Peacock v Peacock

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J
• Judgment Date: 05 February 2001
• Neutral Citation: AI 2001 HC 2
• Docket Number: 67 of 2000
• Date: 05 February 2001

High Court

Saunders, J.

67 of 2000

Peacock

and

Peacock

Appearances:

The plaintiff in person.

Mrs. J. Gumbs-Connor for the defendant

Family law - Children — Custody vested in parents jointly with care and control in mother — Serious allegations made by children against father — Father denied access until further order.

Saunders, J

1 The parties to these proceedings went through a bitter divorce in or about 1998. There are three children of the marriage now aged 7, 10 and 11 years respectively. The first two are girls.

2 In 1998, custody of the children was vested in the parties jointly with care and control to the mother. The Community Development and Welfare Department of Anguilla was ordered to supervise their progress. Since then there have been ongoing disputes between the parties in relation to these three children. On 16th June, 2000 it became necessary for the court to make an Order reaffirming Mr. Peacock's rights of access and restraining Mrs. Peacock from hindering that access. The Social Welfare Department was by that order ordered to “prepare a report on the children's welfare and schooling and circulate same to both sides”.

3 On Friday 6th October, 2000, Mrs. Daphne came to my Chambers with a Report on the children. The latter were scheduled to spend that week-end with their father. The Report, dated the said 6th October, speaks for itself. I thought the allegations made therein against Mr. Peacock sufficiently serious to make an Order ex parte denying Mr. Peacock further access to or visitation with the children until further Order. I fixed a return date for the following Friday.

4 On the return date, by which time Mr. Peacock had had sight of the Welfare Report, Mr. Peacock stated that he would like to investigate himself the matters raised in the Report. Mr. Peacock is convinced that the Anguilla Welfare Department and particularly Ms. Daphne Hodge, the relevant case officer, are biased towards him. Mrs. Hodge had premised many of her findings on an interview with the children. In light of this Mr. Peacock offered to have experts of his own choosing make a full physical and psychological evaluation of the children. After hearing Mr. Peacock I found no good reason why I should vary my ex pane order of 6th October. I did however consider that Mr. Peacock should be facilitated in having an opportunity to challenge the basis upon which the Order was made. In my presence the parties discussed the possibility of having a local psychologist, Dr. Linda Banks, examine the children and report to the Court. Ultimately, Mr. Peacock did not agree to this proposal and I was reluctant to make such an Order over his objections especially as he was being required to fund the exercise. I therefore ordered that the ex pane Order should remain in effect save that Mr. Peacock should be permitted access to the children for the purpose of taking any or all of them, at his expense, to be examined by competent medical experts.

5 The parties were again before me on 15th December pursuant to a summons filed by Mr. Peacock to discharge the non-contact Order. In...