The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

AN eight-year-old autistic boy has been allowed to relocate from Grand Bahama to the United States after a Supreme Court judge found that the specialised services he needs are not available locally and that access to them abroad outweighed the disruption of moving him away from his father and extended family.

Justice Constance Delancy’s ruling followed evidence from Social Services that the availability of specialised services locally is “severely lacking”, while the boy’s temporary tutor acknowledged that she does not have the expertise required to assist him over the long term.

The child, who has delayed communication skills, requires specialised education and continuing therapy. Social Services found that he needs consistent structure, specialised educational support and ongoing therapeutic intervention, but identified only one local government educational institution that might be able to provide him with some instruction.

Justice Delancy concluded that the benefits of access to specialised services unavailable in Grand Bahama outweighed the negative effect of relocating the child to a new environment.

She also found that although his father had proposed a six-week intensive programme in the United States that might benefit him, there was no tangible plan for the child’s long-term access to specialised services afterwards.

The decision came in a contested relocation case between the boy’s divorced parents.

His mother, who has care and control of him under a joint custody arrangement, sought permission to move with him to the United States, where her new husband lives. His father opposed the move, arguing that the child should remain in Grand Bahama close to him and both sides of his extended family.

The parents married in January 2017, and their son was born in December that year. Their marriage was dissolved in 2022 and they settled custody, access and maintenance through a consent order.

Under that order, the parents shared joint custody, with care and control given to the mother and reasonable access, including weekend visits, given to the father.

The judgment said the parents became aware around 2019 that their son was not achieving developmental milestones at the expected pace. In August 2021, a school psychologist determined that he had Autism Spectrum. He later underwent occupational and speech therapy.

His mother said she found a school in the United States in June 2023 with an occupational programme and a full range of services for him. She said she discussed the school with the father and he agreed at the time that attending it would be helpful for the child. She disputed the father’s contention that her main reason for seeking relocation was personal, saying her primary focus had always been securing the best possible outcome for their son’s development and future.

The mother also told the court that the boy’s current teacher had advised that once he reached “double digits in age” she would no longer be able to continue teaching him because his needs would exceed her capabilities. She said specialised facilities in Grand Bahama and more broadly in The Bahamas were limited and that it was paramount for her son to receive the best care available for his needs.

The father disagreed with relocation and argued that his former wife’s plans were driven primarily by her personal circumstances following the divorce and her new relationship.

He said the child should remain in Grand Bahama, where he has strong family support from both sides and where the father could continue playing an active role in his life.

He proposed instead that the child attend an intensive six-week specialised therapy programme in the United States costing about $31,000, followed by schooling locally.

The judgment said he had already paid $1,759 for an evaluation connected to the programme and later asked the mother for permission to take the child for the treatment. She refused and said the court should determine the issue.

The father acknowledged, however, that he did not currently have the money to pay for the programme and would have to apply for a loan.

Social Services was directed to investigate and make recommendations to the court.

Its report described the boy as an eight-year-old autistic child with communication delays who was temporarily enrolled with a local tutor. It found that the child required specialised services the tutor could not provide.

Social Services also found that both parents were suitable caregivers and very involved in the boy’s life, but differed over the approach that should be taken to meet his special needs.

Justice Delancy said the Social Services report identified one local government educational institution that may be able to provide the boy with some instruction.

However, she said it was also apparent from the report and the testimony of the Social Services officer that the availability of specialised services locally was “severely lacking”.

The boy’s temporary tutor also acknowledged that she did not have the expertise required to assist him in the long term.

The court had to weigh those limitations against the impact relocation could have on the child’s relationship with his father and wider family.

The father argued that moving the boy would disrupt his established routine and severely impede his ability to interact with him and his sibling. He also said the child’s delayed communication skills made telephone and video contact extremely difficult.

The court found that both parents were actively involved in raising and supporting the child and that he benefited from support from their nuclear and extended families.

The case also followed an earlier dispute over the child’s travel.

The boy went to the United States with his mother in summer 2023 for what was intended to be a three-month stay but remained there for about five months.

The mother said the extension was unintentional and partly resulted from having him evaluated to determine the best educational plan for his needs, but conceded that she had not properly communicated with the father.

That episode prompted the father to obtain an order in January 2024 prohibiting the child from travelling outside The Bahamas without his express permission and requiring him to retain the boy’s passport.

The mother told the court that she was employed in Grand Bahama by a US-based company and intended to transfer her employment when she relocated.

She said she was willing to facilitate liberal access between the child and his father, contribute towards travel expenses and accommodate the father when he visited the boy in the United States.

Justice Delancy said the court had to be guided by what was best for the child rather than what was convenient for either parent.

She found merit in both proposals but ruled that relocation was in the child’s best interests.

The judge said the boy had lived primarily with his mother since the marriage ended and found that the benefit of access to specialised services unavailable in Grand Bahama outweighed the negative effect of moving him to a new environment.

Justice Delancy also considered that while the father’s proposed intensive six-week programme might be beneficial, there was no tangible plan for the boy’s long-term access to specialised services.

The judge further considered the relatively short distance between Grand Bahama and the US location where the mother intends to live, the availability and frequency of transportation between the two locations and her offer to contribute to the cost of the child travelling to and from his father.

Justice Delancy authorised the mother to relocate with the boy and ordered that his passport be returned to her within seven days.

The father will have staying access during alternate Christmas breaks, each Easter break, Thanksgiving break and summer until two weeks before school reopens in the United States.

The mother was also authorised to make decisions about the child’s day-to-day medical and educational needs, although major medical and educational decisions must be agreed between the parents.

The father will no longer be required to pay school fees, while the mother will assume responsibility for the boy’s autism-related therapy as long as it is covered by medical insurance through her employer.

The court also ordered that the father be permitted telephone and video access and be given access to the child’s school and therapy records.