Bladon v Bladon

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Hanschell, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 December 1960
• Neutral Citation: BB 1960 HC 30
• Docket Number: No. 42 of 1957
• Date: 01 December 1960

Supreme Court

Hanschell, P.J.

No. 42 of 1957

Bladon

and

Bladon

Appearances:

Mr. E.W. Barrow for Petitioner instructed by Messrs. Hutchinson & Banfield.

Mr. J.S.B. Dear for respondent instructed by Messrs. Carrington & Sealy.

Family law - Custody — Principles governing grant.

Hanschell, J.

1 In this matter three applications have been heart together. They are as follows:–

1

An application by the petitioner for an order for maintenance for the infant, William Joan Smith Bladon; 2. An application by the respondent for an order for access to the said infant; 3. An application by the respondent for an order revoking the order by which custody of the said infant was granted to the petitioner and for such other order as to the judge shall seem meet.

2 On the 6th September, 1957 the petitioner presented her petition for dissolution of the marriage and custody of the children of the marriage. This petition was not defended and the respondent did not enter an appearance. On.25th October, 1957 the petitioner obtained from this Court a decree nisi on grounds of the Respondent adultery and custody of the infant, William John Smith Bladon, born on the 16th August, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the child). The decree was made absolute on the 13th December, 1957. In January, 1957 the petitioner took the child to England with her and on the 6th June, 1957 she placed him in the care of Doris Marie Gurr in London and returned to Barbados without him. At the time when the order for custody was made, the child was, in England and has not since returned to this Island. 0f the three applications the first to be filed was that for maintenance of the child. This was followed by the application for access. During the hearing of these two applications together, the order for maintenance was resisted on behalf of the respondent on the ground that the child was not in the care and control of the petitioner, that he did not know where the child was or indeed whether it was alive or dead. It was also contended on his behalf that the petitioner had refused to inform him of the child's address in England and that his efforts through the English Police and other bodies there had failed to disclose the child's whereabouts. The petitioner claimed that the child was alive and that she did not disclose its address because she feared that the respondent would try to take it away if she did so. She was anxious to bring the child to Barbados, within the jurisdiction of this Court and had expected to do so a few weeks after her return to this Island in 1957, but did not have the money for the fare. At my suggestion counsel on both sides examined the possibility of the respondent providing the necessary fare for this purpose. As a result of this the respondent provided an airline ticket and the petitioner agreed to bring the child to Barbados. The child was to travel to Barbados early in January, 1959. He did not come. On the 10th January, 1959 the child left Doris Marie Gurr with whom the petitioner had placed him in June, 1957 and went to live with the respondent's sister, Joyce Helena Lee and her husband at a farm in Sussex, without the consent or approval of the petitioner. The circumstances of this change are, on the evidence, far from clear and very much in dispute.

3 This evidence consists of affidavits and exhibited letters, and undated medical certificate and a cable. I have not seen the deponents of the affidavits, nor is it possible for me to do so as they are in England. The child in question is not within the jurisdiction, of this court and it is extremely doubtful that he will be brought within this jurisdiction in the near future. Although this Court is the court of domicile, it is possible, that a court of competent jurisdiction in England, where the child resides, may have to decide the question of custody and control of the child at soma future date. In so doing such court may take into consideration the circumstances of the changa of control of the child in January, 1959. The deponents of any affidavits filed in such proceedings would be able to appear if required before such court in England.

4 For these reasons and for the reasons which will appear herein below, I make no finding of fact of the circumstances of the said change of control abovementioned.

5 Since the 10th January, 1959 and up to now the child has been living with his aunt, Joyce Helena Lee and her husband at Little Buckswood Farm, Crawley, Sussex, England.

6 The first and paramount consideration for this Court is the welfare of the child. This principle hardly requires authority but see Tolstoy...