```html 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 2 FAMILY DIVISION 3 CAUSE NO. FAM 177 OF 2013 (RMJ) 4 5 SC PETITIONER 6 7 AND： SR RESPONDENT 8 9 10 11 Appearances： Ms Vanessa Allard of Brooks & Brooks for the Petitioners 12 13 The Respondent in Person 14 15 Before： The Hon. Mr. Justice Robin McMillan， IN CHAMBERS 16 17 Heard： 31st May and 14th July 2016 18 19 Draft Judgment 20 Circulated： 4th Oct 2016 21 22 Judgment Delivered： 4th Nov 2016 23 24 25 Preamble 26 27 This Judgment is distributed on the strict understanding that in any report of this kind no 28 persons other than the counsel or the attorneys instructing them (and other persons 29 identified by name in Judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and， in 30 particular， the anonymity of the child and the adult members of the family must be 31 strictly preserved. 32 Hi The divirmonial Pro he princan pects of 33 34 ion of Matperty and the break-Tlas relevant 35 need， compensation and sharing- The equitable nature of Notional Occupational Rent -The of a cle 36 appropriate division of pension contributions paid during the course of the marriage. 37 38 ```
```markdown # JUDGMENT ## Introduction
The Petitioner's application is for a final determination of ancillary matters.
The parties have one relevant child and there are assets that the Court is requested to consider in order to make a final determination as to the respective interests of the parties. The Petitioner's position is that, of the assets, the property at Secret Gardens, George Town, Grand Cayman, registered in the joint names of the parties, and along with the relevant portion of a Roth Account her local pension, are matrimonial assets are and therefore subject to division along with a Roth IRS Account. The Respondent however disputes the scope of the assets and their apportionment.
The Petitioner seeks an Order as follows: (a) A declaration that her Merill Lynch and Wells Fargo accounts in the USA are not marital assets and therefore not subject to division. (b) That each party is entitled to 50% of the net equity in the property located at Secret Gardens, Fairbanks Road, George Town, Grand Cayman. (c) That the Respondent be ordered to pay the former matrimonial home and that this sum for notional rent be ```
```markdown # Judgment
set off against any sums ordered due and payable to him in particular, the value of his share in the net equity of the former matrimonial home.
(d) That the award of costs (and the sum for costs of CI $39,145.50 taxed by the Taxing Officer) per Order dated November, 2015, be set off against any sums ordered due and payable by the Petitioner herein.
(e) That the Respondent shall pay towards the Petitioner's legal costs for the Florida legal proceedings, in the sum of USD $13,000.
(f) That the relevant commuted portion of each party's pension be set off against the other.
(g) That any relevant commuted portion of the Petitioner's local pension be set off against the award of costs made against the Respondent, and
(h) That each party keeps the benefit of any and all bank accounts registered in his or her name.
(i) That the Petitioner is entitled to ½ the value of the Respondent's motor vehicle in the USA.
(j) That each party keep any other motor vehicle registered in their name.
(k) That the Petitioner be allowed to travel with the minor child out of the jurisdiction, for a period of two weeks, in July, 2016.
(l) That there joint residence of both the Petitioner and Respondent shall be a joint Order in the best interest of the child regarding
(m) The child shall spend his time with his parents in a 2-weekly cycle as follows: 161104 - S.C. v S.R - Judgment ```
```markdown # Court Order for Child Custody ## Week 1 - With the Respondent from Saturday morning at 11:30 am until Wednesday morning when the Respondent will drop the child off at Day Care/School. - With the Petitioner from Wednesday afternoon when she will collect the child from Day Care/school, until Monday morning when she will drop the child off to Day Care/School. ## Week 2 - With the Respondent from Monday afternoon after Day Care/School, until Wednesday morning when the Respondent will drop the child off to Day Care/School. - With the Petitioner from Wednesday afternoon when she will collect the child from Day Care until Saturday morning at 11:30 am, when she will drop the child off with the Respondent. ## Holiday Arrangements - (n) In the holiday periods, the child's time shall be shared equally between his parents. - (o) In addition to the above arrangements, The child's shall spend the following "special days" with his parents, as set out below: ### Special Days - (i) Canadian Thanksgiving: the child to be with the Respondent - (ii) American Thanksgiving: the child to be with the Petitioner - (iii) Christmas Eve: the child to be with the Petitioner - (iv) Christmas Day: the child to be with the Respondent - (v) New Year's Eve: the child to be with the Petitioner - (vi) New Year's Day: the child to be with the Petitioner - (vii) The child's birthday: Both parents to have time with the child - (viii) Mother's Day: the child to be with the Petitioner
(ix) Father's Day: the child to be with the Respondent
(x) Additional days when the child will be with the Respondent: March 26th, October 10th, November 8th and Divali (2 days).
(xi) Additional days when the child will be with the Petitioner: the Easter break period (Good Friday to Easter Monday inclusive) and 1 other day of her choosing each year.
(p) There shall be other arrangements for time spent by the child with the parties, as can be agreed.
(q) The child is to remain in Day Care.
(r) That the Respondent father shall pay 50% of the costs of the child’s school fees, directly to the school.
(s) A specific issue Order, that the Petitioner mother is to seek to enroll the child in a school within the Cayman Islands, as she deems appropriate. The child shall attend the school in which he is appropriately enrolled, in due course.
(t) A specific issue order that the Respondent father shall not be entitled to participate in the process of choosing the school to enroll the child.
(u) That once the child is enrolled in school, the Respondent father shall pay 1/4 of the child’s school fees.
(v) That the Respondent father shall for 1/2 of the minor 20 dental and expenses.
(w) The Prohibited Steps Order made against the Petitioner, shall be discharged. **Grand Court - Cayman Islands**
```markdown (x) The Prohibited Steps Order made against the Respondent shall remain in place. The Respondent is prohibited from removing the child from the Cayman Islands without the express written consent of the Petitioner, or in the absence thereof, without further Order of this Court.
In addition, it appears that the Respondent disagrees with the Petitioner as to her position in relation to (a) what assets are/are not marital assets (b) the distribution of the marital assets and (c) a further request for maintenance contribution from the Respondent towards the child’s school expenses.
The parties were married on 26 March 2010 and by December 2012 according to the Petitioner, or possibly until around July 2013, according to the Respondent, they lived together in the matrimonial home in George Town, Grand Cayman.
On 26 August 2013 the Petitioner filed her Petition for Dissolution of the Marriage on the grounds of the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour.
The Petition was contested by the Respondent. In a lengthy Judgment dated 10th August 2015, Mr. Justice Williams concluded at paragraph 86 that the Petition was proved. The learned Judge at paragraph 86 stated: "From the evidence, the wife has satisfied me at this hearing that any right-thinking person would come to the conclusion that the husband has behaved in such a way that" ```
```html 1 she cannot not be reasonably expected to live with him, especially when having regard to 2 the impact of his conduct on her. Having established this, when considering the history of 3 this marriage and the characteristics of the parties, I am satisfied that this marriage has 4 irretrievably broken down." 5 8. It is clear that relations between the parties on an ongoing basis present challenges both 7 for the Court and for the parties themselves. 9. The difficulties of the relationship have been compounded by an incident in July 2013, 10. when the Respondent unilaterally took the child with him to Florida without returning. 11 Subsequent legal steps by the Petitioner both in Florida and the Cayman Islands were 12 taken to rectify the situation, which was in due course rectified. 14 10. By Order of Mr. Justice Williams the learned Judge directed that the child be returned to 15 the Cayman Islands and that the Respondent facilitate this return. This is reflected in the 16 subsequent Judgment of the Court dated 9th September 2013, at paragraph 43. 18 11. Notwithstanding this troubled history, it is necessary for the Court to decide the ancillary 19 tters whichtstanding othe current d c 20 he facts annces of this only. ma remain oum the basis iples as app in that b. of oplied to td circumsta case, anasis 12. The Court notes that while the best interests of the child are of course paramount in 22 these matters, that does not appear necessarily to constitute a consideration of added ```
```html 1 complexity in the instant case, where the child resides with the Petitioner and 2 Respondent and the contact is shared. In approaching this matter the Court bears in 3 mind the relevant terms of section 19 & 21 of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 4 Revision). 5 6 The General Principles of Law 7 13. The Court of Appeal in the case of McTaggart v. McTaggart，2011 (2) CILR 366，states at 8 paragraph 40 that in relation to the Court exercising its ancillary powers that are three 9 strands：need，compensation and sharing. 10 14. In terms of approaching what are found to be matrimonial assets，there is a presumption 12 of equality although having regard to equitable principles in relation to need and inter 13 alia to compensation this presumption may be displaced. Likewise in appropriate 14 equitable circumstances，redistribution of non-matrimonial assets may become 15 appropriate in order to take account once again of need，compensation and sharing. 16 17 15. In the instant case the Respondent claims that he is entitled to such a variation in his 18 favour. 19 Reclaim as to lar issue ry to ceth 20 erefore beeding furth 21 spondent's this particussa 22 Therefore proceed it is 23 The Respondent's Evidence 161104-S.C.vS.R-Judgment
The Respondent's evidence as to ancillary financial matters is set out at paragraphs 18 - 24 of his First Affidavit re financial provision dated 23 May 2016. He states as follows:
"Statement of Means:
In support of the financial provision application, I submit this updated Statement of Means.
I am currently employed with Radio Cayman and my monthly salary is $3311. My mother has been assisting with monthly cash shortages.
My Outgoings:
Mortgage/Strata – Approx. $1800
CUC - $175
Water - $80
Telephone - $100
Food - $550
Gas - $50
Credit Card - $350
Life Insurance - $215
Car Insurance - $150
Total - $3470
In order to avoid litigation costs from a bank and the strata fee, I have had to negotiate a high strata payment because of her refusal to pay the back fees which she is responsible for running up." 161104 – S.C. v S.R – Judgment
```html 1 In my 5th Affidavit and submissions created with the assistance of my former attorney 2 Connor Fee, I laid out the financial position. In subsequent Affidavits I have submitted 3 further evidence to support these claims, namely a monthly budget created by the 4 petitioner which indicates our monthly outgoings when we were living together which 5 show that we were saving a significant amount of monthly funds. Further evidence via a 6 tabulation of the petitioner's bank withdrawals from her evidence which illustrate that 7 approximately $300,000 is missing from our marital assets. I ask that the court draw 8 inference that the petitioner is hoarding these funds in an undisclosed account. 9 21. The petitioner has claimed that these funds were spent on household expenses, however 10 has steadfastly refused to provide any receipts to support this claim. To reiterate from 11 previous affidavits, no upgrades were made to our home and the amount of missing 12 funds is greater than the value of our home. 13 22. Justice Williams makes note of this above evidence in his judgment that this should be 14 taken into account in the final ancillaries hearing. 15 16 To reiterate my position including the above referenced evidence, I am seeking: 17 a. Equal share in all property, bank accounts, investments, pension assets built up 18 during the course of the parties' relationship from April 2008 until September 19 202013 ha ling sign 20 b. I ask curt draw in ner is hoific 21 that the coference ttio ant cash assets in an undisclosed account, take consideration of the significant and ```
```markdown unexplained cash withdrawals of close to $300,000, to ensure that I am not prejudiced in the division of assets. c. I am willing to be flexible on who retains the marital home, subject to the other’s 50% interest being taken into account. d. A maintenance order for $1000 per month from the petitioner. e. I believe the capital split is a fair one, and in line with the law as set out in the submissions filed by my former attorney Mr. Connor Fee. f. In respect of maintenance, I have submitted a summons for the permanent removal of [the child], and should this be granted, the maintenance is to supplement our living expenses in the USA. This represents less than 20% of the petitioner’s monthly salary. Should the petitioner pay the maintenance of CI$1000 per month, she will still have a monthly income of CI$4200."
The Respondent’s principal source of complaint is that the Respondent has secretly withdrawn a sum of $300,000 from the bank, and that this constitutes missing matrimonial assets. There is no evidence before this Court of this sum being missing other than a basic assertion that this has happened, and the Court finds no reason to take this factor into account.
The Respondent disputes, for the purposes of calculating the duration of time that the parties’ marital relationship ended no sooner than July 2013, or perhaps later. In this regard, having considered the evidence of both the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Court
finds that as a matter of fact the relationship as such did end in December 2012, notwithstanding any subsequent attempts up to August 2013 until the Petition was filed to repair the relationship.
In addition, because as the Court understands it the Respondent is in more modest circumstances that the Petitioner with regards to his means the Respondent now contends that in terms of need, compensation and sharing the correct apportionment of all matrimonial assets should be upon a basis of 70:30 in his favour.
The Court finds that time is no proper or conceivable basis for approaching the matter in this way.
Far from giving each party an equal start on the road to independent living, what the Respondent proposes would expressly and unjustifiably contradict the fundamental principle of a clean break taking place. For the same reason, the Court rejects his submission as to him being awarded maintenance.
This was a short marriage and although during the course of it the Respondent spent some time at home while the Petitioner worked, I accept the Petitioner’s evidence that this was due to his temporary unemployment rather than due to a conscious plan that he should function as the “home maker”. Correspondingly as the Petitioner argues and as the Court accepts there is no evidence proved on a balance of probabilities that this period at home enhanced the Petitioner’s earning capacity or that it diminished the Respondent’s earning capacity. ```
```html 1 24. Therefore no exceptional circumstances to support the Respondent's contentions on this 2 specific aspect have been made out, so as to justify a division of all assets in 70：30 3 proportions, or indeed of matrimonial assets other than in equal proportions. 4 25. Having addressed this preliminary issue, the Court now turns to consider what is or is not 5 matrimonial property, and how the matrimonial property should be distributed in equal 6 shares. This primarily involves an analysis of the Petitioner's holdings, as explained in the 7 evidence. 8 9 The Evidence of the Petitioner 10 26. The Petitioner is employed as a Planning Officer at the Planning Department of the 11 Cayman Islands Government with a salary which is a little over CI$ 5，000 per month. 12 27. The history of these proceedings has been extremely contentious, and in the course of 13 the time the Petitioner has adduced a great deal of affidavit evidence. 14 15 16 28. In terms of the Petitioner's relatively more recent evidence, the Court takes note of 17 paragraphs 3-18 of the Petitioner's Eighteenth Affidavit dated 7 March 2016, as follows： 18 “My Present Financial Circumstances 19 That employee employed at the Planning Department of the 20 Cayman Islands Government with salary as 21 That my expenses are, more or less the same, save and except, that as I have 22 previously made clear in prior affidavits that I would not be able to indefinitely ```
```markdown pay the mortgage for the house, I have now simply stopped paying. That as far as I am aware, the mortgage remains in arrears, and has been so for some time. As well, the strata are in arrears, as I have also simply stopped paying on that.
That as far as I know, the Respondent has started making payments towards the mortgage and strata fees, however I do not have full details on the payments.
That I have not received any legal papers from the bank, so I do not believe that they have taken formal steps to foreclose on the property.
That I am unable to say whether the Respondent has received any such notice or other legal papers of any kind. If he has, he has not told me.
That I am setting out below, a list of my expenses, for the benefit of this Honorable Court: | Expenses | Amount | | --- | --- | | Rent | $850 | | Utilities | $150 | | Daycare | $650 | | Credit Cards | $800 | | Attorney | $1000 | | Mom Loan | $800 | | Insurance | $120 | | Internet | $75 | | Gas/Groceries | $400 | 161104 - S.C. v S.R - Judgment
That I am also attaching, as many receipts verifying these expenses that I can find, along with copies of some of my recent salary slips, and marking them "CS 1".
That based on an Order made by Mr. Justice Williams back in late 2014, when the respondent claimed that his salary could not support that then order against him to assist with the child’s day care fees, the maintenance order was discharged against him.
That as a result, since that time, I have borne the full brunt of the expenses for the child’s day care expenses.
**Respondent’s Present Employment Circumstances**
That the Respondent, has, since some time in or about September, 2015, has been employed with the Cayman Islands Government, in the position as Account Executive with Radio Cayman.
That although I have asked him to start helping out with [the child’s] day care expenses, he has steadfastly refused to do so. I have asked several times. Please see Exhibit attached for copies of letters between us on the issue as "CS 2".
That being a government employee myself, and since I have no other way of knowing what salary will most definitely not be sufficient to cover the expenses, and deeming it prudent to check with the government site for his position, the likely pay grade is between CI$39,732 and CI $53,436 per year, or
between CI$ 3,311 and CI$4,453 per month based on the attached information I
have downloaded, as "CS 3".
15. That it is clear therefore, that he has more than enough capacity to assist with
the child's day care expense.
16. That I need the help.
17. The Respondent as a parent has a legal and moral responsibility to assist with the
child's expenses, yet he is refusing to do so.
18. That I am therefore asking the Honorable Court do make an Order, as it did
before, that he assist with payment of 1/2 of the child's school fees, starting
immediately."
29. In the course of cross- examination the Petitioner claimed that the marriage broke down
in late 2012, and that the Respondent "deliberately failed to find work".
30. Notwithstanding this the Respondent asserts that there was never a unilateral decision
made on his part not to work: he resided at home to provide home-schooling for the
child and that on this issue, where they had previously been agreed, the Petitioner
subsequently changed her mind in mid-2013.
31. On these specific matters as to when the marriage broke down and its background, the
Court finds on a balance of probabilities that it accepts and believes the evidence of the
Petitioner, as Court has stated.
further point that school fees are now in this:
indeed there previously indicated
32. A note is that the child maintenance which she is seeking is for half of that ongoing
monthly sum. ``` **161104 - S.C. v S.R - Judgment** ```html 161104 - S.C. v S.R - Judgment ```
The Matrimonial Assets
The Court has received from the respective parties detailed and extensive submissions and evidence in relation to a varied group of potential matrimonial assets. It is disappointing that these assets, in keeping with many other aspects of this case, give rise to such irreconcilable and extensive disagreements. The Court will now set out the position as it pertains to each asset, and the conclusions at which the Court has respectively arrived. As the Court had previously indicated, it accepts and applies the principles of equality of shares. ## Matrimonial Home A. The former matrimonial home is located at Secret Gardens, George Town, Grand Cayman. Subsequent to the Court’s Draft Judgment being circulated, it has been brought to the attention of this Court that the matrimonial home is now subject to an offer to purchase, agreed to in the sum of C.I $180,000. The details are set out in the Twenty-First Affidavit of the Petitioner dated 13th October 2016, the contents of which the Court accepts as true. Following payment of the outstanding balance on the current mortgage of C.I $161,929.72 and of the balance owed on applicable strata fees the net proceeds will be C.I $755.34. The half share of each due to the Petitioner and the respondent respectively is C.I $377.67.
Notional Occupational Rent B. Following the departure of the Petitioner from the matrimonial home, the property has subsequently been occupied up to at least last June 2016 by the Respondent living alone. Therefore in respect of this period the Petitioner claims a total notional occupational rent of CI $54,356.48 less payments on the mortgage and strata fees of CI $8,087.31. The net claim is therefore for CI $45,769.17. Reliance is placed upon G v. G, 2010 (1) CILR 365, where Henderson J states at paragraph 4 that some occupational rent should still be payable in light of the fact that the husband there continued to reside in the matrimonial home after his wife had left. As a principle of law, I entirely accept the learned Judge's pronouncement. In the present circumstances, however, I also must have some equitable regard to the relative financial circumstances of the parties. The Respondent has made some effort to mitigate the consequences of the marriage breakdown by paying such outstanding amounts as he could, and for him to be liable for an additional CI $45,769.17 or even a portion of it would be unduly onerous. It is clear from the cited authority that Henderson J was able to exercise a judicial discretion in any event, and accordingly the Court in the exercise of its own discretion considers that it would ultimately be inequitable and unfair to make the award proposed and the Court declines to do so.
Public Service Pension Plan ## C. The Petitioner's contribution during the period of her marriage, for the duration which the Court has now determined, is $18,900.00. That period was from 26 March 2010 until December 2012. The Respondent has however alleged that the calculation should be based not on contributions being but rather upon the whole asset value of the pension. It is clear from P.H.R.S. v. S.D.S., 2004-05, CILR, Note 10 that the Respondent's proposition is entirely erroneous. There Henderson J held that the pension asset is not the whole pension but only a percentage of its commuted value calculated by dividing the amount of the total contributions into the pension fund during the marriage by the number of those contributions to the date of trial. In other words, the emphasis is on contributions *per se*, and not on the whole value of the pension. Accordingly the Respondent's 50% shall be 50% of the value of the asset contributions amounting to CI $9,450.00 only. ## Petitioner's Roth IRS Account and Rollover Account and other related Accounts ## D. As the Petitioner describes the position in her Eighth Affidavit, dated 7th August 2014 and adopts evidence, at paragraph 50 thereof, this Roth account is 410-15763. It was far before she met the Respondent or indeed married him. This is a Merrill Lynch account. I accept that during the period of the marriage, as the Court has found that period to be,
```markdown her actual contributions amounted to US $7,000. Therefore in terms of equal shares the Respondent’s entitlement is to CI $3,500 or CI $2,940.00. It should perhaps be added that although the Petitioner also had a further Merrill Lynch Rollover Account No 410- 15765. However, from the time the Petitioner’s marriage took place there have been no additional contributions made by her. I therefore accept on the basis set out at paragraphs 48-55 of her Eighth Affidavit that the balance in the account never became a matrimonial asset, nor was it ever intended to be, and the Court accordingly concludes that it is not a matrimonial asset. Finally in this regard, the Petitioner has identified further accounts and at the Bank of Butterfield, Cayman National Bank and Wells Fargo Bank which have minimal balances. The Court accepts that it is fair and equitable that, such as they are, they remain as the Petitioner’s non matrimonial property. The Court takes the same view of the minimal balance in an E Trade account. Invoice for Legal Services in US Proceedings E. As the Court has previously indicated, the Respondent’s misguided intention to retain the child with him in the United States have been amply described in the relevant judgment of Williams J. his highly 'conduct' re:Petitioner having to oceedings t of Florida. stated at 97 in distressing culled in thengage in ie legal prn the Court As the fas of her Eighth Affidavit, she was "forced to pursue the return of my son in these proceedings." ```
This episode resulted in the Petitioner incurring an invoice for legal services in these proceedings in the sum of US$ 13,527.25, or CI $11,362.89. As she states at paragraph 99, this put her in significant debt. Therefore both as a reflection of the Petitioner’s need and by way of compensation for this expenditure, provoked by the Respondent’s own actions, the Court considers that this sum should be fully set off against what would otherwise be the Respondent’s notional share of matrimonial assets, reducing that share proportionately. Petitioner’s Loan from her Mother of US $20,000 F. This loan was obtained by the Petitioner in relation to the covering of family expenses. She claims that they are attributable in part at least to the costs and expenses incurred in resolving the issue as to the child’s mandated return from Florida. While the Court accepts that the loan occurred, nonetheless it cannot be shown on a balance of probabilities that this loan was attributable, either directly or indirectly, to the Respondent’s actions in relation to him improperly keeping his son for a period overseas. Therefore in the absence of the necessary degree of transparency the Court declined to offset the particular sum against whatever funds and assets may be fairly designated to the Respondent. Respondent’s Property At Sundance Trails, U.S.A
The Respondent purchased this property located in the United States prior to his marriage. There is no clear evidence that during the marriage it was the common intention of the parties to treat the asset as matrimonial property. Nonetheless, for reasons which are not entirely clear, the Respondent requests the Court to regard this property as such. In the absence of there being any probative and satisfactory evidence as to the Respondent’s contentions the Court declines to treat this asset as matrimonial property. Motor Vehicles The parties own 3 vehicles, a 1997 Jeep Wrangler, a 2004 Jeep Wrangler and a 1999 Honda Civic. By consent, the parties have agreed that these are not matrimonial assets, and therefore they will remain as at present with the respective parties. Costs of Petition Hearing A Default Cost Certificate against the Respondent dated 5th August 2016 has been entered, in the sum of CI$39,145.50. As the Petitioner has pointed out in her written submissions, the Respondent has not appeared in the matter, and therefore the Petitioner is entitled to the sum of CI$ 39,145.50 as a default order. The Respondent should be set off, once again, against such funds and assets as may be owned by the Respondent.
Final Apportionment of Matrimonial Property
In light of the individual findings which the Court has already made, the Court concludes that a total amount of C.I $38,118.39 is owed by the Respondent to the Petitioner. For the avoidance of any doubt on the matter, the Respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home, the Public Service Pension Plan and the Roth IRS Account are extinguished. # Maintenance for the Child of the Marriage
In relation to the current school fees of C.I $750.00 per month, the Court has been informed that for some time the Petitioner has been paying exclusively for all these ongoing educational expenses. Beyond a contribution towards these fees, the Petitioner does not seek any additional child maintenance. Bearing in mind the Respondent’s respectively modest financial in circumstances in relation to those of the Petitioner and so taking it that no intenance is being so 20 onsiders thd reasonab Respon Pe ainto accouradditional ught, the C tion by tler maourt cat a fair an le contrihe etitioner should be set in the sum of C.I $300.00 per month. This sum will be due for payment on or before the 28th of each month, beginning in November 2016. 161104 – S.C. v S.R – Judgment
Orders in Relation to the Child
In light of the very troubled history of this matter, and in particular the Respondent's misconceived behaviour towards the child's welfare, the Petitioner's requests for directions in accordance with (i) - (x) above are granted, subject to my specific direction as to school fees at paragraph 35. ## Costs of the Hearing
The Court has considered and taken into account the submissions of both parties as to the matter of costs of this hearing, as set out in their written arguments. As the Petitioner has prevailed, the Court considers that the Petitioner's costs in the circumstances of this case should be paid by the Respondent on the standard basis. Accordingly, the costs of and occasioned by the proceedings are so ordered. **The Hon. Mabin McMillan** **T. Justice Rcan** **Judge of the Grand Court** **Grand Court**