Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
On 18 November 2016, his wife issued a summons seeking maintenance from the applicant and custody of their two children.� On the 22 June 2017, an interim order was granted pursuant to s. 7 of the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976 ordering the applicant to pay maintenance in respect of the children to his wife in the weekly sum of �100 on and from 23 June 2017.�
On 28 September 2017, the District Court made an order under s. 11 of the Guardianship of Children Acts 1964-1997 directing that custody of the two children be granted to his wife and that the applicant was to have access to the children after school on every second Friday to Sunday at 8 p.m., every Wednesday after school until Thursday morning, and every Thursday after school to 5.45 p.m.� On 2 October 2017, the applicant appealed that decision.� He contends that there should be joint custody of the children. �
On 28 October 2017, the District Court made an order pursuant to s. 5(1)(a) of the Act of 1976 directing the applicant to pay his wife weekly maintenance in respect of the children in the sum of �120.� This order also was appealed by the applicant, who contends that he should not be ordered to pay maintenance, but rather he should receive maintenance from his wife.
The two appeals to the Circuit Court had not been resolved a year later so the applicant applied on 27 September 2018 to vary the maintenance order pursuant to �����������s. 6(1)(b) of the Act of 1976, and on 24 September 2018 to vary the order regarding access and custody pursuant to s. 12 of the Act of 1964. ��
On 10 October 2018, the District Court varied the provisions as to access by providing that in �Week 1�, the applicant was to have access from Friday after school to Monday at school and each Wednesday after school to Thursday 8 p.m.� On �Week 2�, the children were to spend the weekend with his wife.� Directions were also given in relation to summer and Christmas holidays. �There was no alteration to the maintenance payable by the applicant.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.