AR v JR

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Hanna-Adderley, J
• Judgment Date: 02 September 2022
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: 2016/FAM/div/FP/00088

Between

AR

Petitioner

and

JR

Respondent

Before:

The Honourable Justice Petra M. Hanna-Adderley

2016/FAM/div/FP/00088

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Appearances:

Miss Constance Mcdonald KC along with Mrs. Tashana Wilson for the Respondent

Petitioner appears Pro Se

Ms. Jodie Burrows for the Department of Social Services

RULING

Hanna-Adderley, J

Introduction

1 The parties were married on October 11, 2008. The Decree Nisi was pronounced by this Court on November 30, 2016 in favour of the Petitioner on the ground of the Respondent's cruelty. The parties have one child, namely, JSR, born on November 4, 2006 (“JSR” and “the minor child”) now 15 years old. She will be 16 on November 4, 2022. Or November 27, 2019 this Court approved and entered as an order of the Court a Consent Order agreed by the parties which was filed herein on November 27, 2019. The Certificate of Making Decree Nisi Absolute was filed herein on May 29, 2020. The Petitioner has since remarried.

2 The Respondent relies on his Summons for Variation and an Affidavit in Support filed July 26, 2022; an Ex Parte Summons for an Injunction filed July 27, 2022; the Supplemental Affidavit filed August 26, 2022 and the Second Supplemental Affidavit filed September 2, 2022. The Petitioner gave viva voce evidence and both parties were cross-examined. The Petitioner filed no pleadings.

3 It will be useful to set out the chronology of events thus far. This Court heard and determined an Ex Parte Summons for an Injunction on July 27, 2022, as a result of which the Petitioner was restrained from removing JSR from the jurisdiction. On August 2, 2022, the Court heard the parties inter partes. The Petitioner, her husband AM and their minor child AM were at that point with relatives in the State of Florida. At that hearing the Petitioner alleged that the Court had placed the child at a dangerous and unsafe place, that is, with the Respondent. The Court directed the Department of Social Services to conduct an investigation on an urgent basis into the Respondent's living environment and the matter was adjourned to August 17, 2022. The Petitioner returned to the jurisdiction on or about August 7, 2022 and within days she and the Respondent were interviewed and an investigation carried out by Ms. Jodie Burrows, Chief Welfare Officer with the Department of Social Services for the purpose of determining whether JSR was in a safe place.

4 On August 17, 2022, Ms. Burrows provided the Court with an Oral Report during which she stated that she had conducted a home visit at the Respondent's home situated at No. 6D Indiana Gardens and found it to be quite suitable. That it was initially a two bedroom, 2 bathroom condominium. That JSR has her own bedroom that is adequately furnished. That she has always had her own bedroom there. That the home was in good condition. That the Respondent's son “J” returned from Switzerland and he is now living in the home as well. The Respondent had a loft made for his son so it is now a 3 bedroom, 3 bath unit. The Respondent owns the condominium.

5 Ms. Burrows also had the opportunity to speak with JSR separately from her father, and she voiced some concerns. That initially she was interested in going to Canada with her mother, as was planned. But there were now concerns about whether she would be attending school when she got there. That the Respondent's concern is that JSR is not going to be placed in school, that there was no provision made for her to attend school. However, JSR wants to remain in Grand Bahama with her father.

6 That the Petitioner raised some concerns as it related to the Respondent's alleged substance use. The Respondent and JSR volunteered to do a drug test. The Petitioner also alluded to the Respondent allowing JSR to smoke marijuana. However, the test results revealed that there is no substance use by either the Respondent or by JSR. The Petitioner subsequently left the jurisdiction without notifying Ms. Burrows but the day before the hearing they did discuss perhaps that she should search for family members who would be able to assist her in housing JSR in the interim.

7 Ms. Burrows stated that the Respondent and the Petitioner informed her that the Respondent was aware of the plan to relocate. That it was the Respondent who informed her that he was the one who took JSR to do the biometrics for her to travel to Canada with her mother. That the Respondent said he became concerned because he did not know what the school situation was like, for example, whether or not JSR was going to be able to get into school once she arrived in Canada. That he was aware that the Petitioner did not have an apartment at that time and that was a concern. Ms. Burrows stated that the Petitioner had informed her that she and her family were staying in an Air B & B. That she was not prepared to pay monies for an apartment that she had not seen. That once she got into Canada, she would have secured suitable accommodations. That she has a realtor who was looking for suitable accommodations to accommodate her family.

8 Ms. Burrows concluded that the Department's findings at that particular point in time was that JSR was safe. That the home was conducive and that JSR had no challenges with staying with her father.

9 The Petitioner stated that she had already put in some paperwork for the accommodation that she preferred. That the application had to go through a process with the credit report and some “other stuff”. That she had already dealt with the bank and had put the rental funds on an account. That once the paperwork is signed, they are going to get the payment for five months rent ahead of time. That all of that was in the works. That she was meeting with the realtor again that day so that they could go over some of the final paperwork. That this move was not just “up and move” and that the Respondent was aware of the move. That the only issue that came into play was when she went back at him about the arrears in child support and that he promised that he would have everything together for the move. That instead of paying the weekly child support, he would give it in one payment in June. That the parties had no issues prior to June. That the Respondent owed her $30,000.00 in Child Support.

10 The Petitioner stated that there was no immigration status issue. That the only thing she was waiting for was for her husband to get a visitor's record for two years and that they would apply for his work permit in the country. That in about two weeks he should have a work permit. That he was a tugboat captain and that there were jobs lined off. That she was a college student. That she was given 20 hours to work per week. That JSR has approval and will get an actual Permit when she goes through to Canada. That AM had her actual permit. That the Petitioner has immigration status in the country for two years.

11 The Petitioner went on to say that the Respondent would have made that agreement (the Consent Order) because he would have just gotten out of rehab for the second time again; and because his parents had stated that they would pay the school fee and the insurance. That they came to that agreement because the Respondent has never been stable. That for the past 4 months he has been doing a whole lot better. That even though he was dealing with drugs, lock-ups and fights she still allowed him access to JSR. That the only time she had stopped him was when she found out he had her smoking weed in the home. That she told him he had to come by the house and see JSR. That JSR was not spending the night with him. That the Respondent does not pay her school fees or insurance. That his parents do that because they know he is unfit.

12 The Petitioner also stated that in regards to the monies that he said he would give her for the move, he decided to build a loft. That the Respondent has not had any of his children. That Mrs. Wilson would have represented her and she would have known that information when they went into Court but now they want him to appear to be a super dad when she has been carrying the burden of everything. That her daughter is 15 now and he has just been active in her life for the past 4 years. That she buys everything for school, pays for her needs, for all activities. That he has just gotten involved in her soccer playing. He only knows her school grades when she forwards hem to him. That every single thing that happens with her daughter she deals with. The Respondent would come and take her out to dinner or go to the beach, but that is it. That she is constantly asking the Respondent for maintenance and it is really unfair that she is before the Court now, as the person who was the parent for 15 years, being questioned.

13 The Petitioner stated that her daughter now has Instagram since she has been by her dad, which she has not been allowed to have when with her. She is on Instagram in a two-piece bathing suit and G-string on, dropping her location. That he dropped her to the beach with her boyfriend that she now has, to an unsupervised beach party, with an 18 year old. That this is the lifestyle he is allowing JSR to have and that is why his access to her has been limited. But for the past 4, maybe 5 years, he has been trying to go in the right direction so she has been giving him some more leeway. So, her concern is the constant day to day care. She asked the Court to ask JSR what is being posted on Instagram, to ask her if she is being dropped places unsupervised with an 18 year old boy. That he has also taken JSR over to this 18 year old boy's home.

14 The Petitioner stated that the Respondent is a fisherman who goes off for two, three, four weeks at a time. That he has never been active in her life. He pops up when he comes in and she still allows JSR to go with him. That she is trying to be a decent parent but now he is being projected as the parent he never was. That...