In the matter of Bailey, Ellis, Violet and Elliott (Care Proceedings) [2018] JRC 239 (17 December 2018)

In the matter of Bailey, Ellis, Violet and Elliott (Care Proceedings) [2018] JRC 239 (17 December 2018)

The Court was not satisfied that the threshold for an Interim Care Order was met, as there was insufficient evidence of significant harm or likelihood of significant harm to any of the children attributable to parental care. The use of cardboard over Elliott's cot, while inappropriate, did not amount to significant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] JRC 239
Parties
Applicant: Minister; Respondent: Mother; Respondent: Father; Child: Bailey; Child: Ellis; Child: Violet; Child: Elliott
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Care Order Application / Hearing and Determination of Interim Application
Outcome
Application for Interim Care Orders refused
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Significant Harm Threshold, Removal of Children, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Significant Harm Threshold Removal of Children Parental Responsibility

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister

Applicant

Mother

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Bailey

Child

Ellis

Child

Violet

Child

Elliott

Child

Procedural Posture

Interim Care Order Application / Hearing and Determination of Interim Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for an Interim Care Order under Article 41 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is met
  2. 2 Whether the children are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm attributable to parental care
  3. 3 Whether removal from parental care is proportionate and necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the threshold for an Interim Care Order was met, as there was insufficient evidence of significant harm or likelihood of significant harm to any of the children attributable to parental care. The use of cardboard over Elliott's cot, while inappropriate, did not amount to significant harm for all four children. The evidence of emotional harm was weak and not significant. Even if the threshold were met, removal was not proportionate or necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for Interim Care Orders refused

Orders

  • No Interim Care Orders made
  • Assessments of the family to be carried out as sought by the Minister