JERSEY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lauren Glynn and Victoria Cure, Carey Olsen
status. If the parties separate, the wife will potentially lose her residential status. Trends/themes from the case law The child(ren)’s welfare is the court’s paramount con - sideration. It is in a child’s best interests to have the best possible relationship with both of their parents provided it is safe for them to do so. A proposal to remove a child from Jersey must be substantiated by detailed suggestions as to how the left-behind parent can continue to have a meaningful relationship with the child(ren). The court will be sympathetic where parties have not been in Jersey for any considerable length of time. The court will not seek to socially engineer – the fact that another country is not as wealthy or prosperous as Jersey will not be a determining consideration in itself. The court will be sympathetic to the reality of how affordable it is for both parties to remain in Jersey, noting that Jersey is an expensive jurisdiction to live in and parties will not have access to state benefits until they have been on the island for five years. The party proposing to remove the child(ren) from Jersey has the burden of pleading a persuasive case that it would be in the child(ren)’s best interests to change the current status quo, and such applications are therefore somewhat of an uphill battle. Case law summaries i) S v S 008 JLR Note 26 – “given the instability which almost invariably arises following the separation of parents, it was likely to be in the child’s best interests to retain as much stability in other areas (eg, home, school and friends) as possible. Thus, it was generally likely to be in the child’s best interests to remain in the country in which he had been habitually residence whilst his long-term future was decided by the courts”.
ii) C v D (Family) [2019] JRC090A The father (43 years old) was a Jersey man, and the mother (39 years old) was from Country A. The child was almost two years old at the date of the hearing. The mother had left Country A at the age of 23. She had not lived in Country A for 14–15 years. The parties cohabited from March 2016 and acquired a retail busi - ness together a few months later, which the mother ran (the father being employed elsewhere at the time). When the child was born, the father resigned from his job and took over the running of the business. Sadly, the relationship had broken down by January 2018, when the father left the family home and moved in with his parents. By the date of the hearing, both parties were living in two-bedroomed rented accommoda - tion. The mother was reliant on benefits, in addition to weekly child maintenance of GBP100. The court noted the parties’ seeming inability to agree on any - thing, but significantly, particularly the father’s contact with the child. The parties would only communicate via text message or lawyers. An expert psychologist report was commissioned in respect of the mother, at the behest of the Jersey Family Court Advisory Ser - vice (JFCAS) (Jersey’s equivalent of a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAF - CASS)) officer, who felt the mother may be suffering from post-natal depression. Evidence was heard from the expert, both parties, the paternal and maternal grandmothers (the latter via video link with the assis - tance of an interpreter) and the JFCAS officer, who did not feel able to recommend that leave be granted to the mother. The mother’s evidence was that she sought to improve the child’s quality of life, as Jersey is “difficult and expensive”. However, the mother was highly critical of the father as a parent. The father’s evidence was that the mother was controlling and he felt systematically excluded from the child’s life fol - lowing the breakdown of their relationship. He consid - ered that the mother’s relationship with her own family, whom she proposed she and the child would live with in Country A, had historically been poor. The child had not met the mother’s family until several weeks prior to the hearing. The expert psychologist and the JFCAS officer both considered that there was risk that the mother would fail to promote the father in the child’s life. The mother’s application was refused. The court noted its concern as to the impact upon the relation -
90 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook