Appeals court docket orders divorced mother and father to pay their very own prices in custody battle – Eye Witness Information

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – A more than seven-year custody battle between the parents of two young children has ended with each side bearing their own legal costs, according to an appeals court ruling yesterday.

The Court of Appeal said the modern approach to costs in family lawsuits is that no costs should be ordered unless the parties display blameworthy conduct in the course of the litigation.

The lawsuits dating back to 2020 have always involved custody of the children and there has never been any allegation from either side that the children were being harmed in any way or that the children were not being adequately cared for.

Anishka Missick was named as the intended complainant.

She represented herself in the matter.

Her former husband, Larell Hanchell, who was named as the intended defendant, was represented by attorneys Miles Parker and Roberta Quant.

The couple, whose two children were aged 12 and 9 when the proceedings began, divorced sometime in 2014.

After the divorce, they were awarded joint custody.

Missick had primary care and control while Hanchell was given reasonable access.

At the time of the order, both parents lived on New Providence.

Missick remarried and was in the process of moving to Grand Bahama.

But the father pursued the matter through an ex parte application through the Supreme Court.

Instead of issuing an injunction preventing the mother from removing the children from New Providence, the ex parte order removed the children from the mother’s custody and gave custody to the father.

Missick appealed the order, and the Court of Appeals reversed the unilateral order and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for an adversarial hearing in another court.

The mother was successful in the appeal process, but the Court of Appeal did not issue a cost order.

In another ex-parte hearing on August 26, 2020, Judge Ruth Bowe-Darville ordered the mother not to remove the children from New Providence until further notice, stripped the children of their custody, and immediately gave the father full custody.

In an order dated September 7, 2020, the judge continued the August order until further notice.

The mother appealed.

But by the time the appeal was heard, the August 2020 order had been procedurally superseded by a September order, although the substantive provisions of the previous order continued.

While the court questioned whether Missick intended to maintain her appeal of the August 2020 order, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal and issued an order free of charge.

In his decision, Judge Sir Michael Barnett wrote: “In my view the intended applicant’s conduct in this intended appeal may be regarded as a procedural defect but does not reach the level of unreasonableness … so that an order on costs should be made against her.”

“The subject of these proceedings is and always has been custody of the minor children of the marriage.

“There has been no allegation from either side that the children are being harmed or in any way improperly cared for.

“The Court understands that it has not made a decision on costs in previous hearings of appeals relating to these parties and, notwithstanding the procedural error of the intended appellant, nothing reprehensible … occurred in this case.

“In my view, and considering the modern approach and the court’s duty to make a fair and reasonable decision on costs, I believe that each party should bear its own costs.”