Between v Q [2021] JRC 331 (09 November 2021)

Between v Q [2021] JRC 331 (09 November 2021)

The court determined that continued contact between the applicant and both children is in their best interests, particularly as Child 2 identifies the applicant as her father and there is no established relationship with her biological father. The respondent's reasons for seeking to reduce contact were not child-focused and lacked sufficient planning. The court found no welfare concerns justifying a reduction in contact and declined to make a residence order for Child 1, as there was no discernible benefit. The court ordered alternate weekend contact, midweek overnight contact, additional holiday contact, and information sharing regarding Child 2's schooling.

Citation
[2021] JRC 331
Parties
Applicant: P; Respondent: Q
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Law Contact and Parental Responsibility / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Contact orders granted for both children; residence order refused.
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Parental Responsibility, Residence Order, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Contact Parental Responsibility Residence Order Welfare of the Child

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Applicant

Q

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Contact and Parental Responsibility / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contact between the applicant and both children should continue and on what terms
  2. 2 Whether contact with Child 2 (not the applicant's biological child) should be reduced to facilitate a relationship with her biological father
  3. 3 Whether a residence order should be made for Child 1

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that continued contact between the applicant and both children is in their best interests, particularly as Child 2 identifies the applicant as her father and there is no established relationship with her biological father. The respondent's reasons for seeking to reduce contact were not child-focused and lacked sufficient planning. The court found no welfare concerns justifying a reduction in contact and declined to make a residence order for Child 1, as there was no discernible benefit. The court ordered alternate weekend contact, midweek overnight contact, additional holiday contact, and information sharing regarding Child 2's schooling.

Court Disposition

Contact orders granted for both children; residence order refused.

Orders

  • Contact between applicant and both children each alternate weekend (Friday to Monday) and each alternate Thursday overnight.
  • Additional contact during school holidays and special occasions.