In the matter of S [2010] JRC 120 (02 July 2010)

In the matter of S [2010] JRC 120 (02 July 2010)

The Court found both limbs of the threshold criteria for a care order satisfied due to significant harm suffered by the child attributable to parental neglect. The Court rejected the father's application for adjournment, determining there was no prospect of a positive assessment for him or his aunt as carers, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] JRC 120
Parties
Applicant: Minister; Respondent: Mother (B); Respondent: Father (C); Intervenor: Guardian
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Care and Adoption Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Final care order and order freeing the child for adoption granted; father's application for adjournment rejected; father's consent to adoption dispensed with.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Adoption Orders, Dispensing With Parental Consent, Kinship Care Assessment, Threshold Criteria
Family Law Child Protection Adoption Care Orders Adoption Orders Dispensing With Parental Consent Kinship Care Assessment Threshold Criteria

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister

Applicant

Mother (B)

Respondent

Father (C)

Respondent

Guardian

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care and Adoption Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a final care order and free the child for adoption
  2. 2 Whether to adjourn proceedings for assessment of father and aunt as carers
  3. 3 Whether to dispense with father's consent to adoption

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found both limbs of the threshold criteria for a care order satisfied due to significant harm suffered by the child attributable to parental neglect. The Court rejected the father's application for adjournment, determining there was no prospect of a positive assessment for him or his aunt as carers, and that further delay would be detrimental. The Court concluded that adoption was in the child's best interests, and that the father was unreasonably withholding consent, thus dispensing with his consent and granting a freeing order for adoption.

Court Disposition

Final care order and order freeing the child for adoption granted; father's application for adjournment rejected; father's consent to adoption dispensed with.

Orders

  • Care order made under Children's (Jersey) Law 2002
  • Order freeing child for adoption under Adoption (Jersey) Law 1961