parenting work would have no permanent effect.  Any improvement would be superficial.  We could keep assessing the mother but will never get a remedy - there is no package that will enable her to parent.  She cautioned against any further assessments. 

18.      Dr Shah gave very helpful advice on the supervised contact which she had found painful to observe.  The mother's conduct during supervised contact had been very consistent.  Her needs take over.  She is not responsive to the child's initiating interaction and tends to switch off.  The current format for supervised contact concerned her, as she felt the mother was being set up to fail.  Contact, she said, should be activity based so that the mother could just enjoy being with the child with the parenting taken out of it; it would be like two siblings together enjoying each other's company. 

19.      Although it was not a matter for the hearing before the Court, in the longer term, Dr Shah advised that the child will have strong feelings about the mother's difficulties.  He will need to have a sympathetic understanding of those difficulties and be able to feel that everything had been done for her.  For these reasons, she recommended that the child should be able to continue his relationship with the mother post any adoption through more than indirect contact.  It was important that prospective adopters should understand the mother's difficulties and should meet with her.  The child will have a lot of questions for them which they need to be in a position to answer.  This will minimise any psychological difficulties on his part in the long term.  She thought the child might continue to see the mother post adoption three or four times a year. 

20.      In his report of 31^st May, 2012, Dr Williams advised that the child demonstrated insecure attachment behaviour and there was evidence of significant impairment in the child/mother relationship, such that the child could not rely on her to provide consistent and attentive parenting.  It was possible that the child had inherited some of his mother's difficulties - there was a shadow of this. 

21.      From his own observations of contact and from the contact logs, the key words that came out were "zoning out", "absent" and "disengaged".  Good parenting required the parent to be tuned into the child's behaviour and emotional well-being and risks.  That "attunement" was lacking. 

22.      The child had been exposed to an unacceptable level of violence and he was anxious about the mother's ability to protect him from further violence.  The child was now very active, with good motor skills and improving language skills and would need ever more complex parenting skills which he was concerned that the mother lacked.  He agreed "tragically" that adoption was the way forward.  The child needed to be placed into a safe and stable environment.  The mother had difficulty reflecting on past violence and problems and was quite aggressive over his questioning.  He was struck by her isolation.  She did not speak to him warmly about her family. 

23.      At paragraph 10.12 of his report, he said there was evidence that the child responded well to the reparative experience of being in care and in particular learning to form selective attachments with safe and familiar adults.  In order for the child to continue to receive this level of support, should he be returned to the mother's care it is likely that this would require substantial involvement by professionals supporting her within the home.  In evidence, he told us that in reality this was not possible.  He did not advise a further assessment with Serendipity.  This would present another isolated foreign country with the mother working in an artificial environment.  He questioned the benefit and the ability of the mother to bring any skills back here.  He found it hard to support removing the child from his current foster carers where he was well settled to go to such a new environment where they did not have any expertise that had not already been gathered before this Court.  Such a move could not be in the child's interest; in a very practical sense, he just could not see things turning round for the mother.  To send him away would be an experiment and on the clinical evidence he would not take the risk although it was of course a matter for the Court. 

24.      He accepted in cross-examination by Miss Hall that since leaving the father the mother's demeanour had improved.  Yes, there had been positive aspects to her parenting in the past and he accepted that the mother was now working with her lawyers and with The Bridge.  It is possible that she may not have understood what was being said to her at the contact sessions, but what he saw was a severe lack of connectivity between her and the child; it was like watching a child playing with something he or she did not understand.  The child had developed more important relationships with carers as he had learnt to rely on others even when with the mother.  

25.      Anthony Williams, an independent social care consultant, had been asked to undertake a parenting assessment on the mother. In his report of the 6^th June, 2012, he said he had significant doubts as to whether the mother could provide consistent positive parenting of the child for the same reasons given by the other experts.  He did not believe the mother could prioritise the needs of the child now any more than she did hitherto.  There seemed little prospect for change.  Any work thus far undertaken had been unsuccessful and met with some resistance, aggression and denial of issues of concern by the mother.  It was difficult, in his view, to envisage what further assistance could be given which would give any reasonable assurance that the needs of the child would be met if he were united with the mother.  The prognosis was poor and the timescale, if there were change, unlikely to be within the timescale the child would require.  He was against a further assessment by Serendipity. 

26.      In her report of 20th June, 2012, the guardian concurred with the advice of the other experts.  In her view, the mother's parenting limitations rendered her unable to provide adequately for the child, who she strongly recommended should be placed promptly with approved prospective adopters with an understanding of children with attachment difficulties and an ability to give the child access to an understanding of Portuguese culture. 

27.      The evidence of Rosena Connor, the social worker, was taken up in part with the events leading up to the granting of the interim care order and the conduct of the mother in particular thereafter. 

28.      In terms of the family network, the mother did not have a good relationship with the father's family.  She did have a sister in Jersey but refused to give the Children's Service any contact details.  She gave the Children's Service very limited information about the family in Madeira; indeed it was only in these proceedings that more information became available.  Her relationship with her mother in Madeira was apparently not warm. 

29.      She had spoken to the father's sister and to the father's mother to discuss the possibility of the father being the carer but he had not demonstrated any consistent commitment to the child.  The sister had made it clear that she could not offer any help as she had three young children of her own and the grandmother was unable to assist.  The Children's Service had repeatedly asked for information about the mother's family but the mother had always refused to supply it.  No one in her family had come forward to contact the Children's Service. 

30.      She informed us that the mother lived a very isolated life, seldom taking the child out, so that he had little interaction with other children  When first taken into care, he showed no distress at leaving or anxiety on the first night.  However, he had difficulty in regulating his eating, gorging food whenever presented to him; a sign of neglect.  He found it difficult to interact with other children.  He was "babbling" but made little progress in forming words.  He had made good progress in care and was now an active, mischievous child who interacted well with other children. 

31.      Much advice had been given to the mother and support offered but she had refused to engage with the Children's Service or keep them informed as to where she was living. 

32.      Supervision of contact sessions had been consistent and the mother was encouraged to engage with the child.  There were ongoing concerns over the mother's ability to keep the child safe and over the quality of contact.  The majority of interaction would be started by the child and she would herself start playing with say bricks at one end whilst the child would be playing at the other; it was like watching two children playing in parallel, but not interacting. 

33.      After leaving the hospital in March of this year, the mother went to the Women's Refuge where there was a marked difference in her demeanour.  She was calmer and happier now that the relationship with the father had terminated.  There was, however, in her view no difference in the mother's relationship with the child.  She would be very concerned if the child returned to the mother's care as in her view the mother does not have the capacity to adequately parent him or meet his needs.  She would be concerned that the mother would prioritise her own needs or that of a partner above those of the child who would not be safe. 

34.      The mother had given no indication to the Children's Service as to where she might live if the child were returned to her.  She could not live at the Women's Refuge and neither the hostel for young people nor the Shelter would be appropriate for a child.  The mother has a very strong work ethic which she enjoys, working six days a week, but it is seasonal.  The mother had discussed possible nursery care for the child, but not in any depth.  She was concerned that if the mother was left alone with the child, even for a short time, there would be a need for intensive support; the reality would be that someone else would be parenting the child, not the mother. 

35.      In her view, Serendipity was not appropriate.  Moving the child from his current placement for yet further assessments would be an experiment.  There had been more than enough assessments prior to the Court hearing and she did not see the validity of adjourning the case for yet another.  The mother had little capacity for change and given her disorder, any changes would be superficial.  Furthermore, the mother did not believe that she needed to change. 

36.      The mother described her life to us before the child was removed from her, the financial struggles, the father's drinking and violence, his demands for sex, the constant evictions due to the father's behaviour and the rent not being paid and the state of the accommodation in which the child was found, which she said was unacceptable.  She agreed that it was right for the child to be removed from that environment, but denied that she had learning difficulties or lacked the capacity to parent the child.  Given the right conditions, she said she had the ability. 

37.      She complained at the way contact had been supervised by the Children's Service.  They said they would only be present but they interfered the whole time because they wanted her to interact with the child.  They were always taking notes which made her uncomfortable.  The contact process made her sad, as she just wanted her moments with the child.  It was unfair to say that she was not looking after the child safely.  She had understood that during contact the Children's Service were responsible for safety, but in any event, she could not play and interact with the child and ensure his safety at the same time. 

38.      She told us about her disappearance in December 2011.  She had no work, her bills were going up, she had no accommodation and it all had become desperate.  She had many questions and no time to think and wanted to be away from people.  She needed to rest and put her head in place and to reflect. 

39.      She described her family, saying she had a good relationship with her sister in Jersey.  Her sister was working hard with two jobs to support her own daughter in Madeira and could not help with the child's care.  She could stay with the sister for short periods only.  She was in telephone contact with her mother, who was aged 72 and who lives in Madeira with her other brothers and sisters but they do not have the time to look after the child.  

40.      Currently, she is in a seasonal job which ends on 30^th September, 2012, working six days a week from 7:30am to 2:30pm and sometimes longer.  She earns £230 a week and accepted that looking after the child, paying for accommodation and food would be a financial struggle.  She was not clear who would take on the care of the child when she was working.  She had spoken to the father's sister, but she was always very busy.  The father's mother had helped before and she thought she would help again, as the child was her grandson after all.  If she and the child had nowhere to stay in Jersey then she would consider going to Madeira, although she could not afford the fares.  In Madeira at least she would have a home with her mother.  Finally, she confirmed to us that she was prepared to give up her employment in order to attend Serendipity with the child. 

Threshold

41.      It was clear from the evidence that the father consumed alcohol to excess and that the mother had been the victim of regular and serious domestic violence at his hands, some of which the child would have witnessed.  This, the mother agreed, exposed the child to the risk of physical and emotional harm. 

42.      The family had moved continuously following the child's birth as a result of being evicted and failed to keep the Children's Service informed of their movements, despite having been asked to do so.  The mother and father had experienced difficulty in managing their finances, the mother saying that the father did not provide the family with sufficient funds.  The Children's Service was concerned on visiting the home that there was limited food available for the child. 

43.      On 8^th June, 2011, the Children's Service undertook a home visit to find that the family was occupying one room that was in an appalling condition and smelled.  There were dirty nappies on the floor.  The child was sitting on the floor with a beer bottle in his mouth and was grubby.  The child was made the subject of a police protection order and has remained in foster care from that date.  

44.      The mother and the guardian agreed with the Minister that the threshold criteria had been met but there were aspects of the threshold document produced by the Minister which the mother did not accept; essentially that she had learning difficulties and autism.  Whilst doing everything she could to advance the mother's case, Miss Hall was unable to challenge the clear advice of Doctor Briggs and Doctor Shah, which the Court accepted, that the mother did indeed have learning difficulties and autism.  Taking into account the physical and emotional harm admitted by the mother and all of the other evidence before the Court, it had no difficulty in finding that the threshold criteria were met in this case. 

Welfare stage

45.      The Court followed the well-known principles set out in Re F & G (No 2) [2010] JCA 051 at paragraphs 5 - 8.  In terms of the welfare checklist, the child was too young to express his wishes and feelings, but it was axiomatic that what he needed was stable, safe and consistent care by persons capable of meeting his needs. 

46.      The key issue was the mother's capacity to meet his needs.  Much of Miss Hall's cross-examination of the witnesses was taken up with issues which were peripheral to this, namely, whether the mother had herself been given sufficient support (and perhaps been misunderstood) in particular in the light of the diagnosis of autism, albeit that this diagnosis was only recently made, whether a meeting between Rosina Connor and the mother on 6^th June, 2012, to go through the Children's Service's report had been conducted properly and fairly, the mother's improved demeanour since leaving the father and living at the Women's Refuge, her improved engagement with her lawyers and The Bridge, ongoing contact and the adoption process.  

47.      Miss Hall made extensive reference to the "Good Practice Guidance on Working with Parents with a Learning Difficulty" issued by the Department of Health, which as its title suggests contains no doubt helpful guidance on working with a parent such as the mother with learning difficulties and her rights to support and assistance.  One of the aims of the guide is to enable children to live with their parents, receiving the support they and their families require as long, as Miss Davies pointed out, as this is consistent with the child's welfare. 

48.      What Miss Hall was unable to challenge was the evidence from the experts, which the Court accepted, that as a consequence of the mother's learning difficulties and autism, she lacked the capacity to parent the child and if the child were to live with her, the intensity of supervision that would be required would amount to surrogate parenting.  It is one thing to support a parent and quite another to take over the parental role altogether. 

49.      The central submission made by Miss Hall was that the case should be adjourned to enable a further assessment to take place at Serendipity.  Serendipity had been approached by Viberts on 26^th June, 2012, a bare week before the hearing began.  The Court was given a copy of its brochure and sight of an exchange of emails in which Serendipity confirmed that it could provide a free paper-based viability assessment upon consideration of the court papers. 

50.      As against that, the Court had the clear evidence of the experts that there was no point in further assessments, as the mother did not have the capacity to change, certainly within the child's timescale; any improvements would be superficial.  The evidence of Dr Shah was particularly compelling in this respect.  As Miss Davies put it, this case had been assessed to the full.  

51.      In our view, an adjournment now would not be a planned and purposeful adjournment but an experiment with the most uncertain outcome.  If Serendipity were to advise, following sight of the papers, that they could carry out a yet further assessment of the mother's parenting capability, the Court just could not contemplate the practical reality of what would be involved, namely the removal of the child from the foster carers with whom he was well settled and making good progress, to go with his mother with all her difficulties to live in a wholly new and strange environment for an indeterminate period of time in the hope that, contrary to all the advice the Court had received, the mother would be able to demonstrate real and lasting change in her parenting capability.  We agreed with the description of such a move as "an experiment" and we were not there to experiment with the life of this young person.  

52.      In addition, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Children Law, we had to have regard to the principle that any delay in determining the child's future was likely to be prejudicial to him. 

53.      We too were struck by the isolated existence of the mother and like Dr Shah, questioned whether there was any prospect of someone in the family coming forward to help, in effect to carry out the parenting of the child, but enabling the mother to remain with the child who she clearly loved. 

54.      The Children's Service had been severely handicapped by the refusal of the mother to give them contact details.  The father's family had been spoken to and it was clear that the mother's sister in Jersey was fully aware of the situation and we presumed therefore that the family in Madeira was also aware.  The fact of the matter was that no one had come forward for consideration as a carer, a process which in itself would take some time to complete.  At the very end of the hearing, the most that Miss Hall was instructed to say was that if the Court wanted to investigate this further, the mother had no objection to the Children's Service speaking to her family.  This was hardly encouraging and certainly not a basis upon which the Court could order a further adjournment. 

55.      It would be right to record the mother's final position as given to us by Miss Hall in her closing submissions:-

(i)        She wanted the Court to appreciate that the Children's Service did not understand her financial situation.  She did not like the way they worked with her. 

(ii)       She did not like the way contact had been reduced in the past without a proper explanation. 

(iii)      She did not agree with the child's adoption. 

(iv)      There must be a possibility for the child's return to her. 

(v)       She wanted it to be recognised that the financial problems were not her fault. 

(vi)      The Children's Service may be obliged to work as it does, but it was not right. 

(vii)     She only argues with the Children's Service when she disagrees with the way they do things. 

(viii)    The Children's Service promised to make supervised contact better, but they did not. 

(ix)      She gave to the Children's Service lots of chances, but they did not give her any chance. 

56.      We have much empathy for the position of the mother, but none of this touches upon or assisted us with the central decision we had to make.  This was not a case where making no order would be appropriate.  We approved the care plan and the amended contact arrangements which as previously stated envisaged the child being freed for adoption.  Although that application was not before us we were conscious of the enormity of what was proposed for the mother and of her Article 8 Convention rights to respect for her private and family life.  In approving the care plan and the orders we were asked to make we noted that where the rights of both the mother and the child are at stake, the rights of the child must be paramount (see Yousef-v-The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR).  We had no doubt that the interests of the child dictated that a care order should be made in favour of the Minister. 

57.      In relation to contact, the original proposals put forward by the Minister, which involved a reduction in contact over seven weeks leading to a final goodbye contact, were amended during the hearing as a consequence of the advice of Dr Shah.  The care plan, as amended provides for a continuation of contact fortnightly, with post adoption contact (assuming the child is freed for adoption) to be dealt with as part of the adoption process.  The guardian was in agreement with these amended contact proposals. 

58.      The mother applied for a defined contact order under Article 27 of the Children Law, fixing the level of contact at the then current level, namely three times a week.  However, we accepted Miss Davies' submissions that there was no need for a defined order, the level of contact proposed by the Minister being reasonable.  We therefore declined to make a defined contact order.   

Authorities

Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961.

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

"Good Practice Guidance on Working with Parents with a Learning Difficulty" Department of Health.

Yousef-v-The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR.