F v S [2000] JRC 211 (27 October 2000)

F v S [2000] JRC 211 (27 October 2000)

Direct access between F and Z is refused because it is not in the best interests of the child, given Z's fear of F, the lack of progress in improving their relationship, and the risk of emotional harm. Indirect access through the Probation Service is to continue as an option, but no active promotion of direct contact is warranted at this time.

Citation
[2000] JRC 211
Parties
Plaintiff: F; Defendant: S
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
27 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Access Application / Final Judgment on Application for Direct Access
Outcome
Application for direct access refused; indirect access to continue via Probation Service.
Legal Topics
Child Access, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Rights, Indirect Contact

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Plaintiff

S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Access Application / Final Judgment on Application for Direct Access

  1. 1 Whether direct access between father (F) and child (Z) is in the best interests of the child
  2. 2 Whether indirect access arrangements should continue

Ratio Decidendi

Direct access between F and Z is refused because it is not in the best interests of the child, given Z's fear of F, the lack of progress in improving their relationship, and the risk of emotional harm. Indirect access through the Probation Service is to continue as an option, but no active promotion of direct contact is warranted at this time.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access refused; indirect access to continue via Probation Service.

Orders

  • Direct access between F and Z is refused.
  • Indirect access through the Probation Service is to continue as an option.