Z v Y (Family) [2024] JRC 073 (02 April 2024)

Z v Y (Family) [2024] JRC 073 (02 April 2024)

The court found that the welfare of the children required a residence order in favour of the mother, with no joint residence order for the father. While contact with the father is in the children's interests, the risk of emotional harm due to the father's behaviour necessitates that any contact be supervised and arranged voluntarily with the assistance of the Children's Social Care Service. The court declined to make a prescriptive contact order or a barring order under Article 66(8), leaving arrangements to be managed under the Child Protection Plan.

Citation
[2024] JRC 073
Parties
Applicant: Z; Respondent: Y; Child: AA; Child: BB; Amicus Curiae: Advocate Claire Davies; Guardian: Ms. Green
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Private Law Family Matter / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Residence order in favour of the Applicant (mother); no order made on the Respondent's application for contact or joint residence; no order under Article 66(8).
Legal Topics
Residence Order, Contact Order, Child Welfare, Supervised Contact, Emotional Harm, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Residence Order Contact Order Child Welfare Supervised Contact Emotional Harm 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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z

Applicant

Y

Respondent

AA

Child

BB

Child

Advocate Claire Davies

Amicus Curiae

Ms. Green

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Private Law Family Matter / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a residence order should be made in favour of the mother
  2. 2 Whether a joint residence order or contact order should be made in favour of the father
  3. 3 Whether contact between the father and children should be supervised or unsupervised

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the welfare of the children required a residence order in favour of the mother, with no joint residence order for the father. While contact with the father is in the children's interests, the risk of emotional harm due to the father's behaviour necessitates that any contact be supervised and arranged voluntarily with the assistance of the Children's Social Care Service. The court declined to make a prescriptive contact order or a barring order under Article 66(8), leaving arrangements to be managed under the Child Protection Plan.

Court Disposition

Residence order in favour of the Applicant (mother); no order made on the Respondent's application for contact or joint residence; no order under Article 66(8).

Orders

  • Residence order in favour of the Applicant (mother)
  • Refusal of joint residence order to the Respondent (father)