Standoff at Evans’s family homes

Police on Thursday morning moved to replace padlocks and eviction notices that had been removed overnight from the homes of missing Department of Environmental Health worker Anna Evans’s family, who are under a court order to vacate the property off Shedden Road in George Town.  

Police repeated their requests for the family to leave the premises, telling them they were enforcing a court order initiated by the owner of the property, Kent Rankin, who plans on demolishing all of the structures on the 0.6-acre property. Ultimately, however, after discussions with police officers, the family members refused to leave and many were padlocked inside their home.  

Ms. Evans disappeared while working at the George Town Landfill on Jan. 27, 2011, and has not been seen since, despite extensive searches at the landfill and surrounding properties.  

Among the more than 20 people from six families who occupy the dwellings on the property are Ms. Evans’s five children and their caretaker, Ms. Evans’s sister Noreen Dixon. 

“God is the only man that can help us right now,” said Ms. Dixon of the situation.  

The family is being evicted because Mr. Rankin, who bought the property in 2007, wants to take possession of the land, which has been subject to a Writ of Possession issued through the court since Oct. 16, 2012. Mr. Rankin declined to comment when contacted by the Cayman Compass on Thursday.  

Bulldozers had been scheduled to demolish the homes on Wednesday, but it didn’t happen. 

As officers made their way around the homes, breaking chains to gain access and replace padlocks, other family members shouted that police were boarding up children in the houses. 

“I am not coming out,” shouted Anthony Scott through the window. “Let them padlock the door. 

“They want me to move [my] vehicle to padlock the doors, but I am not moving my vehicle,” he said. 

Eventually a tow truck was called in by police to remove the vehicle, but before they could do so, Mr. Scott – who is a relative of Ms. Evans – handed an officer the keys and the car was moved away from the door. Officers then padlocked the door shut with Mr. Scott’s family inside. 

Late Thursday afternoon, Ms. Dixon said she was contacted by Children and Family Services and advised that she should find a new place for her and Ms. Evans’s children to live. 

As of press time on Thursday afternoon, the situation was unresolved, with the family members still inside and refusing to leave. 


Padlocked inside, Anthony Scott looks out from a kitchen window from the house he’s been ordered by the court to vacate. He refused police requests to leave the home. – Photo: Jewel Levy

Support local journalism. Subscribe to the all-access pass for the Cayman Compass.

Subscribe now


  1. Can someone who is familar with the relevant laws please let me know what should happen in this scenario with the minor children of missing Anna Evans?

    The rule of law should be respected so I fully understand why the Evan’s family and any other occupants need to leave. However, minor children should not be subjected to this type of trauma and the department of Children and Family Services needs to move quickly to ensure that all minor children have a place to stay, food to eat, and are ready for the new school year.

    Do you all now understand why I constantly ask that you stop having children that you can’t afford?

  2. It’s is really sad what happen to their mother. But in my opinion it’s the children current guardians that put them in this situation. She is saying that the property is her fathers, but is sounds more and more like he actually sold it. However sad it may be a rented home is not a permanent home. They should have started making alternate plans as soon as they were notified of the owners plans. In this case they are using the children as pawns to solicit pity.

    I know most people will not like what I am saying but as a landlord I have been in the situation plenty of times of having to evict people who think that they shouldn’t have to leave because they have kids, even if they weren’t paying the rent.

    The kids do have rights, however so does the owner and in this case his rights are to the property that he purchased.

  3. Mack, I don’t disagree that people should not have children they can’t afford, however I’m pretty sure Ms. Evans wasn’t planning on disappearing from her job and leaving her children behind.

    Life happens sometimes. Humans, and other animals for that matter, are going to procreate no matter what so put your self righteous attitude aside and offer something productive. If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, find a disadvantaged young girl and pay for her birth control.

  4. This is my last comment since Compass won’t publish them all.
    So sad that so many are missing the point here. But everyone has its own perspective,which is neither right, nor wrong,just different.
    My impression from the article is that the children have no place to go,and that is not right. Anyone has a house for rent for a family with 6 children ?Imagine for a second they are your children. What makes them different from the other families being evicted? they have no mother! The last sentence of Mack Boland’s comment is downright condescending.

  5. I tend to agree with a lot of Macks comments as well as Lucia’s. However in this case I don’t think Mack’s comment were on point. This doesn’t seem to be a case of someone having a bunch of kids they couldn’t afford, it’s a sad case of the kids losing thee mother who seemed to be hard working Mom who took good care of her kids. However the owner still has the right to take possession of the property with the right notice, which in this case he obviously did through the courts.

    I still have to ask, she was a civil servant and as far as I understand they have great benefits. What happened to the life insurance, did they not pay it out because she is missing ? It would seem that they would be able to afford a place to stay with the life insurance payout, also what ever happened to their father who was also her husband, as I understand he got deported which seemed to have an additional negative impact on the kids when he could have been helping take care of them, but that goes to Cayman’s ridiculous immigration laws where you can get deported for losing your spouse.

  6. @Christoph Waltz:

    Have you heard of something called life insurance? Every responsible parent has life insurance to protect their children in the event that something should happen to them. If someone can’t afford life insurance then they should not have any children.

    @Lucia Bell:

    You pretend that you care about these children while at the same time you are supporting and defending child abuse. Who exactly do you think should be financially responsible for the irresponsible behavior of people like you and the other people that support child abuse?

  7. It sounds very much like a civil suit should be initiated on behalf of that young lady who went missing while on duty. If the employer did not step forward and accept that they are responsible for the welfare of their staff while on their premises then something is surely wrong.

    Missing in action should have an expiration date, and the status of this young lady (Ana) employment status revised. I can only assume that her siblings continue to receive her monthly allowance/pay with annual cost of living adjustments, until such time that a full and just settlement is made. As for insurance, any sensible employer would have blanket insurance of their staff..

  8. Come on Mack, that’s a bit much. Where in her comments did you get that she was supporting Child Abuse?

    As for the Life insurance thing, does anyone know if the great free benefit CIG Employees get includes life insurance?