I write with deep concern regarding matters presently affecting families who seek redress through the Antigua Family Court. While I firmly believe in the fundamental purpose of the Family Court — to safeguard the welfare and best interests of the child — there are troubling circumstances that merit open and balanced discussion.

The court system plays an essential and necessary role when a parent neglects financial or parental responsibilities. In such cases, court intervention is both justified and beneficial. Where a father or mother fails to provide for their child, legal enforcement ensures that the child does not suffer due to parental delinquency.

However, concern arises in situations where a parent — particularly a father — has voluntarily and consistently assumed financial and emotional responsibility for his child without the need for court orders. There are fathers who work multiple jobs, provide educational opportunities such as private schooling, cover school supplies, uniforms, meals, and extracurricular expenses, and remain actively involved in their children’s lives. These efforts are undertaken willingly and without dispute.

Yet in some cases, disputes rooted in unresolved personal conflict, resentment, or emotional discord between former partners escalate to court proceedings. When such matters are adjudicated strictly through fixed financial orders, the unintended consequence can be a reduction in voluntary support previously provided. A father who once exceeded expectations may feel compelled to comply only with the specific court mandate — nothing more, nothing less.

In one such case, a father who had been fully funding his child’s private education was taken to court for additional weekly support and shared expenses. After the order was granted, the father complied precisely with what was stipulated. However, the mother was unable to fulfill her portion of the shared financial obligations. As a result, the child withdrew from private school and faced unnecessary hardship — including limited school provisions. In this situation, the true cost was borne not by either parent, but by the child.

This raises an important question: when court proceedings inadvertently disrupt a child’s stability and standard of living, who is held accountable? If the guiding principle of the Family Court is the best interest of the child, then outcomes that diminish a child’s welfare deserve careful reflection.

It is not a matter of assigning blame to mothers or fathers as a group. Rather, it is about ensuring that the system does not unintentionally discourage responsible parents who are already exceeding their obligations. The court must remain vigilant against the potential misuse of legal processes as instruments of personal grievance, while continuing to protect children from genuine neglect.

Family Court decisions carry profound consequences. They should not only enforce fairness but also preserve and encourage voluntary parental commitment. When a parent is actively supporting, nurturing, and providing beyond what is required, the system should strengthen — not weaken — that dynamic.

Ultimately, the focus must always remain on the child. Any process that results in a child’s educational disruption, reduced stability, or emotional strain deserves thoughtful reconsideration. A balanced, child-centered approach — one that holds all parents accountable while also recognizing genuine effort — is essential to achieving true justice.

Respectfully,
A concern father