G v Minister for Children and Education and Anor - 5-May-2021

This judgment concerns my decision in respect of an application for specific discovery by the first plaintiff as well as brief reasons for issuing certain directions which were made during the course of the oral hearing before me.

The present proceedings were commenced by an order of justice signed on 16 th October 2019 and amended by agreement on 24 th October 2019. The essence of the allegations brought concern the legality of the removal of the third to sixth plaintiffs from the care of their parents, the first and second plaintiffs. It is right to record that one of the parents has now decided not to take any further part in the present proceedings who was initially named as the second plaintiff.

The central allegations concern whether a written consent by the first plaintiff to the removal of the first plaintiff's children was effective consent for the purpose Article 17 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (the "Children's Law"). Article 17 sets out when the first defendant is obliged to provide accommodation for vulnerable children. Article 17(7) provides that:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, the Minister may not provide accommodation for a child under this Article if the Minister receives an objection from any person who has parental responsibility for the child and is willing and able to provide or arrange for the provision of accommodation for the child."

If either parent had objected to an order being made under Article 17 the first defendant would then had to have sought an emergency protection order under Article 37 of Children's Law.