The court for Children lacks jurisdiction to vary consent judgments made by higher courts, adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis.

JUDGMENT

Nur Farahain Roslan M:

A. Introduction

[1] The birth father and birth mother in these applications are divorced. On 19 March 2024 the Department of Social Welfare, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DOSW') filed in an application under s 17(1)(b) of the Child Act 2001 for both children (hereinafter referred to as 'case 348' and 'case 349' respectively) on the basis that the children have been emotionally injured and their birth mother, knowing of such injury, has not protected the children from such injury.

[2] Upon consideration of the medical report and the police report No Repot Kajang/01128/24 attached with the DOSW's applications, I granted an Interim Order for the children to be placed in the care of their birth father pending the report to be produced by the Protector from the DOSW as required under s 30(6) of the Child Act 2001 on the same day.

B. Parties

[3] Initially, the parties in the current application that was before this court were only the DOSW and the children. However, on 29 May 2024, the birth mother filed in an application to vary the Interim Order given by this court (hereinafter referred to as 'case 627'). As these applications were intertwined, this court heard all three applications together. On 25 June 2024, this court revoked the Interim Order in case 348 and case 349 and consequentially, dismissed the application in case 627. Unsatisfied, the birth father is appealing against my decision in case 348 and case 349 while the DOSW is appealing against my decision in case 627.

[4] For ease of reference, in this judgment Tan Heng Kit will be referred to as 'the birth father', and the Department of Social Welfare, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur will be referred to as 'the DOSW'. Where reference is made to them both, they will be collectively referred to as 'the Appellants'. On the other hand, Cindy Ong Pik Yin will be referred to as 'the birth mother'.

C. Salient Facts

[5] With the prior brief prelude, I now set out the salient facts of the case. KBK and CMK are siblings and their parents were officially divorced in 2022. Ensuing the divorce, there were a series of applications made by both birth mother and birth father battling for custody over the children. On 25 October 2023, the birth mother and birth father entered into a consent judgment before the court of Appeal where it was agreed that, in regards to the two siblings here, both birth mother and birth father were granted joint guardianship, custody, care and control over KBK and CMK, with primary care and control to the birth mother. The same terms were recorded in the High court in the joint divorce petition vide case number WA-33JP-1656-10/2023 on 30 October 2023.

[6] On 19 March 2024 the DOSW filed in an application under s 17(1)(b) of the Child Act 2001 , vide case 348 and case 349, on the basis that the birth mother's partner had emotionally injured both children and the birth mother, knowing of such injury, has not protected the children from such injury. I then adjourned the case to 15 May 2024 to give ample time for the Protector to prepare and submit the report as to fulfil the requirement under s 30(6) of the . Also, I allowed an Interim Order for the children to be placed under the care of the birth father pending the preparation of the said report.

[7] Dissatisfied with the Interim Order, the birth mother through her solicitors had filed in an application at the High court to vary the terms of the order dated 30 October 2023 vide case number WA-33JP-1656-10/2023 on 22 April 2024. That application was made on account of the applications filed by the DOSW vide case 348 and case 349.

[8] On 15 May 2024, the Protector applied for an adjournment as the report could not be completed due to the fact that the children were in the midst of a psychiatric assessment at Tunku Azizah Hospital (Kuala Lumpur Women and Children Hospital). Thus, I adjourned the case to 15 July 2024.

[9] The birth mother then filed