Court slams Minister for failing two vulnerable children

Wednesday 01 August 2018

Jersey’s Royal Court has criticised the Health Minister for failing to act in the best interests of two vulnerable young children.

It also says the Children’s Service needs to change its mind-set, and the Minister was consistently late in filing documents, ignoring one of the Court's rulings.

Back in May the Minister asked the Court to issue an order which would have meant two children, aged 9 and 4, would be fostered in the UK on a long-term basis. But, the Court didn’t think it was in the best interests of the children and refused.

Instead it felt help should be given to the mother to overcome her drink and drugs problems, and the children should then go back and live with her, although they did admit this would be challenging. One of the reasons they were so hopeful was because, in their opinion, the mother had already made great strides to get her life on track, and, as is stated in their judgement: “…the removal of the children from their mother’s care, from their schools, from their extended family, from their friends and from the island that they know is potentially completely traumatic.”

Unhappy with the Court’s decision the Minister then submitted another report with the backing of the independent reporting officer working on the case, once again saying the children should not be re-united with their mother, apparently flying in the face of the Court’s decision.

In a final hearing early in June the Court noted: “It was quite apparent that the Minister intended to request the Court to make a final care order and approve a care plan involving long-term off-island fostering and limited contact with the children’s birth families.”

Again, quoting from the court’s judgement: “We have gone into some detail about what has transpired between 2 May and 2 July because it is clear to us that it is not simply a matter of the Minister having been consistently late in filing documents and providing detailed structure to the parents as to what help was to be offered and what they, particularly the mother, would be asked to do; he has simply disregarded the findings that the Court made at the earlier hearing.” 

The Court was also confused when it heard that the Children’s Service might not be able pay for taxis for the youngsters to go to the Childcare provider, but “...was able to fund much more expensive long-term foster care in the United Kingdom with associated regular and frequent travel costs for the social worker and also regular travel for the parents on an annual or bi-annual basis.”

With the Court standing firm, and determined to establish its authority, it seems the Minister reluctantly agreed to go along with its judgement.

But it’s not only the Minister that comes in for criticism.

Towards the end of its judgement the Court says if the plan to re-unite the children and their mother is to be a success, “...the Children’s Service will have to change the mind-set which they have had, not just for the last years, but in particular which they have had since the delivery of the Court’s judgment.  That mind-set simply must change.  Our firm view not only on the evidence we have seen and heard but also on the approach actually taken by the Minister during the proceedings is that it may be difficult to achieve…  In making the comments we have about the change of mind-set, we reflect only that putting commitments into practice is sometimes as difficult for the Minister as it is for the parents, and in this case it applies to both.”