By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge shut down a father’s bid to cast his estranged wife’s same-sex relationship as a moral threat, saying he had no credibility while openly carrying on an adulterous relationship that produced a child.

“While this court accepts that the wife's lifestyle is not the ideal situation for the children, she has demonstrated to the court that she has a much greater interest in the welfare of these children,” Justice Hope Strachan wrote in a detailed ruling released this week that granted the couple joint custody but awarded care and control of both children to the mother, who the court found had consistently provided the only stable and structured environment the children had known in recent years.

The father, a boat captain who works between Eleuthera and Abaco, argued in his affidavit that the children, particularly his six-year-old daughter, were being exposed to an “LGBTQ lifestyle” that was immoral and harmful. Beyond voicing disapproval, however, he offered no evidence that the mother or her partner behaved inappropriately in front of the children.

Justice Hope Strachan pointed out that the marriage had collapsed because of his own affair with the woman he now lives with in Abaco and with whom he has a child, adding that his moral objections were “akin to the biblical admonition ‘He that is without sin cast the first stone.’”

The judgment emphasised the stark contrast in how each parent approached their daughter's day-to-day needs. The father’s affidavit mentioned nothing about her schooling, health, activities, or routines beyond his concern about sexual orientation. The mother, by contrast, provided comprehensive details of the child’s life: that she is enrolled in preschool and ballet, that she meets all grooming and educational costs, and that she takes her on trips and ensures consistent structure.

She said the girl returned from a long visit with her father last summer with a fungus in her hair that required medical care, which she attributed to his neglect. The judge described his attention to the child as “negligible” and said the condition of the child’s hair after her stay with him showed clear signs of insufficient care.

Much of the dispute, however, centred on the couple’s 14-year-old son, whose recent emotional struggles have alarmed both parents but whose decline the court found the mother had taken far more seriously. The father insisted the boy thrived academically while living with his grandparents in Long Island in 2019, listing a series of accomplishments. He maintained that the move back to New Providence caused the boy’s behavioural issues, citing a school bus fight in which the boy was struck with a bottle and a photograph in which the teen posed with a gun that belonged to a family member of the mother. He claimed New Providence was a “hostile” environment and said the boy had no extracurricular activities there.

The mother, however, said his suicidal thoughts and self-harm attempts began in Long Island and that none of this was communicated to her until months later. She said the child admitted he had attempted suicide with a kitchen knife while in his grandparents’ care. She further alleged that the father exposed the boy to heated altercations with his partner in Abaco, one of which left the child having to sleep in an airport.

According to her affidavit, the boy was also exposed to discussions about miscarriage and abortion, to sex toys and masturbation, and engaged in explicit conversations with other children after learning such material. She said he witnessed domestic abuse while with his father. The father did not provide detailed rebuttals to these claims.

In contrast to the father’s focus on the boy’s academic performance, the mother documented extensive steps taken to address her son’s psychological needs. She engaged psychiatrists and doctors after learning of his suicidal behaviour, worked with his school’s dean and guidance counsellor, enrolled him in  various clubs and programmes, blocked inappropriate content on his devices, placed him in multiple sporting groups and took both children to a Family Island to provide emotional balance.

Justice Strachan said the mother had “turned over every rock” to get help for the child, while the father focused only on academics and made no effort to support therapeutic intervention even after troubling incidents such as the gun photograph.

The father asked the court to place the children in his care so that they could live in Long Island with him and his parents, saying he was willing to relocate if necessary. The court found this proposal unrealistic. As a boat captain, he works between islands, and if he moved to Long Island, he would be unemployed and “totally dependent” on his parents. The judge said it appeared the father intended to rely heavily on his parents to raise the children, and that his job’s instability made his plan unsuitable.

The ruling also addressed finances, noting that the father’s contributions to the children were “inadequate and sporadic,” including his failure to consistently pay the $500 monthly ordered on an interim basis. The mother, who earns $2,000 a month, said she spends beyond her income due to the children’s needs and receives some assistance from her partner and family. Neither party asked the court to impose a specific maintenance figure; both said expenses should be shared, though the judge noted the mother had not itemised the children’s costs separately from her own.

After reviewing the evidence, Social Services assessments, and a report from the National Parenting Programme that both parents completed, Justice Strachan ordered joint custody, with the mother receiving care and control of both children. The father was granted liberal access, including shared holidays and alternating birthdays, and both parents must equally share travel, educational, medical, dental, optical, and lunch expenses. The court declared that these arrangements were “the best that can be devised in the circumstances” as required by law.

In the end, the judge’s ruling made clear that the father’s attempt to anchor his argument in moral objections to the mother’s sexuality carried little weight against the overwhelming evidence that she has been the parent who consistently shows up, makes decisions, seeks professional help, maintains structure, and pays attention. Whatever either parent’s lifestyle, the court concluded, the welfare of the children rests most securely in the home where their daily needs are actually met — and that is with their mother.