George v George

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop, J
• Judgment Date: 21 June 1978
• Neutral Citation: AG 1978 HC 18
• Docket Number: 36 of 1974
• Date: 21 June 1978

High Court

Bishop, J.

36 of 1974

George

and

George

Anderson Archibald for the plaintiff.

John E. Fuller for the defendant.

Family law - Custody — Application for custody by father of 8 year old girl — Mother's life unstable — Child entertaining apprehension about living with mother — Custody permanently given to father with access by mother.

Bishop, J

1 The parties before me were married on the 18 ^th October 1969 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and five months later their daughter Jeriann was born.

2 The marriage was short lived. In December 1972 Jacqueline George filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, and on April 9 ^th 1973, decree nisi was pronounced in her favour. There was an Order granting her custody of the child, then about 3 years old. On the 20 ^th December 1973 the decree nisi was made absolute.

3 The Order for custody gave Kenrick George access to the child Jeriann; and it would seem that for a short time all went well.

4 On the 4 ^th June 1974 Kenrick George, the plaintiff herein, filed a summons under the Guardianship of Infants Act in which e sought from the High Court an Order that (1) the defendant be declared unfit to have the custody of the infant, and (2) the Order of the Court dated 9 ^th April 1973 giving custody of the said infant Jeriann George to the defendant be discharged, and that custody of the said infant Jeriann George be given to the plaintiff. That summons was heard on the 28 ^th February 1975. Nedd, J. did not declare Jacqueline George unfit to have custody of the infant, as was specifically sought, but he made an Order that Kenrick George should have custody of the said infant for six months, that Jacqueline George should have access weekly, that the child was permitted to spend no more than two days twice a month with her mother; and it was further ordered that the above should be reviewed in six months from that date. But it was not until 20 ^th September 1977 that this Court was approached again. A summons was filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein he sought- inter alia — to have the Order (made on the 28 ^th February 1975) “reviewed to grant permanent custody of the infant to the plaintiff and that such part of the said Order as permits the defendant rights of visiting or control be discharged.” Alternative relief was set out in the summons but from the way in which the applicant was presented and on the evidence adduced in support of it, it became evident that the alternative relief was not being pursued. If I am wrong to so hold, it will suffice to say that there was not sufficient evidence before me from which I could have properly granted any such relief.

5 Now hearing of the summons began on the 27 ^th October 1977 on which date counsel for the defendant stated that the defendant had left the State with the child; and he sought and was granted leave to withdraw from the matter. Further hearing was adjourned sine die and it was ordered that a date be fixed on the written application of the plaintiff's solicitor.

6 Hearing resumed on 1 ^st March 1978. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the defendant, and after hearing counsel for the plaintiff I made an Order in which custody of Jeriann George was granted to Kenrick George pending the completion of the hearing of the summons or until further order of the court. I made it clear too that access of Jacqueline George would continue as previously ordered.

7 On the 12 ^th April 1978 when the summons came...