In the matter of HH (Emergency Protection Order) [2021] JRC 243 (30 September 2021)

In the matter of HH (Emergency Protection Order) [2021] JRC 243 (30 September 2021)

The evidence did not establish that the child was in imminent danger of significant harm. The statutory threshold for an Emergency Protection Order was not met, as neither the social worker nor the Guardian asserted that such imminent risk existed, and the evidence was insufficiently compelling or specific to justify emergency removal.

Citation
[2021] JRC 243
Parties
Applicant: Minister; Subject: HH (child); First Respondent: Mother (A); Second Respondent: Father (B); Other Adult Family Member: C
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Emergency Protection Order Application / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application for Emergency Protection Order refused
Legal Topics
Emergency Protection Orders, Threshold for Removal of Child, Risk of Sexual Harm, Proportionality in Child Removal, Children (jersey) Law 2002
Family Law Child Protection Emergency Protection Orders Threshold for Removal of Child Risk of Sexual Harm Proportionality in Child Removal Children (jersey) Law 2002

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister

Applicant

HH (child)

Subject

Mother (A)

First Respondent

Father (B)

Second Respondent

C

Other Adult Family Member

Procedural Posture

Emergency Protection Order Application / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory threshold for an Emergency Protection Order under Article 37(1)(a) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is met
  2. 2 Whether there is reasonable cause to believe the child is likely to suffer significant harm if not removed
  3. 3 Whether the evidence establishes imminent danger justifying emergency removal

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the child was in imminent danger of significant harm. The statutory threshold for an Emergency Protection Order was not met, as neither the social worker nor the Guardian asserted that such imminent risk existed, and the evidence was insufficiently compelling or specific to justify emergency removal.

Court Disposition

Application for Emergency Protection Order refused