GAPS in Jersey’s framework for dealing with domestic abuse allegations in the Family Court have been highlighted in a judgment involving a father who was barred from making further applications for six years.
Family Judge Samantha McFadzean noted that, unlike England and Wales, Jersey has no legislation or Family Division practice direction setting out how judges should approach, define and deal with allegations of domestic abuse.
The Royal Court instead considered guidance used by the Family Court in England and Wales, known as Practice Direction 12J, when determining the case.
The judgment also highlighted that Jersey has no system for appointing qualified legal representatives – known as QLRs – to question alleged victims on behalf of alleged abusers who are representing themselves.
Such a system can avoid an alleged victim having to be directly cross-examined by the person they accuse of abuse.
Judge McFadzean said there was “no law or practice in place in Jersey” enabling such representatives to be appointed.
The issue arose during a case concerning the parents of a three-year-old boy, in which the mother attended the final hearing by video link while the father, who represented himself, attended in person.
Following a fact-finding hearing, the court concluded that the father had exhibited behaviour intended to coercively control, or which had the effect of controlling, the mother during and in the aftermath of their relationship.
The judge found that he had behaved in an “intimidating, threatening and abusive manner” towards the mother and her family, and had harassed, pestered and behaved threateningly towards professionals and others involved in caring for the child.
He had also repeatedly threatened to remove the boy from his mother or other carers.
The court rejected the father’s allegations that the mother had alienated their son from him.
Judge McFadzean accepted that the father loved his son and would not physically harm him, but was concerned about the potential emotional impact of his behaviour on the child.
She said his aggression and hostility could set a “dangerous example”.
The child will live with his mother, while the father will be permitted supervised contact for up to seven hours on no more than one day every other weekend.
The judge also barred the father from making further applications relating to his son for six years.
He will only be able to seek permission to bring an application during that period if he agrees to undergo a psychological assessment.
Until he addresses his behaviour, the court said there would be no consideration of additional or overnight contact.
An order preventing the father from removing or attempting to remove the child from his mother or an authorised carer was also extended.
The mother was also given permission to obtain a foreign passport for the child without the father’s agreement, with the judge describing his position on the matter as “unnecessarily obstructive and not child-focused”.
