C v D [2000] JRC 185A (19 September 2000)

C v D [2000] JRC 185A (19 September 2000)

Direct access is refused because the evidence demonstrates that the mother's trauma and anxiety are genuine and that any order for access would greatly harm the family unit, including the child. The welfare of the child is paramount, and the risk to the stability and emotional well-being of the family outweighs the benefits of direct contact at this time.

Citation
[2000] JRC 185A
Parties
Applicant: C; Respondent: D
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Access Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application for direct access refused; indirect contact ordered.
Legal Topics
Child Access, Domestic Violence, Parental Rights, Indirect Contact, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Child Welfare Child Access Domestic Violence Parental Rights Indirect Contact Best Interests of the Child

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Access Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant father should be granted direct or indirect access to his son in light of past domestic violence and the mother's trauma.
  2. 2 Whether the welfare of the child is best served by allowing contact with the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

Direct access is refused because the evidence demonstrates that the mother's trauma and anxiety are genuine and that any order for access would greatly harm the family unit, including the child. The welfare of the child is paramount, and the risk to the stability and emotional well-being of the family outweighs the benefits of direct contact at this time.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access refused; indirect contact ordered.

Orders

  • No direct access (supervised or unsupervised) until further order.
  • Indirect contact to be facilitated via Mr Castledine, who will act as intermediary for information exchange.