IN 1975 Divorce Petitioner Maria Ault was not only successful in her divorce petition against her husband Cecil Ault but she also got custody of her eight children.

And, she was granted leave by Justice Aubrey Collins to take the children out of the jurisdiction to the United States of America.
A late application by the respondent husband, Cecil Ault, to have a variation of the Order to exclude the child Anthony, who was still in his possession, was refused by the Court.
There was no order as to costs.
The respondent Ault was also cited for Contempt of Court for failure to hand over custody of one of the children to petitioner in disobedience of the Court Order.
The applications were heard together because they both dealt with substantially the same matters.
Counsel for the petitioner objected to the respondent being heard because he had disobeyed an Order of the Court by not handing the one child over to the wife.
Justice Collins held that :(1)The respondent was clearly in contempt of court, but the fact that a party to a cause had disobeyed an order of the court was not of itself a bar to him being heard where the disobedience did not impede the course of justice.
(2) In deciding the question of custody and upbringing of a child, the Court should have regard to the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. Having regard to all the circumstances, the child should grow up in the society of his brothers and sisters.
(3)Custody of the child granted to the petitioner with leave to take all the children out of the jurisdiction to the United States of America.

Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Stanley Moore represented the petitioner, while Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C appeared for the respondent.
Justice Collins delivering the judgment said: “These proceedings concern the children of the marriage of parents now divorced from each other. In the divorce proceedings instituted by the wife, the husband did not appear and a decree nisi was granted to the wife by Justice Rudolph Harper on June 13, 1975 on the ground of malicious desertion and she was also granted custody of the eight children of the marriage.”
The present proceedings arose from two applications. Firstly, on June 24, 1975 the wife filed an application for leave to take the children out of the jurisdiction to the United States of America, and for an Order that the husband deliver one of the children of the marriage, who he still had in his possession, to the wife. The husband filed an answer. This was fixed for hearing on November 15, 1975 before Justice Harper.
Secondly, on September 19,1975 the husband filed an application seeking a variation of the order of Justice Harper made in the divorce proceedings on June 13, 1975 to exclude the child, Anthony. In other words, the husband should be excused from delivering Anthony to the wife.
The wife filed an affidavit in answer. On October 28, 1975 during the hearing of the Chambers list, fixed for December 3, 1975 for the hearing of this application. Later, on October 28,1975 Mr. Moore, counsel for the wife requested that both applications be heard at an earlier date as the wife was travelling to Guyana early in November for a limited stay, and would be available to give evidence.
Accordingly, with the consent of Justice Harper, notices were sent out that the matter would be heard before on November 5, 1975.
Justice Collins said in deciding the question of custody and upbringing of a child, the Court should regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. But paramount does not mean exclusive.
“I have had to consider whether Anthony should be left with his father and he would have one of the eight children of the marriage, or whether Anthony should be with his mother and thus grow up with his other brothers and sisters, Justice Collins explained.
He added: “I have had to consider whether the children should be allowed to leave Guyana perhaps for good and never to know their father or whether they should remain here and probably grow up without a mother.”
“In all the circumstances, I decided that Anthony should go into the custody of the wife so that he can grow up in the society of his brothers and sisters and that the wife should have leave to take all the children out of the jurisdiction to the United States of America.”
Application was granted to petitioner with no order as to costs.
Written By George Barclay