Between v A (the Father) [2021] JRC 322 (20 November 2021)

Between v A (the Father) [2021] JRC 322 (20 November 2021)

The Court found that the Child had a clear and extensive history of absconding, meeting the ordinary meaning of the term, and that the likelihood of significant harm if not kept in secure accommodation could not sensibly be ignored. The threshold under Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 was met. Secure accommodation was justified as a permissive, interim measure while alternative placements were sought, and the extension for three months was proportionate and subject to regular review.

Citation
[2021] JRC 322
Parties
Applicant: Minister; Third Respondent: EE (the Child); Second Respondent: Mother; First Respondent: Father; Guardian: Guardian
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Secure Accommodation Order (children) / Application for Extension of Secure Accommodation Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Secure Accommodation Orders, Deprivation of Liberty, Child Welfare, Threshold Criteria, Mental Health and Capacity
Family Law Child Protection Secure Accommodation Orders Deprivation of Liberty Child Welfare Threshold Criteria Mental Health and Capacity

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister

Applicant

EE (the Child)

Third Respondent

Mother

Second Respondent

Father

First Respondent

Guardian

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Secure Accommodation Order (children) / Application for Extension of Secure Accommodation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for extending a Secure Accommodation Order under Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is met
  2. 2 Whether continued deprivation of liberty is justified and proportionate in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether alternative placements or regimes are available and appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Child had a clear and extensive history of absconding, meeting the ordinary meaning of the term, and that the likelihood of significant harm if not kept in secure accommodation could not sensibly be ignored. The threshold under Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 was met. Secure accommodation was justified as a permissive, interim measure while alternative placements were sought, and the extension for three months was proportionate and subject to regular review.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Secure Accommodation Order extended for three months from 15 November 2021
  • Order is permissive and subject to regular review