Re Burns

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 May 1980
• Docket Number: Inferior Appeal No. 55 of 1980
• Date: 13 May 1980

Supreme Court

Moe, J.

Inferior Appeal No. 55 of 1980

Re: Burns

Mr. E. A. Marshalleck for the plaintiff

Mr. G. Arzu for the defendant

Family law - Custody — Three orphaned children — Applications by both grandparents for custody — Custody granted to the respondent grandparent who lived close to the school and the environment in whose home was considered better for the children — Custody to respondent with access to applicant.

Moe, J.

1 This is an application by Violet Evangeline Burns of May Pen Village, Belize District, Belize for an order that Stanley, Yvette, Gaylan Jr. and Wilfred Gillette (hereinafter referred to as “the Infants”) be delivered to her custody. The respondent Lucinda Gillette of Crooked Tree Village, Belize District, Belize, seeks an order that the infants remain in her custody.

2 The evidence is contained in the affidavits filed on behalf of both parties. Except for a statement from Violet Burns and her daughter Daisy Swasey as to their ages, no oral testimony was given.

3 It appears from the affidavits that the infants have neither father nor mother alive. On the 23rd December, 1979 the father of the infants shot and killed their mother and later in the said day also shot and killed himself. The applicant alleges that the infants' father on the said 23rd December, 1979 a little before he killed himself said to her “Please take care of all those children for me.” From that fatal day, the infants were then in the custody of the applicant until the 27th December, 1979 when the respondent took away the infants from the house of the applicant who was not at home at the time. The respondent claims that the Infants' father wished her to care for the Infants as members of her household if anything happened to him.

4 The guiding principle in cases of this nature is clearly set out in section 25 of the Infants Ordinance Cap. 186 which provides as follows:- “Where in any proceeding before any court the custody or upbringing of an infant …. is in question, the court in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration …..”

5 That principle is applicable whether the case involves a claim of parent against parent, or of parent against stranger or stranger against stranger. The crucial words of the provision are “the court, in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration.” In the case of J and another vs C and others ...