Jopson & Lilwall (No.2)

The case of Jopson & Lilwall (No.2) involves an appeal against the decision of a Federal Circuit Court judge who had granted an interim care and protection order in relation to a child. The appellant, the mother, challenged the orders on the basis that the primary judge failed to properly consider the risks posed to the child by the father. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had adequately considered the risks and whether the orders made were appropriate in the circumstances.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the primary judge had appropriately assessed and balanced the risks associated with the father’s contact with the child against the benefits of the child maintaining a relationship with him. The court needed to consider whether the primary judge was adequately alive to the risks as presented by the mother and whether the orders made were sufficient to address those risks. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the primary judge’s approach to risk assessment and balancing of interests was in accordance with the principles established in relevant case law.

The court found that the primary judge had indeed been aware of the risks and had made orders that sought to mitigate those risks. The judge had ordered a protection order, the appointment of an independent children’s lawyer, a family report, and injunctive orders concerning the father’s drinking. The court also noted that the primary judge had ordered parenting courses for both parties and measures to facilitate communication between them. The court held that the primary judge had appropriately balanced the risks against the benefits of the child having a relationship with his father. The judge’s orders were intended to address the risks until a trial could determine the full extent of the issues. The court dismissed both appeals and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

ORDERS:
1. That appeal NA 68 of 2016 be dismissed.
2. That appeal NA 80 of 2016 be dismissed.
3. That each party bear their own costs of and incidental to each appeal.