She refused to challenge a mother to appoint her ex-husband as custodian of their autistic son

Al-Naqtid: The father has priority over his son's guardianship of self and money

The mother asked the court to appoint her as custodian of the son, as she carries out all his affairs.

From the source

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi refused to appeal an appellate ruling, which decided to appoint a father as custodian of his son, confirming that the father has priority in the guardianship of self and money over his son, as long as he is sane, rational and capable of carrying out the requirements of this guardianship, and that this does not affect the custody of the mother of the son who is required to stone It does not take away its duties or claim its rights.

And the plaintiff (the father) had filed a lawsuit, at its conclusion, he asked to stone his son (from the people of determination) and appoint him as guardian, because he could not manage his affairs by himself, while the mother (the defendant) asked to accept her intervention and appoint her as custodian of (the son), because she is his mother. It carries out all its affairs, and the plaintiff’s request is rejected.

The medical report stated that the son suffers from autism spectrum disease, epilepsy, low cognitive abilities and the ability to communicate, and is completely dependent on his mother, and his condition is not amenable to improvement, and he needs to appoint a trustee, and the court of first instance ruled not to accept the case against the minors' authority due to lack of capacity, and to reject the father’s case And the acceptance of the mother’s intervention, the stone on the son, and the appointment of the mother as his guardian.

According to the primary ruling, the mother is tasked with managing the affairs of the quarantined, representing him, ending his transactions before all parties, whether governmental or otherwise, and claiming his rights, receiving his money, administering and preserving it, investing it and spending on him in a reasonable manner, and she is not permitted to do any act that transfers ownership of his money Except with prior permission from the court, and it must draw up a list of his funds and the funds that devolve to him, and deposit them with the clerk of the court within two months of the commencement of its mission, and submit periodic accounts to the court on its actions in managing the funds of the interdicted one every six months.

The father appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the primary ruling, appoint the father (the plaintiff) as a trustee on behalf of his son, and oblige him to perform the same tasks stipulated in the first instance verdict, and the mother did not accept this ruling, so she appealed against it by way of cassation, and the respondent (the father) submitted a reply note At its conclusion, a request to reject the appeal.

In her appeal against the ruling, the mother asserted that he had mistakenly appointed the father as custodian of her son, who had been under her custody for some time, and carried out all his affairs, given his health condition, and that she was devoted to his service, while the father (the contested against him) was married to another woman and had children, indicating that he had not paid alimony. Their son, for which a court ruling was issued except after issuance of an arrest warrant against him, as evidenced by the execution minutes attached to the file papers, in addition to the fact that he did not submit a list of the son’s funds who were required to be placed under arrest.

For its part, the Court of Cassation affirmed in the merits of its ruling that the father has priority in the guardianship of self and money over his son, as long as he is sane, adult, rational, and able to carry out the requirements of this guardianship, and as long as he does not prove his incompetence to carry out this task, without compromising from that what it clings to. The mother asserts that she is the incubator for the son who is requested to be quarantined and to carry out all his affairs.

With regard to the fact that the father did not present a list of the custodian’s money, the court indicated that the custody functions are independent of the tasks of the guardian of the money, and that assigning this guardianship to the father of the incarcerated child does not take away the functions of the custodian, nor does it claim the rights of the child.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news