The High Court has proposed an interim arrangement giving a father primary day-to-day care of his two children, while both parents retain joint custody. The proposal follows a contested application in ongoing judicial separation proceedings; the court said the arrangement remained interim and subject to the trial judge’s overall approval.
Mr Justice Henry Abbott delivered judgment on 22 November 2017. The application concerned interim custody and access for the parties’ children, aged eight and three. The substantive judicial separation hearing was pending before another High Court judge.
The court considered a report prepared by Ms H, an expert appointed under the statutory process to assess the children’s welfare and access. The mother challenged the report’s admissibility, alleging bias, inadequate qualifications and incompetence. The judge criticised errors in the expert’s appointment records and aspects of her work, but accepted the report as expert evidence, to be considered alongside the evidence and documents gathered during the lengthy hearings.
The judge also found that photographs the mother had presented as showing toys in the children’s bedrooms were fabricated: the court found strong probability of fabrication for the younger child’s room and found fabrication beyond reasonable doubt for the older child’s room. The judgment said the custody decision was not intended to penalise either parent for conduct, but treated parental conduct as relevant where it affected the children’s welfare.
The court said the older child’s views supported continued contact with both parents and that her relationship with her father needed greater support. It also found that both children’s relationships with relatives on both sides of the family mattered. The judge described household violence as not a major element of the case, while referring to the children’s exposure to a violent exchange and to other conduct the court considered harmful to them.
Under the proposed schedule, the father would have the children from Thursday after school until Monday morning, and the mother from Monday after school until Thursday morning. The court proposed continuing the older child’s appointments with Dr C, with the mother limited to receiving transport and timetable details and not determining them. It also proposed reasonable telephone calls and a closed WhatsApp group for short updates and photographs about the children.
The judgment records that the parties agreed the arrangement would be regarded as reasonably long-term, but it could require review if the eventual provision changed the children’s residence outside the school catchment area. The judge invited the parties to assist in making the final order. The judgment does not record a final determination of the substantive judicial separation proceedings.