BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Jersey Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> In the matter of Jessica Emily Sophie and Poppy (Care order) [2014] JRC 196 (13 October 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2014/2014_196.html
Cite as: [2014] JRC 196

[New search] [Context] [Printable version] [Help]


Care Order - application by the Minister for final care orders in relation to Emily, Sophie and Poppy.

[2014]JRC196

Royal Court

(Family)

13 October 2014

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Clapham and Olsen.

Between

The Minister for Health and Social Services

Applicant

 

And

A (the mother)

First Respondent

 

And

B (the father)

Second Respondent

 

And

Jessica

Third Respondent

 

And

Emily

Fourth Respondent

 

And

Sophie

Fifth Respondent

 

And

Poppy

Sixth Respondent

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF JESSICA EMILY SOPHIE AND POPPY (CARE ORDER)

Advocate S. L. Brace for the Applicant.

Advocate C. G. Hillier for the First Respondent.

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Third Respondent.

Advocate B. J. Corbett for the Fourth Respondent.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Fifth and Sixth Respondents.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        This is an adjourned final hearing and an adjourned part-heard final hearing in respect of four children to whom, for the purposes of this judgement, we are going to give the assumed names of Jessica (who is aged 15), Emily (who is aged 13), Sophie (who is aged 11) and Poppy (who is aged 6).  The application in respect of Jessica was adjourned without any orders being made as a result of the sudden illness of her lawyer, Advocate Tremoceiro.  Emily, Sophie and Poppy were made the subject of interim care orders.  The Court determined at the adjourned hearing that Emily's care plan was inchoate.  Sophie and Poppy's care plans were approved by the Court, save in relation to contact matters, which the Minister was asked to reconsider in respect of all three children. 

2.        This judgment must be considered as a continuation of the judgment of the Court dated 22nd July, 2014, In the matter of X W V and U (Care order) JRC 146 which sets out the Court's reasons for the adjournments. 

Jessica

3.        The adjournment of the application in respect of Jessica has proved beneficial.  In the care plan of 14th May, 2014, previously under consideration, it was proposed that Jessica remain at F under the protection of a care order, whilst the viability of a suitable long-term foster placement was twin tracked.  It was then deemed that the first respondent ("the mother") could not adequately care for her or safeguard her from future harm. 

4.        The new care plan of 9th July, 2014, recommended that Jessica remain in the care of the Minister at F under the protection of a final care order whilst the viability of reunification home to her mother's care was explored.  The Minister, Jessica and the mother have all expressed a commitment to working towards Jessica's return to the mother's care.  Should that not succeed consideration will be given to Jessica's long-term placement at either F or one of the other residential options available. 

5.        The change in the plan reflects the weight that the Minister feels should be given to Jessica's wishes now that she is fifteen.  The proposal is not without its risks, given the care given by the mother to Jessica in the past and Jessica's recent risk-taking behaviours.  A very detailed agreement has therefore been drawn up by the Children's Service setting out the support that will be given to the mother and Jessica and the expectations of both of them over the course of the six month reunification period.  Both mother and Jessica have signed up to that agreement. 

6.        Threshold had not previously been considered by the Court in relation to Jessica, although it was found to be met in relation to her siblings - see paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment of 22nd July, 2014.  An agreed threshold document had been drawn up in respect of Jessica and signed for and on behalf of the Minister, the mother, Jessica and the guardian on 14th July, 2014.  It is in exactly the same terms as that already endorsed by the Court in respect of Jessica's siblings and for the same reasons the Court was satisfied that the threshold criteria for the purposes of Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Children Law") had been established in relation to Jessica. 

7.        The parties were in agreement with the care plan save in respect of the proposals for contact between Jessica and Emily and Poppy.  As to the order that should be made, it was agreed by the parties at the instigation of Jessica that the Court proceed by way of an interim care order rather than a final care order on the basis that the application could be adjourned to the 2nd and 3rd February, 2015, when, if reunification had been successfully achieved, no order may then suffice.  This, Advocate Brace submitted, would be a period of purposeful and planned delay which the Minister was prepared to agree to. 

8.        The Court was very encouraged at the level of agreement reached between the parties and for our part we were content to approve the care plan for reunification-we will come to contact shortly.  As to the order that should be made, the Court was conscious of the delineation of the boundary of responsibility between the Court and the Minister, as explained by Lord Nicholls in Re S; Re W [2002] UKHL 10 in the context of the equivalent English legislation.  Quoting from paragraphs 25 and 28 of his judgment:-

"[25]   The Children Act 1989 delineated the boundary of responsibility with complete clarity.  Where a care order is made the responsibility for the child's care is with the authority rather than the court.  The court retains no supervisory role, monitoring the authority's discharge of its responsibilities. That was the intention of Parliament.

[28]     The Children Act 1989, embodying what I have described as a cardinal principle, represents the assessment made by Parliament of the division of responsibility which would best promote the interests of children within the overall care system.  The court operates as the gateway into care, and makes the necessary care order when the threshold conditions are satisfied and the court considers a care order would be in the best interests of the child.  That is the responsibility of the court.  Thereafter the court has no continuing role in relation to the care order. Then it is the responsibility of the local authority to decide how the child should be cared for."

9.        In this case, the threshold had been met, we had a choate care plan which the Court had approved and it was clear, applying the welfare check list and the no order principle that a care order was in Jessica's interests.  Was it therefore an appropriate use of an interim care order as the parties had agreed rather than a final care order?  Lord Nicholls went on at paragraph 90 to say this in relation to the use of interim care orders:-

"[90]   From a reading of s 38 as a whole it is abundantly clear that the purpose of an interim care order, so far as presently material, is to enable the court to safeguard the welfare of a child until such time as the court is in a position to decide whether or not it is in the best interests of the child to make a care order.  When that time arrives depends on the circumstances of the case and is a matter for the judgment of the trial judge.  That is the general, guiding principle.  The corollary to this principle is that an interim care order is not intended to be used as a means by which the court may continue to exercise a supervisory role over the local authority in cases where it is in the best interests of a child that a care order should be made."

and at paragraphs 94 and 95:-

[94]     More difficult, as a matter of legal principle, are cases where it is obvious that a care order is in the best interests of the child but the immediate way ahead thereafter is unsatisfactorily obscure.  These cases exemplify a problem, or a 'tension' inherent in the scheme of the Children Act 1989.  What should the judge do when a care order is clearly in the best interests of the child but the judge does not approve of the care plan?  This judicial dilemma was described by Balcombe LJ in Re S and D (Children: Powers of Court) [1995] 2 FLR 456, 464, perhaps rather too bleakly, as the judge having to choose between 'the lesser of two evils'.

[95]     In this context there are sometimes uncertainties whose nature is such that they are suitable for immediate resolution, in whole or in part, by the court in the course of disposing of the care order application.  The uncertainty may be of such a character that it can, and should, be resolved so far as possible before the court proceeds to make the care order.  Then, a limited period of 'planned and purposeful' delay can readily be justified as the sensible and practical way to deal with an existing problem."

10.      It is difficult to characterise the plan for reunification of Jessica with the mother as an uncertainty whose nature was such as to be suitable for immediate resolution by a limited period of "planned and purposeful delay".  On the other hand, this was not the case of the Court seeking to continue to exercise a supervisory role over the Minister or to retain the involvement of the guardian.  The proposal had come from the parties and we felt we should be flexible in our response.  The alternative would have been to make a final care order against the wishes of all the parties, requiring them to bring an application at some stage in the future for that order to be lifted, assuming reunification was successful. 

11.      It was to the credit of the parties that they had reached agreement on the care plan and the use of an interim care order clearly played an important part in enabling Jessica to buy into the plan.  For these reasons, we took what might be regarded as the somewhat unusual step of making an interim care order, and adjourning the Minister's application for a final care order until 2nd and 3rd February, 2015, so that there was no question of drift, and when it may hopefully be that, if reunification has been successful, no order will be required at all. 

12.      Accordingly, at the end of the hearing on 30th July, 2014, in the presence of Jessica (who had attended that part of the hearing which was relevant to her) and for the reasons set out above the Court made an interim care order as requested by the parties and adjourned the Minister's application for a final care order to 2nd and 3rd February, 2015. 

13.      In terms of contact, the care plan proposed that Jessica should have contact with Sophie and Poppy six times a year with a further family contact with all of the children and the mother once a year.  On account of the fragile relationship between Jessica and Emily, there were no proposals for contact between them.  Jessica was seeking contact with Sophie and Poppy once per month, together with special occasion contacts on the Friday before Mothers' Day each year, the mother's birthday and Christmas, together with the birthdays of Sophie and Poppy.  There was no application on her part for a contact order. 

14.      We deal with the issue of the frequency of sibling contact below and for the same reasons feel that this must be left to the social worker and Mr and Mrs D, who are inevitably involved in the process, to manage taking in to account the wishes of the children and the impact on contact upon them.  In the meantime and consistent with the advice we had received, it should take place at the frequency set out in the care plan. 

Emily, Sophie and Poppy

15.      At the end of the hearing on 30th July, 2014, the Court reserved its decision in relation to the applications in respect of Emily, Sophie and Poppy.  It was not logistically possible for the Court to announce its decision and so on 31st July, 2014, it informed the parties through the Bailiff's Judicial Secretary of the decision that it would be making for the reasons that are set out in this judgment, namely that it would be granting final care orders in respect of Emily, Sophie and Poppy on the basis of the care plans and contact arrangements put forward by the Minister. 

16.      Dr Willemsen had prepared an addendum report dated 17th July, 2014, and the Court heard evidence from him, from Ms Tanja Tinari, the senior social worker, from Miss Jade Allchin, the social worker, from Emmy Lindsey, the team manager of Fostering and Adoption (Jersey), from the mother and from the guardian, Ms Elsa Fernandes.  Two issues were left over from the adjourned hearing, namely the care plan for Emily, which the Court had found to be inchoate, and the contact proposals for all three children, the care plans for Sophie and Poppy having been approved. 

Care Plan for Emily

17.      The Court had found the care plan for Emily inchoate with regard to where she would be placed in the light of the consistent advice we had received that she could not return to the care of her mother.  Quoting from paragraph 74 of the judgment of 22nd July, 2014:-

"Whilst we had the advice of Dr Willemsen, Miss Allchin and the guardian that Emily should not be returned home, it was not clear (in contrast to Sophie and Poppy) what would replace that home.  In her 18 months in care, Emily had been through failed placements and was now living in the flat on her own.  A further failed placement would clearly be harmful and the advice of Dr Willemsen was that of the two, returning home was the least harmful option.  Set against the background of two failed placements and the potential harm of any further failure, the decision as to that further placement (which required Emily's buy in) was critical and could be resolved with a limited period of planned and purposeful delay.  In our view the plan was inchoate in this respect, and we therefore adjourned the Minister's application for a care order.  However, in the light of the advice we had received, it was necessary to secure the current placement away from the mother by an interim care order giving the Minister parental responsibility."

18.      Following the last hearing, a professionals' meeting took place on 23rd June, 2014, at which it was agreed, having considered the various options, that the optimal placement for Emily would be a foster placement, with therapeutic support.  Pending that being found, it was agreed that her interests were best served by remaining as the sole occupant of E (manned by residential care staff) with a therapeutic plan being implemented that would follow her into her foster placement. 

19.      To her credit the mother supports that plan and agrees that a final care order would provide Emily with the settled placement and sense of permanence that she requires. Inherent in that agreement is the reality that certainly in the short term Emily cannot return to the care of her mother.  She supported the Minister's view that therapy must be provided to Emily but was understandably in the hands of the experts as to what that would comprise.  She remained hopeful, however, that in the long term Emily might be able to be reintegrated into the family unit. 

20.      In his report of 17th July, 2014, Dr Willemsen advised that part of the new care plan dated 10th July, 2014, dealing with Emily's therapeutic needs did not carry a complete formulation of her psychological problems.  He felt it described her problems mainly in terms of attachment and attachment organisation but not, adequately, in relation to the mother.  He stressed the need for a therapeutic intervention to address the depths of Emily's psychological problems; a young person who had developed significant low self-esteem and levels of self-hatred and who suffered from suicidal ideation and enacted suicide. 

21.      At a further meeting of the professionals it was therefore proposed to appoint Ms Jane Cotillard to provide weekly psychotherapy sessions with Emily.  Miss Cotillard is employed by CAMHS and is a trainee integrated child psychotherapist in the final year of her studies with the Tavistock Clinic in London.  As a trainee, she is able to work with young people on a weekly basis for up to two years.  She is required to audio-record her sessions and has clinical supervision from the Tavistock Clinic.  She had not as yet met Emily. 

22.      The final care plan with its now revised therapeutic intervention, although not without risk, was, Dr Willemsen said, the best plan in the circumstances.  That view was shared by Ms Tinari, Miss Allchin and the guardian and, as we have said, it was supported by the mother. 

23.      Miss Allchin informed us that Emily had reacted badly to the decision of the Court announced in her presence at the adjourned hearing on 17th June, 2014, but at a later meeting on 2nd July, 2014, she seemed insightful and accepting of the fact that she would not be returning to live with the mother as she wished.  However, when she learnt of the change in the plan for Jessica, who would now be given the opportunity of returning to the mother, she disengaged from the process altogether, declining to see the social worker, the guardian or her lawyer, Advocate Corbett. 

24.      Advocate Corbett accepted that the care plan for Jessica was now choate, although there remained uncertainties in particular over whether a suitable foster placement could be found and as to whether Emily would engage with Jane Cotillard, whom she had not yet met.  Her questions and submissions focused more on the way the plan was to be implemented, in particular in relation to contact with the mother and its proposed reduction. 

25.      Emmy Lindsey told us that the Fostering and Adopting team were very committed to finding a foster placement for Emily, whilst acknowledging the difficulties.  She did not yet have a clear picture as to who may be out there and able to fulfil that role.  A recent campaign had yielded a good result, with some seven potential foster carers now going through the necessary training process, but it was too early to say whether any of them would be appropriate for Emily.  They would need robust foster carers, who could work with the Children's Service.  The team may consider a specific campaign for Emily, if she was comfortable with that, something which had been done successfully in the past.  Helpfully, additional funding was now available to pay foster carers for their time, skill and experience, and it could now be seen as a career with training and progression.  Miss Allchin was confident that Emily would be placed within a year.  

26.      The Court is deeply troubled by Emily's predicament and the remaining uncertainty about her placement and treatment.  Her isolation had increased since the last hearing as a consequence of her reaction to the change in Jessica's plan.  Her resulting disengagement from the process will be a real challenge for the Children's Service and the new therapeutic team that would start work shortly.  The reality, however, was that she cannot return to her mother as she wished, and there is no real alternative to the care plan now being put forward by the Minister, with the support of the jointly instructed clinical psychologist, Dr Willemsen, the social workers, the guardian and the mother.  We therefore approve the final care plan for Emily which is now choate.  We deal with the issue of contact below. 

Contact

27.      In its judgment of 22nd July, 2014, the Court had expressed concern as to what it perceived as the proposed drastic reduction in contact between the mother and Emily, Sophie and Poppy, and asked that the Minister reconsider the issue.  The Court said this at paragraph 64:-

"We were very cognizant of the advice given to us in relation to contact by Dr Willemsen, Miss Allchin and the guardian and understood that we may ultimately have no option but to accept it, but our reservations over what was being recommended in relation to contact were such as to require us to ask the Minister to reconsider the issue.  We took into account that any delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the children, but this would be a short and purposeful adjournment."

Emily

28.      The issue of contact is most acute for Emily because of her isolation.  Sophie and Poppy are well settled with Mr and Mrs D and Jessica will now be returning to the mother's care, if all goes well.  Not only will Emily not be going home, but her contact with the mother is to be reduced further increasing her isolation. 

29.      The final care plan now proposes a more gradual reduction in both telephone and direct contact between Emily and the mother over a six month period, culminating in the same proposal as was before the Court at the adjourned hearing namely that direct contact takes place once every two months, a frequency which Dr Willemsen still regards as high.  The purpose of the reduction is explained in paragraph 103 of the care plan:-

"103    This phased reduction will also serve a purpose to help Emily make distance, find a separation and enable the therapeutic plan to commence in the interim and ultimately develop further the relationships with carers, and in the long term to form strong attachments within her permanent placement,."

30.      Ms Tinari and Miss Allchin explained that these contact arrangements are flexible, and will be reviewed monthly in the care planning meetings of all professionals involved, in particular the therapeutic team, the mother and Emily (if she so wishes). 

31.      Dr Willemsen confirmed in his addendum report and in evidence that contact between the mother and Emily needed to be reduced "in order to give Emily space to develop her own individuality".  He felt he may not have been able to let the Court know just how concerned he was with the continuing emotional needs of the mother.  The evidence and contact logs indicated his view that the mother "is not able to set adequate boundaries to guarantee that high levels of direct contact would not interfere with the substantial and important therapeutic work Emily needs to undertake".

32.      He acknowledged that living in a small community there was a high chance of Emily and her mother meeting accidentally.  He did consider whether that factor should cause him to alter his view on contact.  He concluded, however, that what was important for Emily was the establishment of boundaries.  The mother need not turn away if they met accidentally, but the established boundaries of direct contact six times a year should be maintained. 

33.      Advocate Corbett drew Dr Willemsen's attention to the minutes of the professionals where Nicky Kelly, the school counsellor who had established a good working relationship with Emily, had queried why contact could not remain at the present level until a placement was found.  She had not been called to give evidence.  Whilst accepting that this query had been raised in discussion, it did not alter his opinion which he maintained and which he had given consistently.  It was important, he said, for the professionals to work together.  The focus now was on the therapeutic work and making Emily ready to live with a foster family.  That required separation from the mother. 

34.      The mother had already reduced the amount of telephone contact she had with Emily (she had been calling the mother daily) and agreed with the proposal in the care plan that there should be two scheduled telephone calls per week.  Dr Willemsen had suggested that she should not answer or return calls outside that schedule.  The mother did not feel able to do this in case it was an emergency.  The guardian, and indeed the Court, had some sympathy with that.  It would be very difficult for her not to answer or return a call without knowing why the call had been made.  The mother said she would discourage the making of non-urgent calls outside the scheduled times. 

35.      The mother pressed for direct contact with Emily to be reduced to once a month, not once every two months.  Advocate Hillier pointed out that six contacts of two hours each amounted to a mere twelve hours in a year, but Dr Willemsen said it was the frequency of contact that was important, not the number of hours. 

36.      At paragraph 75 of the Court's judgment of 22nd July, 2014, it had wondered whether Dr Willemsen had been able to spend sufficient time with Emily to base his recommendation on contact, but he explained that his work was with the family as a whole and how each member functions and interacts within it.  He felt that he had spent sufficient time with them individually and as a whole which, together with the reports and contact logs, had enabled him to form an opinion.  He considered that a second opinion from a child psychologist on the impact of the proposals on Emily alone (as mooted by the Court at paragraph 65 of its judgment) would not be helpful as contact was not a one way process and it was necessary to look at the family as a whole. 

37.      For Advocate Corbett, the planned reduction between Emily and the mother in contact was "all stick and no carrot".  She said the issue should be tackled in a positive rather than a negative way.  It should be for the therapeutic team to regulate contact between Emily and the mother as part of the therapy but in a positive way.  She suggested in her closing submissions that the Court should, of its own volition, make an order under Article 27(5) of the Children Law for contact to be placed under the jurisdiction of the therapeutic team in consultation with Emily, to be set at a level that was consistent with her therapeutic needs.  Emily's feelings, Advocate Corbett said, had to be taken into account.  She was now 13½, which was very significant.  This was, she said, a decision for the Court, and not a psychologist.  By making such an order, the Court could make a difference. 

38.      We had a number of difficulties with this suggestion:-

(i)        Article 27(1) of the Children Law places the responsibility for allowing contact between Emily and the mother upon the Minister.  It was doubtful whether that responsibility could be delegated to the therapeutic team. 

(ii)       We had no indication that the therapeutic team, who had yet to meet and commence work, would be prepared to take on that responsibility.  It could, of course, as already envisaged, offer advice to the Minister upon the issue of contact and there was no doubt that they would do so. 

(iii)      The suggestion had not been put to Dr Willemsen or any of the other professionals so we did not have the benefit of their views on it.  It certainly ran counter to their advice that boundaries must be set by the Minister from the outset. 

In essence, an insufficient evidential foundation had been laid to justify the Court departing from the advice it had received and making such an order of its own volition. 

39.      Given the depth of Emily's psychological problems and as much as we were troubled by her isolation and predicament, we did not feel able to depart from the consistent expert advice we had been given in respect of the reduction of contact between her and the mother.  We did however have sympathy with Advocate Corbett's argument, expressed strongly in closing, that that reduction should be minimal until it was clear that Emily was engaging with Jane Cotillard and the therapeutic team.  She stressed that at the moment the mother and the school counsellor, Nicky Kelly, are Emily's only real confidantes in her very isolated position.  The Court was encouraged by Miss Allchin's reassurance, on being questioned on this, that contact would always be under review. 

40.      Dr Willemsen also advised that direct contact between the mother and Emily should continue to be supervised and that was endorsed by the mother, certainly for the moment.  She candidly admitted that they both needed therapeutic work first but the understandable goal for her was for contact to be unsupervised. 

41.      Emily had been asking for more direct contact with each of Sophie and Poppy than that proposed in the care plan, namely once every two months.  This raises a difficult issue in that this desire on her part is not reciprocated by Sophie and Poppy.  Sophie and Poppy have not expressed a wish to see their sisters individually; although they did wish joint sibling contact to be more frequent than it currently is.  There was no application for a contact order from any of the three children. 

42.      Contact by Emily (and Jessica) with Sophie and Poppy also involves Mr and Mrs D and we felt this was a matter better left to the social worker and them to agree and review from time to time, taking into account the children's wishes and the impact of the contact upon them, but that in the meantime it should be set at the level set out in the care plans which was consistent with the expert advice we had received.  Mr and Mrs D had helpfully agreed that sibling contact could take place in the more natural environment of their home. 

Sophie and Poppy

43.      Dr Willemsen maintained his advice that contact between the mother and Sophie and Poppy should be reduced as summarised in paragraph 31 of the Court's judgment of 22nd July, 2014, namely to once every two months.  At this hearing, we also had a statement and the evidence of Emmy Lindsey.  Her statement was concerned with the frequency of contact within the concept of permanence.  Contact plans had to be determined by what was in the best interests of the child concerned and she set out the factors that might make contact more or less likely to achieve positive outcomes for the child.  A balance had to be struck she said "between the long-term carers' wish to 'claim' the children and the children's needs to be able to settle and belong to a new family as well as keeping meaningful relationships with birth families open.  The frequency of contact has got to fit in with this balance.'

44.      At paragraph 3.6 of her statement she said this:-

"3.6     It is my experience that contact between children and their birth parents that is greater than four or six times a year will be unmanageable in a permanent placement, whether this is adoption or long term foster care.  This is also confirmed by Macaskill who notes in relation to adoption that it is unlikely that a high level of contact that extends to four times annually will be manageable or practically viable.  In terms of foster carers she notes that expectations that permanent foster carers could sustain levels of contact set as high as fortnightly or monthly were often totally unrealistic.  Smith and Logan (cited in the Good Practice Guide BAAF 2012) confirm this view noting that direct contact of more than four or six times is likely to be problematic."

And she concluded at paragraph 4.4:-

"4.4     It is my professional opinion that direct contact should be significantly reduced to reflect that the purpose of contact is not rehabilitation to birth family but should be to provide the following:

a.        To keep alive for the sake of the children, a sense of their roots and a connection to their history.

b.        To maintain a relationship that does not undermine their permanent homes.

c.        To serve as confirmation that the birth parent thought about them over the years and is well.

d.        To prevent the child from being torn between dividing loyalties and to enable the children to claim a new family more readily."

45.      In evidence, she told us that Mr and Mrs D, (who were very experienced foster carers having fostered some thirty children) would offer whatever was required in terms of contact, subject to their intervening where it was not working.  For example, they had intervened to reduce telephone contact between the mother and Sophie.  She pointed out that Mr and Mrs D had to cater not only for contact with the mother but also with Emily and Jessica.  

46.      In her opinion, contact between the mother and Sophie and Poppy as frequently as once a month as proposed by the mother, was too high.  It would, in her view, compromise their placement.  

47.      It was of note to us that, consistent with the concerns expressed by Dr Willemsen, the mother did appear to tackle this issue from the point of view of her needs.  Although she accepts Mr and Mrs D as the long-term carers of Sophie and Poppy and appreciates what they are doing and have done, she does not want to lose complete contact with them and their lives.  She loves them and wants them to be always aware of that.  She does not see why monthly contact would jeopardise their feelings of permanence with their foster family of eighteen months standing.  If contact was to be reduced, she felt it should be done more gradually (a view with which we sympathised) but she conceded that the effect of the reduction on Sophie and Poppy might be minimal. 

48.      In the view of the guardian, the professionals and the Court should be guided by the expert in this field, Dr Willemsen, who had been very clear in his evidence as to why there was a need for a reduction in contact. 

49.      The care plan for Sophie and Poppy, which we had approved other than in relation to contact, was for them to be placed permanently with Mr and D.  There was no plan for reunification with the mother.  Notwithstanding the great progress made by the mother, we acknowledge that contact must, in their interests, support that placement and we feel constrained to accept the advice given by the jointly appointed expert and by all the professionals that contact of a frequency of more than six times a year might tend to undermine that placement.  

Conclusion

50.      The issues that caused the Court to adjourn the applications in respect of Emily, Sophie and Poppy have now been addressed.  The plan for Emily is choate.  The advice in relation to contact remains essentially the same and we feel we have no alternative but to accept it, although we express the view that reduction in contact between the mother and Sophie and Poppy should be reduced more gradually than is currently proposed and we ask that the Minister takes this view into account.  We are comforted by the fact that contact remains flexible and subject to regular review.  Accordingly, having applied the welfare checklist and considered the no order principle, we approve the final care plans and contact arrangements and grant the Minister's application for final care orders in respect of Emily, Sophie and Poppy. 

Authorities

In the matter of X W V and U (Care order) [2014] JRC 146.

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Re S; Re W [2002] UKHL 10.


Page Last Updated: 18 Jan 2017


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2014/2014_196.html