JERSEY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lauren Glynn and Victoria Cure, Carey Olsen
ship between the father and child of the cessation of regular contact, given the importance of developing a secure attachment during the first three years of the child’s life. iii) N v M [2022] JRC005 (on appeal) The mother was from Country 1, and a Christian. The father was from Country 2, and a Muslim; he was also a British citizen. The father first came to Jersey to work in 2005. The mother first came to Jersey to work in 2017, where she met the father. They married on 23 April 2019. The child was born in 2019 shortly after which their relationship broke down. They remained living together by necessity until May 2020, when the mother left the family home with the child. The child had a medical condition for which she was receiving treatment at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). The mother applied, inter alia, for leave to return to Country 1, a non-Hague Convention country, with the child. Both parties worked in the hospitality indus - try and lived in rented accommodation. The mother was ineligible for state benefits as she had not been resident in Jersey for five years. It was likely that, if the mother remained in Jersey, she would be reliant, at least in part during the child’s minority, on state benefits, whereas if she returned to Country 1, she and the child would have the benefit of living rent and mortgage free in the apartment the mother owned with the maternal grandmother and uncle. The parties’ relationship became acrimonious, and a number of interim applications were dealt with by the court. The final hearing was scheduled to be heard in summer 2020, but for various reasons, including the COVID-19 pandemic, was adjourned on three occasions. The final hearing eventually took place in June 2021. The father’s principle objections to the move were that (i) Country 1 was an extremely poor country and did not offer the child a better quality of life than she would enjoy in Jersey, (ii) the child would not receive the same level of medical care in Country 1 as that provided by GOSH, (iii) the mother did not respect the father’s role in the child’s life and would seek to use the move to exclude the father from her life, (iv) the mother would not encourage or promote the child to learn about her Muslim heritage and (iv) that Country 1 was unstable from a political perspective and the
father would not feel safe travelling to Country 1 for contact with the child given his ethnicity and religion. Evidence was heard from the parties, the maternal grandmother and uncle, a lawyer from Country 1 providing expert evidence in respect of Country 1’s legal system (recognition and enforceability of Jersey court orders) and governance/politics, and the JFACS officer. The court confirmed that the principles to be applied were those set out by Mostyn J in GT v RJ (Leave to Remove) [2018] EWFC 26. The court at first instance granted the mother’s remov - al application, subject to the mother obtaining a mirror order in Country 1. The court noted that the mother’s attitude towards the father had demonstrably softened during the course of the proceedings, that the mother would promote the child’s relationship with the father and that the mother could offer the child a better life in Country 1 than Jersey, notwithstanding that it was evidently a much poorer country. The decision was upheld following the father’s appeal to the Royal Court of Jersey. The mother was eventually, some two years following the court’s decision, successful in obtaining a mirror order in Country 1. iv) A v B [2025] JRC025 The court was asked to determine issues of residence, contact and leave to permanently remove a child from Jersey. The child was born in 2022, aged approxi - mately 33 months at the date of the hearing. The mother was from Country A having moved to Jersey in December 2009. The father was from Jersey. The parties commenced a relationship in April 2021 which broke down prior to the child’s birth. Both parties and the child had remained living in Jersey. In April 2024, the mother applied for leave to relocate to Country A with the child, where they would live with the mater - nal grandparents. The child had lived with the mother since birth. The parties had agreed contact arrange - ments which involved the father initially seeing the child at the mother’s home almost every day. In spring 2024, the parties met in mediation and agreed contact between the child and the father four times per week. Contact was subject to conditions including that the contact be supported by the paternal grandmother or another agreed third-party. Unsupported contact was to be limited to three hours duration on each occa -
91 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook