J v K (Family) [2022] JRC 217 (17 October 2022)

J v K (Family) [2022] JRC 217 (17 October 2022)

The Father's conduct in litigation, including repeated failure to comply with court orders, disruptive behaviour, and lack of focus on YY's needs, has become oppressive and contributed significantly to delay. The welfare of YY, who has recently received a diagnosis and is starting school, requires a period of respite from litigation. An order restricting the Father from making any application under Article 10 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 for 18 months is necessary and proportionate.

Citation
[2022] JRC 217
Parties
Applicant: J; First Respondent: K; Second Respondent: YY
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Hearing on Application for Order Restricting Future Applications
Outcome
Mother's application for an order restricting future applications granted.
Legal Topics
Child Welfare, Restriction of Future Applications, Litigation Conduct, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Welfare Restriction of Future Applications Litigation Conduct Parental Responsibility

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Applicant

K

First Respondent

YY

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Hearing on Application for Order Restricting Future Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order should be made restricting the Father from making future applications under Article 10 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 for 18 months
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Father justifies such restriction
  3. 3 Balancing the welfare of the child against the Father's right of access to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The Father's conduct in litigation, including repeated failure to comply with court orders, disruptive behaviour, and lack of focus on YY's needs, has become oppressive and contributed significantly to delay. The welfare of YY, who has recently received a diagnosis and is starting school, requires a period of respite from litigation. An order restricting the Father from making any application under Article 10 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 for 18 months is necessary and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Mother's application for an order restricting future applications granted.

Orders

  • Order made pursuant to Article 66(8) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 restricting the Father from making any application under Article 10 for 18 months.