The court: the mother’s commitment to work in the workplace does not prevent the implementation of the “vision” ruling.

Abrogating a ruling that limits a father seeing his children once a month

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld the appeal of a father residing in a Gulf state, against an appellate ruling that allowed him to see his four children once a month, and to prevent his children from traveling except with the written consent of their mother, and obligating him to pay her 20,000 dirhams.

The details related to the fact that the mother filed a lawsuit confirming that she was the wife of the defendant, and she had four children from him, and he was previously ruled that he had the right to see the children once every two months, on Friday and Saturday, and on the second day of each holiday, with accompaniment.

However, due to her working conditions and the restriction of her weekly leave on Friday, it was not possible to deliver the children in custody on Saturday in implementation of the ruling, in addition to the fact that her daughter is less than five years old and suffers from "incontinence" and needs special care, which is difficult for her to take her outside the place of vision.

She confirmed that the father is residing in another country, and she fears that he will travel with her children during the period of visibility, and she sought the ruling to allocate one day without accompanying, and to prevent the father from traveling with children in custody without her consent and obligating him to pay her an amount of 20 thousand dirhams that he borrowed from her.

The court of first instance ordered the mother to enable the father to see his children once a month, on Friday with the accompaniment, except for their sick child, as the vision is for her without accompanying, and on the second day of each holiday at the same time, under the supervision of the vision center, and assigning the mother to bring them and the father By returning them, preventing the children from traveling except with the written consent of the mother, and obliging the father to pay her 20 thousand dirhams, so the two parties appealed the ruling, and the court rejected the two appeals.

The father appealed the ruling, confirming that he violated Article 49 of the Evidence Law, and that the right to see had previously been decided by the Court of Cassation by a ruling that ruled his right to see on Friday and Saturday of every two months at the time specified, based on the existence of hardship to move him from the country in which he works to where you reside The incubator in the state, and that the ruling changed the timing of the vision without changing the circumstances, in addition to the fact that his daughter’s suffering was presented in the previous lawsuit and the previous ruling did not consider it effective.

The father also confirmed in his appeal that the Personal Status Department did not have jurisdiction to pay the amount of 20 thousand dirhams, which the mother claimed she had loaned him to, and that the court ruled to bind him to the amount without evidence of her claim.

And it relied on not attending the decisive oath without considering his presence outside the country.

The Court of Cassation affirmed in the merits of its ruling that the final rulings issued in the custody lawsuits, the right to see and what is attached to them, even if they are temporary, do not prevent the suit from being considered again, but that depends on changing the reasons and circumstances on which the previous judgment was based, indicating that the mother’s lawsuit She did not present anything new, and that what she raised about her commitment to the official working hours at her workplace does not prevent her from implementing the vision ruling.

It ruled again not to hear the lawsuit related to organizing the right of vision, and also canceled the court ordering the father to pay the 20,000 dirhams.

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