Divorced mother denied permission to relocate family with “teenage sweetheart”

Monday 25 February 2019

A mother will not be allowed to take her children with her when she leaves the island to be with the “teenage sweetheart" she married in secret, the Royal Court has ruled.

The woman, who cannot be named to protect the identity of her children, had been embroiled in a legal battle with her ex-husband over whether her children should be able to accompany her in a move to the home country of her new spouse, who it only emerged she had married during the court proceedings.

Family Registrar Samantha McFadzean, whose decision was published last week, heard that, following her divorce, the woman had "rekindled" her relationship with a man she dated while still a teenager.

Since then, the relationship apparently “moved forward at an extraordinary pace", despite the ages of her children and "the need for their feelings to be sensitively managed."

Pictured: The former couple were embroiled in a legal dispute arising out of the ex-wife's wish to relocate their children to live to with her new husband.

The mother sought the Royal Court's permission to move to her new husband's home country with her children immediately, but, on the recommendation of the Jersey Family Court Advisory Service (JFCAS), said she would be willing to wait a few more years until a more convenient time during the children's schooling.

The father argued against the application, noting that his ex-wife was intent on leaving, whether the children came or not. He proposed that the children move back in with him.

All of the children gave evidence to a JFCAS officer, who concluded that they were “disappointed" by both parents.

“Their faith in their father had been shaken by his behaviour after the mother ended the marriage, when it appears that he withdrew from the family and their faith in their mother had been shaken by the current application," the judgment noted.

Pictured: The judgment, written by the Family Division Registrar, outlines how the legal dispute unfolded.

The dispute was further complicated when it emerged that the mother had misled the Royal Court.

She was understood to be marrying her childhood sweetheart last summer, but it later "transpired" that they were already married months earlier and that all that was planned for summer was a "celebration."

“I find that her failure to mention her remarriage is not, as she tried to convince me, an omission – but a deliberate attempt to mislead the father and the court," the Registrar commented.

Ms McFadzean added that this "failure... to be honest" with the father or court about her remarriage gave her "cause for concern."

Pictured: The children in this case gave evidence to the JFCAS Officer.

She also noted that there are "alternatives available" to the mother and new husband, such as him moving to Jersey.

She heard that there had been no significant attempts by the new husband to find a job in Jersey. He protested to the JFCAS officer, however, that the cost of living in Jersey meant that he wouldn't enjoy the same quality of life as he had previously.

Ultimately, the Registrar found that “the children’s interests and welfare are better served by permission being refused."

“My concern about the children’s emotional needs is addressed, at least in good part, by my finding that the father is able to offer the children the security, stability and emotional warmth to help them navigate the period of change which faces them.”

She explained that a delayed move would potentially be more disruptive to the children and create uncertainty - something the eldest raised as a concern, saying: "We... are desperate to just know where our lives are going."

The Registrar concluded: “I am satisfied that the court’s decision, however painful, will enable the children and their parents to move forward.”