X v Y (Approved) [2020] IEHC 502 (09 October 2020)

X v Y (Approved) [2020] IEHC 502 (09 October 2020)

In the absence of independent expert evidence and given that both parents agree the child is thriving under the current access regime, the court found no basis to depart from the status quo. The best interests of the child, as required by statute, are served by maintaining the existing arrangements until further evidence or circumstances justify a change.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 502
Parties
Appellant: X; Respondent: Y
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Circuit Court Access Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed; Circuit Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Child Access, Custody, Best Interests of the Child, Judicial Separation
Family Law Child Access Custody Best Interests of the Child Judicial Separation

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Appellant

Y

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Circuit Court Access Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existing access arrangements should be varied to provide for 50/50 access between the parents of a young child
  2. 2 Whether the absence of expert evidence precludes a change in access arrangements
  3. 3 How the best interests of the child are to be determined in the context of conflicting parental views

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of independent expert evidence and given that both parents agree the child is thriving under the current access regime, the court found no basis to depart from the status quo. The best interests of the child, as required by statute, are served by maintaining the existing arrangements until further evidence or circumstances justify a change.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; Circuit Court order affirmed

Orders

  • The access order of the Circuit Court is affirmed; no change to the current access arrangements.