CAH v SRM DHand AH [2003] JRC 084 (19 May 2003)

CAH v SRM DHand AH [2003] JRC 084 (19 May 2003)

The best interests of BM are served by vesting custody, care and control in his father, as there are no strong reasons to deprive the surviving parent of these rights. The evidence, including the recommendation of the Court Welfare Officer, supports this conclusion. The grandparents' criticisms of the father were found to be unduly negative and not substantiated to a degree that would justify overriding the statutory and natural presumption in favour of the father.

Citation
[2003] JRC 084
Parties
Applicant: DH; Applicant: AH; Subject Child: BM; Respondent: BM's father; Interested Party: Eva
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Child Custody Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Custody, care and control of BM vested in the father; generous access to grandparents ordered; gradual transition supervised by Court Welfare Officer; tutelle to be constituted for BM's property.
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Care and Control, Access Rights, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Grandparent Rights
Family Law Child Law Child Custody Care and Control Access Rights Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility Grandparent 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DH

Applicant

AH

Applicant

BM

Subject Child

BM's father

Respondent

Eva

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Child Custody Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether custody, care and control of BM should be vested in the grandparents or the father
  2. 2 What arrangements serve the best interests and welfare of BM

Ratio Decidendi

The best interests of BM are served by vesting custody, care and control in his father, as there are no strong reasons to deprive the surviving parent of these rights. The evidence, including the recommendation of the Court Welfare Officer, supports this conclusion. The grandparents' criticisms of the father were found to be unduly negative and not substantiated to a degree that would justify overriding the statutory and natural presumption in favour of the father.

Court Disposition

Custody, care and control of BM vested in the father; generous access to grandparents ordered; gradual transition supervised by Court Welfare Officer; tutelle to be constituted for BM's property.

Orders

  • Custody, care and control of BM vested in the father.
  • BM to have generous access to grandparents: fortnightly overnight contact from Friday after school to Sunday 6pm.