JERSEY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lauren Glynn and Victoria Cure, Carey Olsen
sion. The mother was granted leave to take the child on holiday to Country A for a week in August 2024 to celebrate the maternal grandmother’s 60th birthday. The parties agreed that any order of the Jersey court made in relation to the child would be enforceable in Country A. During the course of the proceedings, the father had undergone testing for substance abuse, which dem - onstrated repeated active usage of cannabis and excessive consumption of alcohol. Police disclosure recorded a number of callouts including an alleged assault by the father against the previous partner, a complaint by the paternal grandfather that the father had been “smashing up” the paternal grandfather’s home, and two reports by the mother that the father had sent her threatening messages. In June 2025, the JFCAS officer had noted her concern at the high level of unsupervised contact between the child and the father. There were no concerns regarding the mother’s care of the child although the mother was noted to present as highly anxious as to her reported concerns regarding the father. The JFCAS officer observed that the father loved the child but felt he had limited insight into the issues that had restricted his contact. In her view, the father’s presentation during her assessment had been inconsistent and on occasion chaotic. The JFCAS officer had spoken to both sets of grandpar - ents and noted that she had no doubt as to the mater- nal grandparents’ ability to practically and emotionally support the mother if she was able to return home to live in country A.
The JFCAS officer gave a clear recommendation that the mother be given permission to relocate to Country A. The court noted that both parties had made allega - tions or assertions unsupported by the evidence pre - sented to the court, including the mother’s allegations regarding the father’s religious or personal views as there was no evidence to suggest the impact upon the child, as well as the father’s contention that Country A is in the midst of political turmoil and a wave of crimi - nality. The court found that the father’s alcohol con - sumption was excessive and that his drinking could have an adverse impact upon the child or the mother. The court noted that just because the child had not come into harm in the father’s care, did not mean there are no concerns. There would be potential risks to the child in the care of the father if contact was to be for longer periods or without support. This would not change unless and until the father proved that he had controlled his drinking consistently over a significant period of time. It followed that the father’s contact must remain limited for the safety and well-being of the child. The mother’s application for leave to remove was granted subject to her first obtaining a mirror or parallel order in Country A at her expense. Court’s approach to domestic abuse Jersey does not have an equivalent practice direc - tion to PD 12J in England and Wales, which outlines guidance as to how the court should approach cases involving allegations of domestic abuse when con - sidering issues relating to children. Nevertheless, the authors consider that the principles outlined in PD 12J will be persuasive in Jersey.
92 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook