TOGOE VRS. AGYARE (A6/02/2021) [2024] GHADC 653 (19 December 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT ‘1’ HELD AT ADENTAN SITTING BEFORE HER WORSHIP NANCY A. ADADE ON THURSDAY THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 WITH MADAM EUPHEMIA ASAFO AND MADAM PATIENCE MANKO TETTEH AS PANEL MEMBERS. SUIT NO. A6/02/2021 MICHAEL TAGOE APPLICANT OF 24 MARINA STREET LAKESIDE ESTATE VRS PATIENCE AGYARE RESPONDENT OF MAMORLEY ______________________________________________________________________ TIME: 8:36A.M. PARTIES: PRESENT JUDGMENT The applicant herein filed an application for custody on 26th August, 2020. Respondent did not file any process but was duly represented by her lawful attorney; her biological mother who was heard viva voce. Along the line, this suit was struck out in June 2021. However, the respondent’s lawful attorney filed a fresh suit against the applicant herein in 2024 praying for custody of the child. The court observed that although the suit of 2020 had been struck out, the facts and parties are the same and for the court (differently constituted) to be ceased with the facts, relisted the struck out suit and ordered for a fresh Social Enquiry Report to be prepared. Page 1 of 4 Enquiries were made and the brief facts we gleaned from the enquiries are that; the parties were in an amorous relationship out of which came a girl child who is now 8 years old. The applicant first denied paternity of the child and asked the respondent to abort same but upon both families’ intervention, the child was born. Since the birth of the child, there have been misunderstandings between the parties and especially between the applicant and the mother of the respondent. The respondent had custody of the child until she travelled to London to work when her mother took over the care of the child. The applicant was given access from time to time but owing to the usual misunderstanding between the applicant and the mother of the respondent, the applicant refused to return the child when he had access to her during the Christmas holidays of 2023. He then enrolled the child in school and ever since, the child has been in his custody denying access of the child to the mother of the respondent. The applicant therefore prays for the court to confirm this existing custody arrangement and he insists that since he is not on good terms with the respondent’s mother, he cannot grant her access to the child but he will only grant access to the respondent anytime she is within the jurisdiction. He further says that he allows the respondent to call the child often. The court ordered for a Social Enquiry Report which was prepared by Probation Officer Noah Nartey and filed on 8th August, 2024. It was observed by the Probation Officer that the child did not look cheerful at the time of the visit but she spoke fluently. The Social Enquiry Report further revealed that per the child’s terminal report, she was punctual in school. It also revealed that people interviewed indicated that the child is reserved but articulate. The child in dispute was also interviewed in accordance with Section 11 of the Children’s Act, 1960 Act 560 and she expressed her desire to live with the applicant because she enjoys his food and appreciates the games he plays with her. Also, she stated that the applicant assists her with the required therapies as she is diagnosed with scoliosis. The Social Enquiry Report further recommended that custody of the child be granted to the applicant with reasonable access to the respondent’s mother. Page 2 of 4 This tribunal hereby adopts the recommendation of the Probation Officer because in accordance with Section 5 of Act, 560, the law states that “no person shall deny a child the right to live with his parents and family and grow up in a caring and peaceful environment unless it is proved in court that living with his parents would lead to significant harm to the child or subject the child to serious abuse or not be in the best interest of the child”. Hence, in accordance with the above law, it is the right of the child to live with the applicant, his biological father. However, since the applicant and the respondent’s mother do not see eye to eye, this tribunal can only impress upon the conscience of the applicant to allow the respondent’s mother (grandmother of the child) access to the child from time to time in furtherance of family values. The parties shall do their best to reconcile whatever differences between the applicant and the respondent’s mother because whatever the case may be, the parties are family. Per the totality of facts and evidence on record and in the best interest of the child, this Family Tribunal holds as follows; CUSTODY Custody of the child is granted to the Applicant. ACCESS 1. The respondent shall have access to the child by calling the child including video calls from time to time in order to develop a mother-daughter bond. 2. The respondent shall have physical access to the child whenever she is within the jurisdiction of Ghana. Page 3 of 4 SGD H/W NANCY A. ADADE MAGISTRATE SGD MADAM EUPHEMIA ASAFO PANEL MEMBER SGD MADAM PATIENCE MANKO TETTEH PANEL MEMBER Page 4 of 4