E -v- F (Family) [2015] JRC 221 (04 November 2015)

E -v- F (Family) [2015] JRC 221 (04 November 2015)

The court declined to order the return of the child to Jersey because the plaintiff lacked parental responsibility, the defendant was the primary carer with no means to return to Jersey, and ordering return would risk depriving the child of immediate and consistent contact with his mother. The child's best interests required stability, and the defendant undertook to accept the court's jurisdiction and cooperate with proceedings.

Citation
[2015] JRC 221
Parties
Plaintiff: E; Defendant: F
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Child Custody/injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Return of Child
Outcome
Application for immediate return of the child to Jersey refused; directions given for contact and cooperation.
Legal Topics
Injunction for Return of Child, Parental Responsibility, Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction of Court in Child Matters
Family Law Child Custody Injunction for Return of Child Parental Responsibility Habitual Residence Jurisdiction of Court in Child Matters

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Plaintiff

F

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Child Custody/injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Return of Child

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the return of the child to Jersey
  2. 2 Applicability of Article 22(1) of the Child Custody (Jurisdiction) (Jersey) Law 2005
  3. 3 Exercise of inherent jurisdiction in absence of parental responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to order the return of the child to Jersey because the plaintiff lacked parental responsibility, the defendant was the primary carer with no means to return to Jersey, and ordering return would risk depriving the child of immediate and consistent contact with his mother. The child's best interests required stability, and the defendant undertook to accept the court's jurisdiction and cooperate with proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for immediate return of the child to Jersey refused; directions given for contact and cooperation.

Orders

  • Child to have one week's staying access with the plaintiff during October half-term.
  • Defendant to facilitate visiting contact in the UK and frequent electronic contact.