W -v- X (22 February 2017)

W -v- X (22 February 2017)

The court accepted the unanimous expert evidence that providing photographs to the father would not be in Child 1's best interests due to ongoing risks, lack of insight by the father, and Child 1's emotional welfare. The paramount consideration was Child 1's welfare, including her wishes, emotional needs, and risk of harm. The application for photographs was refused.

Parties
Applicant (father): W; Respondent (mother): X
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Judgment on Application for Indirect Contact (photographs)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Indirect Contact, Parental Responsibility, Child Welfare, Risk of Abduction
Family Law Child Contact Indirect Contact Parental Responsibility Child Welfare Risk of Abduction

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Applicant (father)

X

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Judgment on Application for Indirect Contact (photographs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father should be provided with photographs of Child 1 as a form of indirect contact
  2. 2 Whether there is a risk to Child 1's welfare or risk of abduction if photographs are provided

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the unanimous expert evidence that providing photographs to the father would not be in Child 1's best interests due to ongoing risks, lack of insight by the father, and Child 1's emotional welfare. The paramount consideration was Child 1's welfare, including her wishes, emotional needs, and risk of harm. The application for photographs was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The father's application for photographs of Child 1 is refused.