This case is about the parents’ battle for the custody of their children where the primary consideration is the best interest of the children. The parents here are Eddie and Lisa.
Eddie was a law graduate belonging to a well-to-do family while Lisa finished banking and finance and was working in a bank when the two met and fell in love with each other. After a whirlwind courtship lasting about six months, Eddie and Lisa tied the knot. Lisa quit her job to become a full-time housewife while Eddie concentrated on his trading, fishpond and restaurant businesses. Two years into the marriage, they begot three boys, the first two being twins.
During the first five years of marriage, all went well until Eddie became drug dependent. He sought various treatments and was confined in drug rehabilitation centers by order of the court. Eddie’s drug dependence lasted for six years, during which he went in and out of drug rehabilitation centers and underwent various treatments. Finally, the court issued an order declaring him “drug free.”
Still, Lisa believed that Eddie was not fully rehabilitated. According to their sons who were by then in their early teens, Eddie would become hot headed and drive their van recklessly. Sometimes he would poke a gun at his own head and asked them who they love more, mom or dad?
According to Lisa, Eddie’s drug dependence worsened and it became difficult to live with him as he was always irritable and violent, inflicting physical harm on her. So Lisa and the three children left Eddie and transferred to the house of her sister.
Eddie thus filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of their sons. Lisa opposed this petition, citing his drug dependence. At the initial hearing of the case, both parties agreed that they undergo psychiatric and psychological examination by a psychiatrist of their common choice and that the results of the examination shall be the sole basis of the court in deciding the custody petition.
In the meantime, Eddie could have visitation rights every Saturday and Sunday during which he would fetch the children at 9 a.m. and return them at 5 p.m.
The results of the psychiatric evaluation by the psychiatrist shows that based on the criteria for cure in drug addiction, Eddie cannot yet be considered as completely cured. So using this evaluation, the court awarded the custody of the three children to Lisa, giving only visitation rights to Eddie.
Eddie did not like the order. He questioned it before the Supreme Court. He contended, among others, that even if the parties have already agreed to submit the case for decision based on the psychiatric evaluation, the court should have conducted a trial to determine the factual issues involving custody. Was Eddie correct?
The Supreme Court said yes. In controversies involving the care, custody and control of their minor children, the contending parents stand on equal footing before the court, who shall make the selection according to the best interest of the child.
The child, if over seven years of age, may be permitted to choose which parent he/she prefers to live with, but the court is not bound by such choice if the parent so chosen is unfit. In all cases, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources as well as the social and moral situations of the opposing parents.
So in this case, the lower court should have conducted a trial, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the psychiatric report of the psychiatrist chosen by both, which is insufficient to justify the decision.
While Eddie may have a history of drug dependence, the records are inadequate as to his moral, financial and social well-being. The result of the psychiatric evaluation showing that he is not “completely cured” may render him unfit to take custody of the children, but there is no evidence to show that Eddie is unfit to provide the children with adequate support, education as well as moral and intellectual development.
Moreover, the children in this case were 14 and 15 years, yet the court did not ascertain their choice as to which parent they want to live with. These inadequacies could have been remedied by an exhaustive trial probing the accuracy of the report and the capacity of both parties to raise their children. So the case should be returned to the lower court for trial (Laxamana vs. Laxamana G.R.144763, Sept. 3, 2002).
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com