A Gulf father petitioned the Personal Status Court in Dubai to oblige his ex-wife to allow his daughter to spend one night in his house, while the mother justified her stubbornness by saying that the child is not used to that.
After examining the case and the arguments of both parties, the court said in the grounds for the ruling, “The mother has no right to wrong the ward by preventing her from spending the night with her father one day a week, when she is the one who enjoys her all the time, and the court rejects this arbitrariness.”
In detail, a Gulf father filed a lawsuit before the Personal Status Court in Dubai, in which he challenged his ex-wife, demanding that she be obligated to see his daughter in custody, and take her to spend the night in his house with her brothers one day each week, and on the second day of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha until the afternoon of the following day, and for a week during the summer vacation if he travels with his children from another wife, and three days from the first of the month during the summer vacation, on the condition that he is obligated to take her from her mother’s house and return her at the end of the visitation period.
Legal advisor Nour Al-Saqa Amini said that the father also requested to communicate with the girl via modern visual and audio communication methods every day for 10 minutes.
She added that he filed his lawsuit based on the claim that he was the defendant’s husband and had an eight-year-old daughter with her, and that he used to see her in agreement with the defendant, but that she had prevented him from seeing her recently, without any legitimate or legal reason or justification.
She pointed out that the plaintiff presented his case to the Family Guidance Committee, but a settlement between the two parties was not possible.
In turn, the mother disputed with the plaintiff before the Family Guidance Committee regarding the overnight stay, justifying her position by saying that the child was not accustomed to that, and that the plaintiff had not paid school fees.
The court stated in the grounds for its ruling that it is established according to the Court of Cassation’s rulings that if the child is in the custody of one of the parents, the other has the right to visit him and take him with him as the judge decides, provided that the place, time and person responsible for bringing the child are specified.
She explained that it is also legally stipulated that although the rule is that the child in custody should only spend the night with his custodian, in order to achieve the best interests of the child and protect his right to know his parents and natural family and receive their care and maintain personal relationships and direct contacts with both of them, without fatigue or hardship, the judge may permit the child in custody to spend the night in a place other than the residence of his custodian if his interest requires it.
The court stated that the ward in this case is in the hands of the defendant, and the latter enjoys seeing her day and night without anyone preventing her from seeing her and sitting with her. Also, the request of the plaintiff, the guardian father, to see his daughter and spend the night with her is a legitimate and legal right for him and for the ward, especially since she has reached the age of understanding and awareness, and the father’s way to perform his role in caring for her, guiding her and supervising her affairs is to see her and communicate with her.
She continued that the defendant’s refusal of the plaintiff’s request, and her prevention of the child from spending the night in his house, constitutes an injustice to the ward and her father, and that her argument regarding the daughter’s not being accustomed to that is a fundamental reason, and an argument against her and not for her, because it is a barrier between the daughter’s getting used to being close to her father and spending the night with him, especially since she did not show or reveal any observations that might harm the ward if she spent the night with her father, and therefore the court rejects this arbitrariness.
As for the education expenses that the mother claimed, the court stated that she does not have the right to bargain with the father in this regard, and ignore the interest of the ward in being with her father in exchange for paying the expenses on time, in addition to the fact that her statements in this regard were unsupported, and she has the right to sue the plaintiff before the Court of Cassation if she is stubborn in paying the expenses that she is legally obligated to pay, and the court concluded that the mother does not have to wrong the ward by preventing her from spending one day a week with her father, which she enjoys all the time.
The court approved the father’s request for visitation and overnight stays during the two official holidays, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, and telephone contact. It refused to allow him to visit for a week during the summer vacation if the plaintiff traveled, and three days of the first month of the vacation, as it ruled that weekly visitation was appropriate according to its assessments.
#Obligating #mother #spend #night #child #father #day #week