Levers J
IN CHAMBERS
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CAUSE NO: D129/2003
BETWEEN:
ANDREW CROWE
Applicant
AND:
SHREEENE CROWE
Respondents
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice Levers
Appearances:
Mr. D. McGrath of Samson & McGrath for the Applicant
Ms. S. Brooks of Brooks & Brooks for the Respondent
Heard: 22nd August 2007
JUDGMENT
Levers, J.
The Applicant in this case Shreene Crowe was given a custodial sentence for causing grievous bodily harm to the Petitioner Andrew Crowe. This Court subsequently gave judgment as to custody, care, control and access based on the fact that the mother was going to be in prison for a considerable number of years. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence
and therefore the mother has now been released. She has been out of prison for approximately 9 months – 1 year. She now applies to the Court to be granted access to the children of the marriage, namely Ashley and Matthew for the full summer holidays in the year 2007 and subsequent to that be granted defined access. By the time this Court was seized of the matter and the hearing date was set, the summer of 2007 had passed. I have now got the task of considering whether the children should spend a week as offered by the Respondent at Christmas with the mother. The children are at present with their father in the United States of America. They are apparently settled and there are no allegations of discomfort or any harm to the children. The welfare of the children therefore is not in question. What is in question is the safety of the children while with the mother.
The mother is bi-polar, she is receiving treatment and has been since she was a child. Apparently for the past few months she has been compliant. She is now in full time employment and the Court saw both her sisters who gave sworn evidence at the Court’s request. The Court is of the view that the sisters are less strong than the Applicant. The Applicant is an extremely strong person, who undoubtedly loves the children but in the
Court’s view hates their father. The father, I believe is also of the same view, which is why he refuses to come back to the Cayman Islands. He is willing to ensure access to the mother and is willing to send the children to visit the mother as long as her sister Mrs. Walmsley is the guardian of the children, while the children are here. The father appears to have more faith than the Court. I am of the view that I cannot deny access to the mother but am extremely heavy hearted in making any access order at this time. Especially in view of the fact that the Applicant, Mrs. Crowe, clearly stated on more than one occasion to the Court that there is no correlation between the bi-polar and the attack upon her husband. She says it is because she could not contain herself anymore and was extremely angry. The Court asked her if she would go for anger management and she said she would not because she has got the full benefit of anger management.
On one occasion after she said that she showed the Court exactly why the Court was anxious to have her attend anger management counseling. She walked out of Court in a rage. Her Counsel tried desperately, as did her family, to make her at least pretend that she was calm but they did not succeed. Having seen the behaviour in this Court and reviewed all the
evidence I am extremely concerned about the safety of the children.
However as the father seems to be willing to trust the aunt I rule as follow:
(1) That the children are to spend a week in December with the mother on condition that the mother’s sisters Mrs. Walmsley and Ms. Lisa Clarke supervise the children’s visits with their mother at all times;
(2) That Mrs. Walmsley and Ms. Lisa Clarke sign an undertaking that they will not leave the children alone with Mrs. Crowe while they are in the island;
(3) That the children will spend one day with their friends;
(4) That they are to reside with Mrs. Walmsley and sleep nowhere else
(5) That the Applicant is not to cross examine the children as to the fathers lifestyle or say anything derogatory about their father to them;
(6) That their passports are to be kept by their aunt, Mrs. Walmsley;
(7) That Mrs. Crowe attends anger management counseling commencing forthwith.
(8) That prior to access the sister, Mrs. Walmsley, checks with the doctors to see if Mrs. Crowe is taking the medication on a regular basis and that both sisters sign undertakings that they will inform
the Court or their attorney immediately they are unable to comply with the Order.
(9) Penal Notice.
It is hoped by the Court that the children will be able to visit their mother regularly if this period of access succeeds. There is no Court in any jurisdiction in any part of the world that would condemn a mother eternally for even the most violent actions if in fact the Court believes that she is rehabilitated and is resolving the issues that caused her to nearly take the life of one whom she was married to. I must add that when the Court made the initial order as to access, it was of the view that Mrs. Crowe would be in prison for a number of years. Now that Mrs. Crowe has been released it is imperative that the Court review the entire access order at the earliest convenience.
Having permitted access, the question of payment for the tickets is to be considered. In a former judgment of this Court, it was ruled that Mr. Crowe and Mrs. Crowe would share the cost equally. It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Crowe alone paid for the first two access visits. I
therefore order that for this access visit the cost of the children's tickets to the island is to be paid for by Mrs. Crowe alone.
No order as to costs.
Dated this day 6th September 2007
Judge of the Grand Court