Justice Evrol Mariette Peters took the view that there was no material change in the circumstances to justify allowing the application of the biological mother, identified as MON.
“Section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act explicitly mandates the court to prioritise the welfare of the child in its deliberations.
“This principle serves as the ‘golden thread’ interwoven throughout all proceedings, directly influencing the interests of children,” she said in her 21-page judgment released after hearing the parties involved.
In 2019, the court granted custody, care and control of the illegitimate child to her father, anonymised as MIL, who passed away in 2022.
Last year, MON and the child’s half-sister, identified as GEL, applied to vary the court order to gain custody of the child.
GEL challenged the application by MON and applied for custody instead as the girl had remained with her biological father’s family, while contending that the biological mother was not fit to raise her.
GEL is a daughter of MIL from a previous marriage. Both GEL and MON are the same age, at 38.
The father entered into a romantic relationship with MON in 2010, and the girl was born in January 2012.
MIL then purchased a two-storey semi-detached house and MON, the child, GEL, and two siblings relocated to the family home.
They lived together until December 2018 when MON left the home and, as a result, the father was given guardianship and custody on April 29, 2019.
Peters said the father’s death did not automatically mean that custody of the child would revert to the mother as the court must still look at the welfare of the child, which was the paramount interest.
She said the half-sister had convinced the court that she was in a position to look after the child while history showed that she had been the 12-year-old’s mother figure all along.
“It remains undisputed that GEL continued providing financially for the child’s needs following MIL’s demise,” the judge said, adding that GEL had taken proactive steps, even securing an insurance savings policy for the child’s future.
Peters added that the mother’s lifestyle and history showed that it would be inappropriate for her to raise the child.
She said MON, a single mother responsible for supporting her son from a previous relationship, had also failed to disclose her monthly salary and employment details.
Peters said she had used her discretion in deciding not to interview the child as the mother had tried to brainwash the minor into making allegations of sexual abuse against her deceased father.