Read the full judgment text of FCMC 000174/1974 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 6 August 1975 before Judge Jones, D.J..
Family law – custody – divorce – welfare of the child – adultery – District Court – Petitioner – Respondent – Co-Respondent – Mark Lewis – Peak School – Berkhamstead School – In re Thain [1926] Ch 676 – J v C [1970] A.C. 688 – B v B – Custody awarded to Petitioner – Reasonable access to Respondent – Costs against Respondent – The Petitioner sought custody of the child Mark Lewis born on 30 June 1968 following a decree nisi of divorce granted on 17 August 1974 based on the Respondent's adultery with the Co-Respondent. The Respondent left the matrimonial home in September 1973 and lived with the Co-Respondent until January 1975. The Petitioner has had de facto custody and the child attends The Peak School. The parties agreed in September 1977 that the child would attend Berkhamstead School in England. A report from the Director of Social Welfare revealed the child has no preference for either parent but enjoys living where he is and does not wish to change his school. The Court considered the authority of In re Thain [1926] Ch 676 and J v C [1970] A.C. 688 regarding the rule that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. In B v B it was held that where a mother committed adultery and disrupted the home the wishes of the father could be taken into account. The Petitioner is an unimpeachable parent while the Respondent's adultery is the cause for the breakdown of the marriage. Balancing the interests of both parents the Court is satisfied that the interests of the Petitioner prevail over those of the Respondent. The welfare of the child being the paramount consideration it is in his best interests to remain with the Petitioner. There will be an order for custody of the child in favour of the Petitioner with reasonable access to the Respondent. Costs against the Respondent.
Legal issues: Custody determination
Outcome: Custody of the child awarded to the Petitioner with reasonable access to the Respondent.