Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> T v T [2001] JRC 181 (10 August 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_181.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 181

[New search] [Help]

2001/181

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th August 2001

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

Myles and Allo.

Between	T	Plaintiff

And	T	Defendant

Representation by the Plaintiff regarding undertakings given

by him in relation to holiday access to the parties' children.

Advocate D. Sowden for the Plaintiff.

Advocate D.J. Benest for the Defendant.

judgment

the bailiff:

1. This is an unhappy and regrettable state of affairs and we want to say straightaway that we are going to dismiss the representation. We do, however, wish to add three things to that.

2. The parties signed a consent order on 11^th July agreeing, with the benefit of advice from their legal advisers, the way in which matters involving the welfare of their children should be handled. It would need, as was rightly said by counsel for the mother, very strong reasons to persuade the Court to overturn an agreement made in those circumstances so soon after the agreement had been made.

3. The second thing is that we understand, of course, the unhappiness expressed by the children to their father. Indeed, it would be surprising if they did not express unhappiness at the situation in which they find themselves.

4. We are concerned that the hearing in England before the Leicester County Court which is designed to resolve at least some of the issues between the parties is not to take place until November of this year and we would request the Social Services in Jersey in collaboration with their colleagues in the United Kingdom to see whether steps can be taken to bring forward the date of that hearing in the interests of the parties.

5. The third thing we wish to say is we note that not many months ago the Jersey proceedings were adjourned or perhaps stayed in order to enable the parties themselves to see whether they could resolve their differences. Both the mother and the father in this case are intelligent and rational people and we express the hope that in the interests of their children they might be able to discuss among themselves what is in the interests of each one of the children individually and, of course, what is in the interests of the children collectively.

6. Having made those remarks the representation is dismissed and the children must leave the jurisdiction, we hope, with their mother later today.

Authorities

R-v-V (1998) JLR 333.

Richardson-v-Richardson (No. 2) [1996] FLR 617.