In the matter of Leo (Care order) [2014] JRC 218 (11 November 2014)

The Court found that the threshold for significant harm was met, that neither parent could provide safe care for Leo, and that freeing for adoption was in Leo's best interests. Parental consent to adoption was unreasonably withheld, justifying the freeing order.

Citation: [2014] JRC 218
Parties: Applicant: Minister; Respondent: First Respondent (Mother); Respondent: Second Respondent (Father); Subject Child: Leo
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 11 November 2014
Procedural Posture: Care and Freeing Order Application / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application granted
Legal Topics: Care Orders, Freeing Orders, Adoption, Parental Responsibility, Threshold Criteria, Welfare of the Child

Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Freeing Orders Adoption Parental Responsibility Threshold Criteria Welfare of the Child

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 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

Minister

Applicant

First Respondent (Mother)

Respondent

Second Respondent (Father)

Respondent

Leo

Subject Child

Procedural Posture

Care and Freeing Order Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether threshold criteria for care order are met
2 Whether freeing order for adoption is in the child's best interests
3 Whether parental consent to adoption is being unreasonably withheld

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

Full care order made in favour of the Minister for Leo
Freeing order made under the Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961 to allow Leo to be adopted