2. The sole functions of the Trust are stated as follows:

• (a) to add to and improve the existing supply of housing; and
• (b) to enhance the usefulness of the funds of the Trust by promoting greater efficiency in the housing sector.

3. In executing its functions, the Trust is required to make loans to contributors to assist in purchasing, maintaining, repairing or improving houses.

4. In 2005, Parliament amended this Act so as to enable the Trust to provide financing up to a maximum of five billion dollars for projects for the development of education. It is to be noted that this provision has nothing to do with the housing sector. So, strictly speaking, it was outside the scope of the law. Parliament seems to have recognized this fact as it provided that this amendment was to be effective only until August 25, 2006. So, after this date, the law reverted to the position it was in prior to the passing of the amendment in 2005.

5. This is a neat way of taking money from a fund that was legally established to do one thing, and to use it lawfully for another purpose. Parliament is really supreme.

There was much furor about this in the local press in 2005. Here are some links to related articles and letters on the matter:
- May 10, 2005 - Letter to the Gleaner Editor - NHT move is wrong
- July 23, 2005 - Letter to the Gleaner Editor - Lend the money for education
- July 27, 2005 - Article - House passes amended NHT Act
- July 30, 2005 - Article - Betrayal of trust, says JLP - as Senate passes amended NHT Act

Every grandparent has a similar obligation in respect of the grandparent’s unmarried grandchild, in the event of the grandchild’s parents failing to maintain the child due to death, physical or mental infirmity or disability of the parents. This is so to the extent that the grandparent is capable of so doing.

This legislation is clearly aimed at ensuring that parents and grandparents take responsibility for their children and grandchildren who are under eighteen; and also for those who are over eighteen but are suffering from a disability.
So, grandparents must never believe that they are ever off the hook or out of the picture, in respect of maintenance.

Great grandparents, though, have been given a break as this law ignores them.

Click here to view/read The Maintenance Act, 2005

The law provides that where in civil proceedings, it becomes necessary to determine the paternity of any person, the court may on the application of a party to the proceedings direct that blood tests be used to determine whether a party to the proceedings is or is not excluded from being the father of the subject.

If for the purpose of giving effect to the court’s direction, a person were to impersonate another, or puts forward a child knowing that the child is not the child that the court has given the direction about, that person may be charged and tried in a Resident Magistrate’s Court for the impersonation. If convicted, the individual may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve months. However, if the Resident Magistrate wishes to impose a fine, the maximum fine is five hundred dollars. Strange isn’t it…this question of the fine?

Click here to view/read The Status of Children Act

Section 3 of the Act states that a single woman, who is “with child” or who has been delivered of a child, may:

• either before the birth of the child, or at any time within twelve months from the birth of the child

swear to a complaint in the Resident Magistrate’s Court or Family Court with a view to the Court formally naming the father of the child.

If the woman misses this specified deadline, she may still, at any time after the expiration of the twelve month period, swear to the complaint if she is able to prove that the alleged father has within twelve months of the birth of the child paid money for the maintenance of the child, or has contributed to the child’s support.

Note that the person filing the complaint has to be a single woman. Of course, the man is sometimes a married man.

The hearing for the determination of fatherhood takes place before a Resident Magistrate. The evidence of the woman is taken as also any witness whom she calls. The alleged father’s evidence is then taken. If the woman’s evidence is corroborated to the satisfaction of the Resident Magistrate, the latter may adjudge the man to be the putative father of the child.
——————————

Incidentally, it is presumed under our law that a married man is the father of any child that his wife gives birth to during the existence of the marriage. The presumption may be rebutted in certain limited circumstances.

Click here to view/read The Affiliation Act

Note: The Affiliation Act was repealed by the Maintenance Act, 2005