The proceedings that was intended to establish whether the Civil Law Court at the Temple of Justice should allow Sidikie Musa Bility (plaintiff) to take permanent custody of his minor children could not be heard on Thursday, July 8, due to lawyers representing the kids’ biological mother, Warti Robinson’s (respondent) failure to file their response to the Bility's lawsuit on time.
Prior to the divorce proceedings between the couple, Warti filed to the court a lawsuit, wherein she sought temporary custody of her two sons (names withheld), which the court granted her.
Warti then argued that, without her consent, her husband at the time, Sidikie Bility, was in possession of the kids and he refused to allow her to have access to them. Sidikie denied the accusation at that time and is seeking the court’s approval for him to take permanent custody of the children.
While postponing the permanent custody case on Thursday, after Warti's lawyers could not answer Judge Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay’s question regarding the filing of their response, Judge Gbeisay took time to explain to the lawyers the matter that it involves the interest and well-being of innocent children.
Therefore, Judge Gbeisaye admonished the lawyers that, “This court is interested in going into the detail of it so that its judgment or opinion can be based on an informed information.”
Gbeisaye also openly informed the plaintiff’s lawyers that the respondent's lawyers had just filed the response, but he had not received the documents when he postponed the case.
The plaintiff’s complaint, filed on his behalf by Cllr. Micah Wilkins Wright, argues that the respondent was involved in another affair, which is not favourable to his children and that is for their emotional, psychological, mental and physical health, stability, wellbeing, safety and security.
Therefore, according to Sidikie, it is only proper for the court to award permanent custody of the children to their biological father (Sidikie).
The plaintiff further argued that the respondent does not have the financial capability to take care of the children, because she does not have a job or another visible means of income and has never worked in her life.
According to the plaintiff, the respondent does not stay home to keep an eye on the children, and, therefore, it will be dangerous to entrust the kids into her custody.