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.
Parties
F
Plaintiff
S
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Access Application / Final Judgment on Application for Direct Access
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether direct access between father (F) and child (Z) is in the best interests of the child
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment