By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

A WOMAN has been ordered to compensate her ex-husband $21,600 after the Supreme Court ruled in his favour when it was revealed that the couple’s youngest child was not biologically his.

Justice Juanita Denise Lewis-Johnson issued the ruling after a 47-year-old man — whose name is being withheld to protect the identity of minors — filed a civil suit against his ex-wife.

The man, referred to as the petitioner, said hat he married the woman, the respondent, on June 17, 2001. He claimed that after their marriage, the respondent managed his finances and opened a joint account to share their resources equally.

The petitioner said the couple had three children during the marriage. However, after conducting a paternity test in December 2022 on the youngest child, he discovered the child was not biologically his.

After informing the respondent through an affidavit, she requested another test, which was completed on April 28, 2023, at Kelso Medical Laboratory. It confirmed once again that the petitioner was not the child’s father.

The petitioner claimed the respondent admitted to having conversations with another man during their marriage, and he alleged that she committed adultery and willfully misled him about the child’s paternity for 12 years — a deception he said benefited her financially.

He asked the court to order the respondent to reimburse him $300 per month for those 12 years, asserting that his income supported the child’s upbringing.

He also submitted that he took out a mortgage for their matrimonial home in 2005, which was recently appraised at $538,470. He claimed he primarily financed the home’s purchase and its subsequent renovations.

The petitioner further alleged that the respondent misused their joint account to fund a “lavish” lifestyle, including regular restaurant outings, beauty supplies, tuition payments for her sister in the US, monetary gifts to her brother, and unauthorised appliance purchases for a co-worker.

He claimed the respondent said she paid $10,000 for a phase of the home’s construction, but no work was ever done, forcing him to cover that portion of the renovation himself. He asserted that the respondent contributed only $12,000 in total to the property.

The petitioner also said his ex-wife encouraged him to continue working two jobs to support her lifestyle, even as he suffered from an injury to his right arm and shoulder. He eventually left his second job in 2023.

According to the Public Hospitals Authority, his continued work prevented proper healing.

He noted that the respondent works three jobs — as a taxi driver, insurance agent, and straw vendor — and has no physical or mental health issues that would prevent her from seeking child support from the child’s biological father. The petitioner currently works as a butcher.

The respondent, however, claimed the home was appraised at $428,670 and said she paid the mortgage and conveyance fees. She said she and the petitioner had agreed that he would cover the mortgage and groceries, while she handled the children’s medical bills, utilities, school and babysitter fees, and family savings.

She said she had just $1,212 and $12.29 in two separate bank accounts and listed weekly expenses of $4,435.33, compared to the petitioner’s $1,823.50.

In response to the $10,000 construction dispute, the respondent claimed she had withdrawn $22,225 in 2018 to pay a roofing contractor — who never completed the work — allegedly at the petitioner’s instruction. She said he made no effort to recover the funds and only contributed $20,000 toward the home addition.

She also claimed to have taken out a $20,000 loan in 2019 to complete renovations and spent $25,000 on labour alone from her personal funds. She is currently in default on that loan and repays $500 monthly.

The court found that while the petitioner did contribute significantly, the respondent also used her own finances to help maintain the home. As such, the court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to 60 percent interest in the home, while the respondent holds 40 percent. The petitioner has 120 days to buy out the respondent’s share; if he fails to do so, she will have 120 days to buy out his. If neither party succeeds, the property will be sold, and the proceeds divided accordingly.

Regarding the paternity fraud, the court found the respondent to be “untruthful” and described the extent of her deception as “unsettling”. The judge said the respondent only told the truth under the threat of perjury, at which point she withdrew her application for custody and maintenance of the child.

The court found the respondent “deceived, defrauded, and misled” the petitioner about the child, noting lab results showed a 0 percent chance of paternity. It held that the respondent had an obligation to determine the child’s paternity, given that she engaged in unprotected sex with both her husband and another man during the same period.

The justice said the petitioner should have been given the opportunity to decide whether to accept the child as his own but was instead deceived for 12 years. The court found it unfair that the petitioner, who had loved and raised the child, must now live with the emotional burden of the truth and would be reminded of it whenever asked about the child’s well-being.

While acknowledging the petitioner did experience joy in raising the child, the court awarded him half the compensation he requested — a total of $21,600.

The respondent was also ordered to pay for the child’s therapy, as the court determined the minor was experiencing a loss of identity and would be emotionally devastated by the petitioner’s absence, having known him as a father figure.

The petitioner was discharged from all parental responsibility for the child. The Registrar General was instructed to amend the child’s birth certificate to remove the petitioner as the legal father.

The court ruled that the two older children are sui juris.

Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay one-third of the petitioner’s legal costs, to be taxed if not agreed upon.

Raynard Henfield represented the petitioner.

Regina Bonaby represented the respondent.