In the matter of Ruby (Care order)

I sat alone on 10 th November, 2015, to give further directions in relation to the involvement of the first respondent ("the mother") in this case.

Ruby (this is not her real name) was removed from the mother the day after her birth, pursuant to an emergency protection order made by the Deputy Bailiff on 17 th September, 2015, for the reasons set out in his judgment of 28 th September, 2015, ( In the matter of Ruby (Emergency Protection Order) [2015] JRC 197 ). Ruby was made the subject of an interim care order on 7 th October, 2015, and is currently in foster care. The mother has had no contact with her and the putative father has shown no interest in her.

The mother did not attend the interim care order proceedings, and Advocate Glynn, who had been appointed amicus curiae on 16 th September, 2015, had been unable to make contact with her. In view of the circumstances which are summarised below, Advocate Glynn, I believe wisely, thought it better not to impose herself, a complete stranger, upon the mother, who might not understand her involvement and whose reaction may well be hostile. In view of the mother's lack of engagement, the Court ordered a report from her adult social worker, and I said this in the short judgment (unpublished): -

"5. There is real doubt as to the capacity of the mother to engage in these proceedings and, before giving all of the directions put forward by the Minister, we feel there should be a further hearing before a single judge to consider:-

The report of Zoe Frankum, the adult social worker, dated 23 rd October, 2015, makes worrying reading. There is a long history of the relevant agencies seeking to assist the mother and the situation can be summarised as follows:-