The Judiciary says it is not to blame for a case where a mother lost custody of two of her sons due to a possible “clerical court error.”
Alicia Carter-Fisher, the Judiciary’s court and protocol and information officer, said yesterday: “The Judiciary has completed its investigation and it was determined that the court was not at fault.”
The 34-year-old single mother, Natasha De Silva, claimed she received a call from the Family Court informing her the hearing date had moved from August 23 to Oct 27 and so did not appear on the 23.
However, when she did not show up at the Family Court, based at Nipdec House, that day the presiding magistrate ruled in her absence that the children’s father be given interim custody.
Carter-Fisher indicated: “These are family matters and are confidential. I am not at liberty to comment or disclose anything further except to say the matter comes up again in September so there is an opportunity for review because it was an interim order.”
Carter-Fisher confirmed a call was made to De Silva by an employee at the court but refused to elaborate on the details of the conversation.
“A call was made but I can’t say anything further. I am constrained by the kind of matter it is. These are family matters, not criminal, and the court is always very concerned in how it deals with its clients,” she said.
Shortly after the Judiciary’s response, De Silva contacted the T&T Guardian yesterday in a panicked state.
She insisted a social worker at the court contacted her admitting they made a call to inform her about a change in hearing dates.
However, the social worker told De Silva, who has another matter in the same court for two of her other children, that the change of date was made for the other case.
“But that is not true. They specifically called the father’s name as Decklon Ashton. That other case is with a different person. They say they never tell me anything about Decklon. That is not true. When they call, they told me they calling for the matter concerning Decklon Ashton on the 23 August and it is postponed to the 27 of October,” said De Silva.
The Laventille mother of seven added: “I wouldn’t make a mistake like that. They saying they have it on file where I said yes. Oh father, why these people so unfair? You all put it on the papers so they trying to say now is another matter.”
She said all of a sudden they have the call on file “but they saying is the other matter I have coming up on September 23. I not letting this go down the drain. I wouldn’t make a mistake like that.”
When asked if the Judiciary had received complaints like that one in the past, Carter-Fisher said she could only comment on that particular situation.
However, she said: “The court tries to give an exceptional customer service and we do our best to ensure our client receives access to justice in a fair and equitable manner and if there is any report of any kind the court addresses the matter quickly because we want to deliver excellent service and to investigate it as quickly as possible.”