Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
I sat this morning to give directions in relation to two applications that are being dealt with together, namely the Minister's application under Article 27(4) of the Childrens (Jersey) Law 2002 for an order authorising the Minister to refuse contact between the child and the father, and secondly, the father's application for contact and in particular, supervised contact, with the child. I will not be able in this short judgment to deal with all of the points raised in discussion.
Following the directions given on 6 th May, 2010, joint instructions had been given to Dr Ruth Emsley to prepare a risk assessment and her report, dated 30 th May, 2010, has been filed with the parties and the Court. That report is adverse to contact taking place, concluding:-
"In summary, it is my opinion that if the father were to be allowed contact with the child, this would place the child - and possibly the child's peers at high risk of sexual victimisation. I believe, also, that if supervised contact were permitted, ensuring there was no non-sanctioned unsupervised contact would be extremely difficult, if both parties desired such contact."
There are two other reports which are also adverse to the issue of contact, namely, the report of the Guardian dated 2 nd June and a report from Mr Brian Heath, the Chief Probation Officer. In view of these reports and the father's record of sexual offending, the Minister, Mr Santos-Costa on behalf of the child, the Guardian and the mother will be strongly opposing contact.
Mr Tremoceira submits that Dr Emsley's report is flawed. She had been engaged to advise in relation to the separate proceedings brought by the Minister for a care order in respect of the child; specifically she has been instructed to prepare risk assessments on the mother, the step-father and the father in relation to the issue of the child's care. In order to maintain a separation between the two sets of proceedings the Court directed that Dr Emsley should receive a separate instruction in order to produce a separate risk assessment on the father, on the issue of contact.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.