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.
Further, we made a residence order in favour of the grandmother until the child's 18th birthday, pursuant to Article 11(6) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law") and made a contact order to the effect that the child would see her mother at least twice a week, ideally once over a weekend, but that the grandmother may refuse contact in the interests of the child's welfare.
In this judgment, we give brief reasons for making these orders and do not repeat the background set out in the judgment dated 26 th July 2021, ( In the matter of QQ (Interim Care Order) [2021] JRC 195 giving the reasons for granting an interim care order, placing the child in the care of her grandmother on 2 nd July 2021.
The child, a girl, is now aged 10. When the interim care order was made the mother was unrepresented and the grandmother was not a party to the proceedings. Both were participants in the final hearing, and both were represented by counsel.
The child still has no contact with her father who is without parental responsibility and he did not participate in the proceedings save to indicate to the Guardian that he was content for his daughter to continue living with her grandmother.
Prior to the child being placed in voluntary care on 17 th June 2021, the child had suffered neglect in the care of her mother, consisting of in summary:
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.