Cupid (Nee Young) v Cupid
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Henry, J. |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | VC 2017 HC 41 |
| Docket Number | SVGHMT 2015/0085 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Date | 26 April 2017 |
High Court
Henry, J.
SVGHMT 2015/0085
Mr. Jomo Thomas of counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Nelleen Bute of counsel for the respondent.
Family Law - Children — Maintenance — Custody — Whether joint custody ought to be granted — Whether both parties ought to provide for financial needs of children
Mr. Kaschaka Cupid and Mrs. Taja Cupid are in their mid-30s. They married in 2010 [5th June] and a decree nisi of divorce was pronounced in 2015 [By decree nisi dated 19th October]. It has not been made final, The Cupids are the parents of two girls — Kaleeja Destinee Shadae aged 6 and Kalaya Rasheeda Zeporah aged 4. Mrs. Cupid (‘the mother’) petitioned the court 3 for an order for joint custody, care and control of the children. She claimed that Mr. Cupid (‘the father’) had stopped making contributions towards their care.
Mr. Cupid acknowledged that he discontinued making monetary payments to Mrs. Cupid for the girls' benefit. He reasoned that he wanted to ensure that Mrs. Cupid did not spend those funds on herself. He accepts that he and Mrs. Cupid both have a mutual obligation to maintain the children and he intends to fulfill his responsibility. He contended that Mrs. Cupid has restricted his access to the children and he sought an order for maintenance of the children. On the trial date, he belatedly sought sole custody. The parties are awarded joint custody of the children with primary care and control to the mother and reasonable access to the father.
The sole issue is what order should be made for Kaleeja's and Kalaya's custody, control, care and maintenance?
Mrs. Cupid included an application for joint custody, care and control of the minor children in her petition [Filed on 27th August 2015]. She and Mr. Cupid filed affidavits of means in which they chronicled a number of unpleasant interactions between them and other members of their respective families. They included which is disregarded totally.
The parties were invited to arrange for the children to attend court on 10th April, 2017 which they did. This was solely to gauge whether the children appeared to be suffering from any obvious physical or other trauma arising from the acrimony described in the parents' affidavits. At the hearing, Kaleeja and Kalaya were well groomed and interacted with both parents equally. They presented as normal children of that age with no signs of physical distress. The parties were encouraged to seek counselling as a family unit to address any underlying emotional issues. They both indicated a willingness to do so.
A trial at a later date, was conducted to determine what arrangements should be made for the children's educational, medical, financial, living and related needs. Both parents relied on their affidavits as their evidence in chief and were cross-examined.
In evaluating their testimonies and making a determination, the court's main concern is the child's best interest. [The Law of Minors Act, Cap. 232 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009] Neither parent has a superior right or authority to custody or upbringing of a child [Ibid. at section 4 of the Law of Minors Act]. The court must take into account the child's financial needs, resources and earning capacity; income, property; physical or mental disability; the manner in which she was being or was expected to be educated or trained by the parents; and the standard of living the family enjoyed before the breakdown of the marriage. [Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap. 239 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009 (‘the Act’), sections 34(2), 64 and 65; the Law of Minors Act, Cap. 232, of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009, section 12 (1)]
The court must also have regard to the parties' respective ages, incomes, earning capacities, properties and other financial resources; their needs, obligations and responsibilities; whether either suffers from any physical or mental disabilities; their respective contributions to the family's welfare and the length of the marriage. It also looks at the value of any benefit which either party will lose from the breakdown of the marriage.6 The court also examines the parties' behaviour towards the child and each other to decide what arrangements best cater to the child's needs.
As far as reasonably practicable and just, when making its decision, the court seeks to ensure that the child is placed in the position she would have been had the marriage not broken down, 6 and if each party had properly discharged his or her financial obligation towards her.
Mr. Cupid is 34 years old. He is a civil servant, employed as Assistant Comptroller at the Inland Revenue Department. Mrs. Cupid is also a public servant and works within the Ministry of Education as a social worker. She is 35 years old. Public officers are employed up to at least age 60 unless they resign or are terminated. Both Mr. and Mrs. Cupid are therefore assured of security of tenure unless their current employment ends prematurely. They are expected to contribute to the National Insurance Scheme and from which they will receive benefits at the qualifying age. All things being even, their earning capacity is therefore not in doubt for the foreseeable future.
Mrs. Cupid currently earns a gross monthly salary of $4,166.00 while Mr. Cupid grosses $5,263.00 per month. They each own vehicles. Mrs. Cupid is the registered owner of a 1991 Toyota Starlet while Mr. Cupid owns a 2000 Nissan Terrano Regulus Jeep. Mrs. Cupid estimates the value of her vehicle to be roughly $12,000.00. She ascribed a value of $50,000.00 to the vehicle owned by Mr. Cupid. Mr. Cupid gave no indication of his vehicle's worth. Mr. Cupid shares ownership of two acres of land with Kitaka Cupid and Nneka Cupid. Mrs. Cupid has no similar holdings.
Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Cupid provided any details about any bank accounts, investments or other property or resources owned by them. Mrs. Cupid alleged that Mr. Cupid operates a thriving dog breeding business which he denied. He explained that he once kept dogs and sold their offspring, but has since discontinued that activity as they are now too old to reproduce. Mrs. Cupid claimed that her monthly expenses exceed her income by $2,222.00. She alleged that her outgoings include a monthly sum of $295.00 paid towards Mr. Cupid's tertiary studies which he has not completed. Mr. Cupid countered that the student loan has been paid off with his assistance and that Mrs. Cupid is in actuality now repaying an earlier loan obtained to pay for wedding related expenses.
Mrs. Cupid catalogued her monthly expenses in a list exhibited to her affidavit. She claimed that she pays $750.00 in rent; $50.00 for telephone; $150.00 for electricity; $40.00 towards gas; $50.00 for water and sewerage; $130.00 for Internet and cable; $320.00 for vehicle loan; $110 for insurance and licensing; $250.00 for fuel and maintenance; $187.00 for NIS payments and $106.00 for life insurance; $550.00 for groceries and dining out; $90.00 for entertainment [Videos/DVD, movies and miscellaneous]; and $2,395.00 towards student loans, and credit card payments.
She attributed $530.00 towards the children's needs comprising $100.00 for medicals; $50.00 for clothing; $50.00 for tuition; $30.00 for school supplies; $50.00 for lunch; $200.00 for child care and $50.00 for toys and games. She did not include a separate figure for their meals. I infer that this sum is incorporated into the family's grocery bill.
Mr. Cupid claimed that his monthly expenses exceed his salary by $1,061.00. He attributed $748.00 towards rent; $321.00 towards a second mortgage or rent; $100.00 for telephone; $150.00 for electricity; $50.00 for water and sewerage; $460.00 for fuel and maintenance; $186.00 for NIS, $121.00 for health insurance and other unspecified insurance; $400.00 for groceries for the children; $100.00 for clothing for the children; and $731.00 towards a personal loan and credit card payments.
Mr. Cupid tendered an assortment of photocopied receipts in respect of groceries, clothing, school and miscellaneous expenses. He did not produce certified copies or originals. They were not stamped as required by law [Stamp Act, Cap. 440 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009]. They were not admitted into evidence and therefore not independently considered as part of the case. Mrs. Cupid did not rely on any such documentary evidence.
I accept that Mrs. Cupid has outstanding student loans and that both parties have credit card debts which they are actively servicing. Neither disputed that the other has such obligations which seem reasonably commensurate for persons of their ages, stage in life and income bracket. They did not disclose any savings although Mr. Cupid alluded to some bank account of Mrs. Cupid's to which he had access for a brief period while she was studying.
I have no reason to doubt that they both maintain bank accounts for the usual transactions attendant with modern lifestyles. They would not have been able to obtain credit card facilities without such accounts. I therefore infer that they do. Their failure to reveal that part of their portfolio attracts a certain negative imputation for the simple reason that it appears that they wish to be less than frank with the court. I so infer. While it appears that they might be both a little over-extended financially, they can be expected to pay off those debts within the short to medium term by taking simple steps to bring some of their recurrent expenditure to more realistic levels.
Mr. Cupid acknowledged that he has not contributed...
To continue reading
Request your trial