April 4, 2002

Dear Sir,

Sad to say, I am not surprised by this outcome. I am referring to the story on the front page of The Royal Gazette on March 28, 2002 which was written by Karen Smith.

A mere observation, the story goes much deeper, suffice to say. The heart of the matter is that, the father was raising and caring for his children and labouring, here in Bermuda, to put his spouse through college in the United States. The mother returned to Bermuda, filed for divorce and remarried, simultaneously trying to rekindle her relationship with her children.

The mother applied to the court to uproot the children to another school closer to her. The father, concerned for educational continuity, was against the application, as they were doing so well in the present school and to relocate would be destructive. He was supported by a principal and other educators and counsellors. The judge allowed the children to move on the understanding that there would be no more disruption.

However, that was not enough! The mother applied to the court to leave Bermuda with four children to enhance her education. Two judges and Social Services ordered that a report from the USA be conducted, in order to protect the welfare of the children. However, a third judge allowed the removal of the children in spite of no international report and ignored the local study that would not interfere with vital interaction with both parents. A "stay of execution" was refused in spite of the USA schools not being up to the standard ordered by the court or claimed by the mother, further a specialist advised against air travel due to an ear infection. The mother flew the children away the very same day.

Further, may I also interject "The Childrens Act of 1950" to make known, as to what consideration the court should be taking, and whose best interest should be of paramount consideration.

The Act reads as follows:

The Children Act of 1950 section (6): Welfare of minor is first and paramount consideration. Where any proceedings before any court the custody or upbringing of a minor, shall regard the welfare of the minor first and paramount consideration. And shall not take into consideration whether from any point of view the claim from the father, in such custody, upbringing, administration or application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father.

Section (7): Equal right of mother to apply to court:-

The Mother of a minor shall have the like powers to apply to a court in respect of any matter affecting the minor as are possessed by the father.

What happened to the father, most importantly, the children's rights? Whose best interest was of paramount consideration? What double standards!

Rightfully, no child should ever be denied the right to know and love two caregiving parents (except in abused situations) and secondly, no parent should be denied his or her parental rights without conclusive evidence that the exercise of those rights is destructive of the child.

This story and many like it, are infested in society some known, some not, many swept under the rug and hopefully the vacuum will suck it up, hoping that the garbage conceals the problems. However, our children are showing the effects. Society must be made aware of the enormity of the situations that father's face after divorce, as it is in denial, and preferably brings forth the negatives of fatherhood, with no mention of the injustice done to them. How, can father's/visitors instill good into children, while, spending only forty-eight days per annum, allowed by this current system, holding the view point that, the father's wallet is more important, fixing anything broken.

COURT OBSERVER

Pembroke