WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE FAMILY TRIBUNAL?
Several times since its inception those using the Family Tribunal have come out of the building, shouting or muttering under their breaths that the institution is “bankal”, hence the question “What is wrong with the Family Tribunal”?
A look at a typical application and the ensuing order will suffice to explain why it is indeed “bankal.” Joe Gouni (The Applicant) files an Application for Custody of Minor Children in which he says that he and Jane Doe (The Respondent) cohabited for 4 months and that he has a 6 month old child with Jane, called Mary Doe. He also states that he and Jane separated one year ago and that Mary is in the care and custody of the Respondent.
He goes on to say that he “feels” that Jane’s “environment is not conducive for the upbringing” of Mary and that he is “desirous” of being “granted legal custody of the said child.”
This Application is served on Mary who is summoned to appear before the Family Tribunal approximately 6 weeks from the date the Application is filed. When Jane appears, she shows the tribunal Mary’s birth certificate and she tells them that Joe is not the father and they have no right to summon her to appear before them “Lo en aplikasyon kouyon.” Asked whether she knows Joe her response is, it is precisely because she knows him that he is not Mary’s father. Why she asks, would she have such a drug addict and alcoholic man of no fixed abode as the father of her child?
Despite Mary’s outburst, the Tribunal orders there and then that Joe can have “day access on alternate Saturdays commencing on the first Saturday following the order,” despite the fact that the Applicant had only “prayed” for “sole legal custody” with no alternative prayer for “access”
If the principle to be adopted prior to making any order is “the best interest of the child” should the Family Tribunal not require that where the basis of the Application for access or custody is paternity that the Applicant satisfy it at the very least that his paternity has been established before the appropriate court rather than simply accepting as proof of paternity a statement that “we the parties have a child together.?” Before granting Joe “day access” is it not in the best interest of the child for the Social Services to investigate and ascertain whether any of the things said about Joe being an alcoholic drug addict, of no fixed abode, are true? Even assuming that Mary had admitted Joe’s paternal claim should the statement about his substance abuse not be investigated prior to making any orders?
There is real need for the Secretariat of the Family Tribunal to look into the procedures adopted, to preclude allegations of undue influence whether financial or otherwise being exerted on members and employees of the Family Tribunal so as to obtain a desired outcome.