B v C

A supplemental family judgment may clarify the meaning and effect of an earlier judgment and order where that clarification is necessary to resolve an asserted ambiguity. The court confirmed that the child was to live with the mother in Israel and that the question of the father’s contact had been adjourned for agreement or determination at a later hearing. Once determined, the detailed contact provisions in the later order superseded earlier orders concerning the child’s time with the father. The court’s decision on contact was made by reference to the child’s welfare best interests, taking account of the father’s proposed residence in Israel and the fact that contact would occur there.

The judgment was supplemental to an earlier judgment of 18 March 2016 and an order made on 20 April 2016. The mother had been permitted to relocate with the child, A, to Israel. The issue of the father’s contact had initially been left for agreement or later determination. After the parties failed to agree, the court determined contact on 20 April 2016. The mother requested clarification after the father made a custody application in Israel and asserted that this court had failed to address contact. The central issue was the meaning and effect of the earlier judgment and order.

1. The supplemental judgment was given to clarify, rather than alter, the earlier judgment and order. The court acknowledged that the Israeli courts were seized of the matter and expressly avoided trespassing on their jurisdiction.
2. The earlier decision provided that A should live with the mother, that the mother could relocate with A to Israel, and that the issue of the father’s contact was adjourned to allow agreement or, failing agreement, determination by the court.
3. The court had contemplated that the father might move to Israel. When contact was determined on 20 April 2016, the court had been told that he intended to live there, initially at his parents’ home, approximately 100 kilometres from the mother.
4. The previous orders for A to spend time with the father were superseded by the order of 20 April 2016. That order contained detailed and comprehensive provisions for contact and ancillary matters.
5. The court concluded that A living with the mother in Israel and spending time with the father in accordance with the order of 20 April 2016 was in A’s welfare best interests.

Not an appeal. The judgment was supplemental to the court’s earlier judgment of 18 March 2016 and order of 20 April 2016.