In the matter of NN [2011] JRC 016 (19 January 2011)

In the matter of NN [2011] JRC 016 (19 January 2011)

The appeal was dismissed because the Deputy Registrar correctly applied the law and exercised her discretion in refusing parental responsibility and ordering only indirect contact, based on the father's history of serious domestic violence, lack of insight or change, and the absence of evidence from the father to rebut the negative inferences. The difference in treatment between married and unmarried fathers was justified and not discriminatory. The lack of supervised contact facilities did not render the order wrong, as the experts recommended indirect contact on the merits, not due to resource constraints.

Citation
[2011] JRC 016
Parties
Appellant/father: A; Respondent/mother: B
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Contact, Domestic Violence, Appeals, Human Rights
Family Law Child Law Parental Responsibility Child Contact Domestic Violence Appeals Human Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant/father

B

Respondent/mother

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in refusing the father parental responsibility for the children
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in ordering only indirect contact between the father and the children
  3. 3 Whether the father's Article 8 ECHR rights were breached by the denial of direct contact

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Deputy Registrar correctly applied the law and exercised her discretion in refusing parental responsibility and ordering only indirect contact, based on the father's history of serious domestic violence, lack of insight or change, and the absence of evidence from the father to rebut the negative inferences. The difference in treatment between married and unmarried fathers was justified and not discriminatory. The lack of supervised contact facilities did not render the order wrong, as the experts recommended indirect contact on the merits, not due to resource constraints.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Indirect contact only between father and children (cards, presents, letters via mother)
  • No parental responsibility granted to father