A Health and Social Care Trust and Ms TA and Mr K and Mr C and Mr and Mrs SB and In the matter of Sam and Leah (Minors) (Residence Order: Declaration: Contact Order)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan J |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] NIFam 21 |
| Court | Family Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 14 October 2020 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2020] NIFam 21
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: KEE11326
ICOS No: 16/053199/02
16/053199/03
16/053295/01
16/053295/02
Delivered: 14/10/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
__________
FAMILY DIVISION
___________
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1995
BETWEEN:
A HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE TRUST
Applicant;
-and-
MS TA
First Respondent;
MR K
Second Respondent;
MR C
Third Respondent;
MR and MRS SB
Fourth and Fifth Respondent/Applicants.
___________
IN THE MATTER OF SAM AND LEAH (MINORS)
(RESIDENCE ORDER: DECLARATION: CONTACT ORDER)
________
Mr Toner QC with Ms Davidson BL (instructed by DLS) for the Applicant
Mr Simpson QC with Ms Rountree BL (instructed by CMS Solicitors) for First
Respondent
Ms O’Connor BL (instructed by Rafferty and Boyle) for the Second Respondent
Mr C appeared as a litigant in person
Ms O’Grady QC with Ms Murray BL (instructed by Wilson Nesbitt Solicitors) for the
Fourth and Fifth Respondents/Applicants
Ms Smyth QC with Ms McCloskey BL (instructed by Macaulay Wray Solicitors) for the
children instructed by the Guardian Ad Litem
___________
2
KEEGAN J
As this case involves two children I have anonymised it with the agreement of all
parties. Nothing must be published which would identify the children or their
families. The names I have given to the children are not their real names.
Introduction
[1] I have previously issued a judgment in this case which was delivered on
10 September 2018 and is reported at [2018] NIFam 12. In that judgment I was asked
to decide the arrangements for two children Sam who is now aged 14 and Leah who
is now aged 11. That was some time ago and at that stage matters were contested in
relation to where the children should live. Ultimately, I decided that they should
remain subject to care orders in the care of their grandparents with contact to their
respective fathers. As I explained in that judgment this was an imperfect option and
I anticipated at paragraph [81] as follows:
“I expect that things may change in the next few years
as the grandparents get older and the children get
older and indeed as they have more contact with their
fathers. That might lead to a natural realisation that a
move should happen but that would be with the
support of the adults which is infinitely preferable to
an enforced scenario. It may be that the children
could have a trial period in the fathers’ jurisdiction in
the future before a permanent move.”
[2] I also raised concerns about the grandparents’ abilities in my judgment at
paragraph [82] where I said:
“I harbour some reservations about the grandparents’
ability to abide by contact but at least that is a known
risk. I also am influenced by the fact that contact has
continued albeit there have been hurdles put in the
way. The children have been allowed to have some
relationship with their fathers it has just not been the
best it can be. The grandparents have been able to
abide by arrangements particularly in the last number
of months. That may be due to the spotlight of the
court but nonetheless it shows that they are capable of
putting aside their petty differences with the other
adults when they have to. I am pleased that the
summer went so well but much more contact needs to
take place between the children and their fathers.
This must involve longer periods of staying contact in
To continue reading
Request your trial