Supervision Order

[2025]JRC019

Royal Court

(Family)

21 January 2025

IN THE MATTER OF WW AND XX (SUPERVISION ORDER)

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

Advocate K. L. Kavanagh for the Minister.

Advocate K. H. Donohue for the First Respondent.

Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Second Respondent.

Advocate C. Hillier for the Third and Fourth Respondents.

Sue Clarke – Guardian Ad Litem.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        On 6 November 2024, we made a final order in this case, namely a Supervision Order for the period of twelve months under Article 24(1)(b) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (“the Law”).  All parties agreed to the making of the order and it was not necessary for the Court to hear evidence, with the exception of the evidence from the social worker in the case.  Of course, all parties were entitled to give evidence but they did not think it necessary to do so.  

2.        The application concerned WW, a boy aged 7 at the day of the hearing, and XX, a girl aged 3. 

3.        Care proceedings began on 4 April 2024.  The mother and father of the children were not in a relationship at the date of the hearing, although the father has parental responsibility for both children. 

4.        On 18 April 2024, the Court held that threshold had been met for the purposes of making an Interim Care Order.  In the judgment, the Court said it was impressed by both the mother and the father and commended them for their honesty and cooperation with the Children’s Service.  Since then, on 22 October 2024, the Royal Court determined an application that the father should be removed from the Sex Offenders Register upon which he was placed following his conviction for a sexual offence in 2012.  The minimum period for which he was made subject to the notification requirements under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 (the “2010 Law”) expired in 2017 and the Court was satisfied at the hearing of that application, having regard to the reports before it and the father's management as a low risk offender, that the risk of re-offending in his case was low.  Accordingly, he was released from the notification requirements under the 2010 Law.

5.        The Court was provided with the statement of the Guardian, the evidence of the social worker, reports from Dr Tanya Engelbrecht, a psychiatrist, Dr Briggs a psychologist, an independent social worker, and from Dr Murray, a child psychologist. 

6.        Threshold was agreed and it was accepted that both children had suffered and were likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the parenting provided to them, owing to physical and emotional abuse of both children by their mother which we do not need to particularise in detail.  The mother’s poor mental health puts the children at risk of further harm which the mother accepts.  Her mental health continues to fluctuate, which is likely to expose the children to significant emotional and / or physical harm.

7.        The children lived with their mother and regularly saw their father until 9 February 2024 when they were placed with their maternal grandmother and maternal step-grandfather.  On 31 May 2024 the children were placed in the full-time care of their father.  This continues to be the case, and they enjoy supervised contact with their mother each week.

8.        The father and mother, as we have said, support the making of a Supervision Order with the children remaining in the care of the father, and the father concurrently applied for a Residence Order which we also granted.

9.        WW has been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder.

10.     The father is delighted that trust has been placed in him to allow the children to live with him and is committed to caring for them for the rest of their minority.

11.     Both children are responding well in their respective educational placements, and WW is responding positively to a stable and consistent living environment.  XX was doing well at nursery until her placement came to an end and is now attending a parent and toddler group with her father.

12.     The social worker told us that XX’s speech and development had improved and that she was happy with her new bedroom.  WW had taken a while to settle into his new educational setting but is doing better.  He is enjoying outdoor activities, learning in smaller groups and the school was pleased with how he was doing.  He may in due course go back to a mainstream school and the primary school he formally attended would be pleased to have him back.  He has friends at that school.

13.     We have scrutinised with care the contact arrangements as between the children and their mother and found that they were suitable and appropriate for the children’s needs.  The social worker told us that contact between the children and their mother was going well and that the children loved their mother and enjoyed seeing her.  Difficulties occur if the mother is not feeling well, or the children are tired but that was not the norm.

14.     The social worker said that the Children’s Service wanted the children to move to unsupervised contact with their mother and ultimately stay in contact when it was safe for the children. 

15.     She said the Supervision Order was necessary in order to ensure that the needs of the children were met and to guide and support the father so as to allow the family to stay together.

16.     The father will not return to work until both children are in full time education and he will then endeavour to fit his work commitments around school hours. 

17.     The Guardian confirmed that both children are physically well and, although both have been exposed to inconsistent care in the course of their lives - partly owing to the poor relationship between their parents - and they will continue to be exposed to some extent to the mother’s mental health difficulties on occasions, all experts agreed that the father is best able to provide the sort of parenting that WW needs and the father will undoubtedly require support in this regard.  We invited the Minister to accept various amendments to the Care Plan in this regard - which he did.

18.     It was agreed that one of the benefits of the making of a Residence Order in favour of the father with a Supervision Order to the Minister is that it will formalise the children’s placement with their father and provide for ongoing support from the Children’s Service.

19.     We were in no doubt that it was better to make these orders than to make no order.  The father will now be able to make decisions about the children without having to consult the Children’s Service, but the Supervision Order places a duty on the Minister to advise, assist and befriend in various ways.  This will assist in relation to contact between the children and their mother and also assist the father with parenting the children, WW in particular.

20.     We remind ourselves that threshold was a pre-condition to the Court making either a care order or supervision order, but it was not necessary for the Court to make either order unless it was in the best interests of the children having regard to the statutory welfare checklist.

21.     The Court considered the statutory provisions in this regard and we were in no doubt that it was appropriate for a Supervision Order to be made.  The family support worker will be available to assist the father.  The same worker will also support the children with seeing their mother.  The social worker who gave evidence said that she visited the father on a frequent basis and that the mother’s family continued to be a real support for the children.  WW’s paternal uncle also spent a lot of time with WW which he enjoyed. 

22.     Parenting programmes have been recommended to the father but owing to commitments, mainly with the children, he had not been able to take all those courses.  In particular, there was a seven to twelve week course called the New Forest Parenting Course which would assist the father in coping with WW’s challenging behaviour.

23.     The members of the Court expressed the hope that the progress that the children have made will continue and that the father will continue working as hard as he has to support them in their formative years.

24.     For these reasons we made the Supervision and Residence Orders referred to above and approved the supervision plan.

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002. 

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.