In the matter of LL and MM (Prohibited Steps Order and Residence Order) [2020] JRC 137 (09 July 2020)

In the matter of LL and MM (Prohibited Steps Order and Residence Order) [2020] JRC 137 (09 July 2020)

The Court found no immediate safeguarding concerns or evidence of emotional abuse in the mother's care. The cauterisation incident, while concerning, was historical, culturally contextual, and not repeated. The children were bonded to the mother, identified Country 1 as home, and were not at risk of harm. The mother's care was 'good enough,' and the father's concerns, while genuine, did not outweigh the children's welfare interests in returning to their established environment. The Court granted joint parental responsibility to the father but ordered the children to reside with the mother in Country 1.

Citation
[2020] JRC 137
Parties
Applicant: Father; First Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Residence order in favour of the mother; joint parental responsibility granted to the father.
Legal Topics
Residence Order, Prohibited Steps Order, Parental Responsibility, Child Protection, Alternative Medicine, Home Schooling
Family Law Child Welfare Residence Order Prohibited Steps Order Parental Responsibility Child Protection Alternative Medicine Home Schooling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the children reside with their mother in Country 1 or their father in Jersey?
  2. 2 Is the mother's cauterisation treatment abusive or neglectful?
  3. 3 Are the children at risk of harm in either parent's care?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no immediate safeguarding concerns or evidence of emotional abuse in the mother's care. The cauterisation incident, while concerning, was historical, culturally contextual, and not repeated. The children were bonded to the mother, identified Country 1 as home, and were not at risk of harm. The mother's care was 'good enough,' and the father's concerns, while genuine, did not outweigh the children's welfare interests in returning to their established environment. The Court granted joint parental responsibility to the father but ordered the children to reside with the mother in Country 1.

Court Disposition

Residence order in favour of the mother; joint parental responsibility granted to the father.

Orders

  • Children to return to Country 1 with the mother.
  • Father granted joint parental responsibility.