Adams v Adams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DUNN,MR. JUSTICE WOOD |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Civ J0418-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 84/0175 |
| Date | 18 April 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Civ J0418-4
Lord Justice Dunn
and
Mr. Justice Wood
84/0175
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HARLOW COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Taylor)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. T. CASEWELL (instructed by Messrs Malkin Cullis & Sumption; London agents for Messrs George W. Mills & Son, Tyne and Wear) appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Respondent.
MISS S. ESPLEY (instructed by Messrs Chalmers-Hunt & Gisby, Ware) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner.
This is an appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Taylor on 1st March 1984 in the Harlow County Court when he granted the custody of the two children of the family, Tony, who was born on 12th March 1973 and Dawn, who was born on 29th May 1974, to their father. I should say at the outset that it is refreshing in this case to find that both parents are plainly very responsible people; they are both genuinely concerned for the welfare of their children and since they separated, in circumstances to which I shall refer in a moment, there has been full co-operation over access. That is a welcome difference between the attitude of parents in so many of the cases which come before the court. It is implicit in the judgment (indeed the judge said so in terms) that both these parents have much to offer their children and his choice was not a choice between a good home and a bad home but between a good home and a better home. The sense of responsibility of the mother, in particular, is demonstrated because she did not pursue her claim for the custody of the boy, Tony, because having read the welfare report and having no doubt given the most anxious consideration to the matter, she came to the conclusion that he was so well settled with the father that it was in his interests that he should remain with his father and be brought up by his father. The only contested matter before the judge, and the matter which is the subject of the appeal in this court, is whether Dawn should also join her brother, Tony, and be brought up by their father or whether she should remain and be brought up by her mother, which would mean that the two children would be brought up separately.
The parties were married on 4th September 1972. The mother had been married before and she had two girls of that marriage, Susan who was eight at the date she married the father, and Sally Ann who was six. They were brought up as children of this family. They both left home at 16, as is not at all uncommon. There were difficulties between them and their parents when they were teenagers, but they both now get on well with the father. Susan lives near Puckeridge, in Hertfordshire, where the matrimonial home was and where the father still lives, and she goes in about twice a week and helps with the cooking and so on, and stays with Tony when the father is out for the evening. Susan is intending to marry shortly. The other girl, Sally Ann, has also got a boyfriend with whom she is at the present time living in Devon, but it is her intention to return to the father's house in Puckeridge. Sadly, for reasons which are not spelt out in the papers but which it is not difficult to ascertain because one of the girls said that she would visit the matrimonial home if the mother were to return to the father, neither of the girls have any relationship with their mother. They have no contact with her and do not wish to see her.
The father is in his early fifties, the mother is about 40. The father has good and regular employment in the Puckeridge area. The mother also worked during the marriage and met a fellow employee at her place of work, a Mr. Briggs, with whom she formed an association, and in July 1982 she left the family home. She stayed locally for a few months and then in September 1982 she and Mr. Briggs went to Washington in Tyne and Wear, which was where Mr. Briggs came from, taking Dawn with them. They have lived there together with Dawn ever since. Mr. Briggs has also been married twice before. He left his second wife at the time that he formed his association with the mother, and they are either divorced or in the process of being divorced. Mr. Briggs has two children, a girl of 12 and a boy, Karl, 14. Their mother also moved up to the North East when that marriage broke down and the children have moved back to live with their mother (they did at one time live with Mr. Briggs and the mother in this case), but they have regular contact with Mr. Briggs, their father, and the mother and Dawn. There was evidence that the boy, Karl, called at the house—which is a four bedroomed house at Washington—two or three times a week.
The mother has not worked since she moved to Washington, nor has Mr. Briggs although we were told that it is anticipated that he will be able to obtain work as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cindyong
...and give themselves mutual comfort, perhaps more than they can derive from either of their parents’: per Dunn LJ in Adams v. Adams [1984] FLR 768, which was adopted in Sivajothi K Suppiah v. Kunathasan Chelliah [2000] 3 CLJ 175 and Ooi Mei Chein @ Wei Mei Chein v. Micheal Tan Cheng Hai & An......
-
Re B (Children in Care: Contact)
...[1985] 2 All ER 301. West Glamorgan County Council v P (No 2)[1992] 2 FCR 406. Additional cases cited to Court of AppealAdams v Adams [1984] FLR 768. C v C (Custody of Children) [1988] FCR 411. Cheshire County Council v B[1992] 2 FCR 572. CN (A Minor) (Custody Appeal), Re[1992] 2 FCR 401; s......
-
Johny
...and give themselves mutual comfort, perhaps more than they can derive from either of their parents’: per Dunn LJ in Adams v. Adams [1984] FLR 768, which was adopted in Sivajothi K Suppiah v. Kunathasan Chelliah [2000] 3 CLJ 175 and Ooi Mei Chein @ Wei Mei Chein v. Micheal Tan Cheng Hai & An......
-
Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv
...... within what may be called a “group” remains a separate distinct. entity. In Adams and Others v Cape Industries Plc and. Another [1990] 1 Ch 433 (“ Adams ”) , the English Court of Appeal confirmed that ......