Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC153A

royal court

(Family Division)

23^rd August 2010

Before     :

V. J. Obbard, Registrar, sitting alone.

 

IN THE MATTER OF FF

Reasons for refusal of father's application for residence order and direct contact

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Petitioner.

Mr C. G. Hillier (Ecrivain) for the Respondent.

judgment

the registrar:

1.        This case has been before the Court since August 2009, when the wife filed a divorce petition on the grounds of the husband's unreasonable behaviour.  The father is pursuing his application for residence and contact on the basis that at an earlier stage of C's life he was her primary carer. 

2.        In April 2009, the husband B had left the Island with the parties' daughter C to stay with his family in Italy.  This incident is the subject of a fact finding judgement dated 23^rd March, 2010 (In the matter of FF [2010] JRC 060A).  My conclusions were that the husband deceived the wife A into thinking that he would be going to France for a day trip only.  In actual fact he left for Italy where he thought he could obtain an annulment of his marriage and retain custody of C. 

3.        At the conclusion of that judgement, I wrote:-

"At the next stage of these proceedings, I will need to consider the father's application for Residence, or what Contact, if any, the father should have with C.  Dr Bryn Williams will be advising the Court and the Court Welfare Officer on whether there should be any interim contact, in order specifically to observe the child's relationship with her father."

4.        I regret that no such interim contact has taken place.  There are 2 reasons for this:-

(i) Risk of further abduction

Dr Ruth Emsley, in two separate reports to the Court dated 29^th May, 2010, and 12^th August, 2010, concluded that B was at high risk of taking C from A without her consent and possibly taking her to another jurisdiction, namely Italy.  Dr Williams himself, in a report dated 29^th July, 2010, concluded that to introduce her to her father at this stage when such risk may remain or in the event that the Court decides on a "No Contact Order" would in his opinion not be in C's best interests.  Dr Emsley's second report was concluded after Dr Williams' report but it is clear from it that the same risk still remains of B taking C to Italy. 

(ii) The continued effect of the abduction in April 2009 upon S and her mother

Mrs Ferguson (the Court Welfare Officer's) report (page 5 paragraphs 11 - 13) makes it clear that C did not want to discuss the possibility of seeing her father.  C appears to exclude her father from those close to her, when asked to draw her family (Dr Williams report page 3).  Dr Harrison's report dated 19^th July makes it clear that A continues to suffer from stress with pronounced anxiety symptoms.  Mrs Ferguson comments in her report (page 7 paragraph 19) that the stress suffered by A might well impact on C.  

5.        Despite the perceived risk of further abduction and the continuing effect that the abduction has had on C and A, B appears to maintain that the findings of the experts are incorrect and that the findings of my judgement mentioned above are incorrect.  This is of concern to Dr Williams who writes this:-

"Whilst B wishes to move on from the events surrounding taking C to Italy, I was somewhat concerned that B appeared to minimise the impact of this event.  He does not agree with the decisions made by the courts and believes he has been wronged."

6.        There are recent examples of B "stalking" A.  She mentioned one of these in her oral evidence.  Mrs Ferguson alludes to others (paragraphs 34, 35 and 36), and comments that the Royal Court injunction which prevents B having contact with A or C is not being adhered to in spirit. 

7.        These are all up to date concerns about the behaviour of B.  It appears that he seeks to justify his behaviour.  It appears that he still intends to treat A with contempt.  

8.        To allow immediate contact between B and C would appear:-

(i)        not to be of any immediate benefit to the child; and

(ii)       not to be of any longer term benefit to the child unless B can accept the assessments of him by Ruth Emsley, Dr Williams and the Court Welfare Officer. 

9.        Above all, so long as there remains a risk of abduction, it must be wrong to consider B's application favourably. 

10.      I agree with the submission of Advocate Gilbert that the historical evidence of who cared most for C and the complaints made by either party that the care given by the other was or may have been lacking, harmful or even abusive, is no longer relevant in the light of the huge impact that the removal of C by B to Italy had on C. 

11.      I agree that "the dust should be allowed to settle" since the traumatic times spent in Italy and the aftermath, culminating in this hearing.  The application for Residence must be refused and the only contact allowed at present will be indirect contact only, by sending presents and cards on C's birthday, Christmas and Easter.  No further application for Residence or contact is to be made for 12 months. 

Authorities

In the matter of FF [2010] JRC 060A.