J -v- I (Family) [2014] JRC 110 (13 May 2014)

J -v- I (Family) [2014] JRC 110 (13 May 2014)

The court found that the ongoing litigation and repeated involvement of the child in proceedings was causing significant emotional harm to B. The father's approach and disregard for professional advice justified a restriction order under Article 66(8) to protect B's welfare. A three-year restriction, rather than a shorter or indefinite period, was proportionate to allow B respite and stability.

Citation
[2014] JRC 110
Parties
Applicant: Mother; Respondent: Father; Amicus Curiae: Advocate Hiller
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Arrangements / Post Judgment Application for Restriction Order
Outcome
Order granted
Legal Topics
Restriction on Further Applications, Welfare of the Child, Residence and Contact Orders, Article 66(8) Children (jersey) Law 2002
Family Law Child Law Restriction on Further Applications Welfare of the Child Residence and Contact Orders Article 66(8) Children (jersey) Law 2002

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Applicant

Father

Respondent

Advocate Hiller

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Arrangements / Post Judgment Application for Restriction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to impose a restriction on the father's ability to make further applications regarding child B under Article 66(8) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002
  2. 2 Appropriate duration and scope of any such restriction

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ongoing litigation and repeated involvement of the child in proceedings was causing significant emotional harm to B. The father's approach and disregard for professional advice justified a restriction order under Article 66(8) to protect B's welfare. A three-year restriction, rather than a shorter or indefinite period, was proportionate to allow B respite and stability.

Court Disposition

Order granted

Orders

  • No application for an order under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 for residence, shared residence or contact shall be made by the father in respect of B without leave of the Court for a duration of three years from the date of this order.