Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

The facts are quite straight forward in that the marriage could not prevent the parties from drifting apart resulting in them seeking out their own separate path and destiny. This predicament came about despite being blessed with three healthy children. The path of the wife led to the historical city of Melaka and in the process took with her the youngest of the siblings whilst the other two went to the father. It was not disputed that before these two children were with him, all three were with the mother, but subsequently taken away from her by the father. Mercifully for the court both parties without much argument agreed midway that the mother will have custody of the youngest. Not satisfied with merely having one under her watchful eyes, her maternal instinct and love for the other two have persuaded her to come before me to pray to have custody of them also.

Before I made the painful decision of handing over the two children to the mother or father or to tear the siblings apart which will invariably tear the heart of everyone, I sought the assistance of the Welfare Department to give me their views. In compliance with my request one Encik Mohd Emeran bin Abd Salam and one Puan Jama'eah bt. Abdul Ghani submitted to me their respective reports on the applicant and respondent as regard their backgrounds, economic strength, the ambience of their homes, the views of the children and their expert opinions.

These reports were classified as "sulit" and as a result none were submitted to the counsels for their perusal and comments. In brief the report of Encik Mohd. Emeran bin Abd Salam revealed that the applicant was quite comfortable with a salary of about RM2,240 per month working as a nurse at the hospital. In the event custody of the two children were given to her, she would send them to the relevant kindergarten and school without her normal schedules being disoriented. The relevant officer from the Welfare Department believed that her financial position though strong was still not strong enough to meet the needs of the extra mouths in the event the decision went her way, and hence the necessity of having to obtain RM3,000 per month maintenance for the children and RM1,000 for her own upkeep. It was the hope of the applicant that with the money obtained she could move out to another rented house or stay in her own apartment. Continuing to stay in the current house which is owned by her sister-in-law is another option open to her. The present house is a three bedroom terrace house, one of which is shared by the applicant with the youngest child. Comfort wise she is not having too much of it. Staying in a house that is owned by an in-law who has other young children surely too is not a plus factor. A factor that went the way of the applicant according to Encik Emeran were the ages of the children.

The report of Puan Jama'eah bt Abdul Ghani portrayed the respondent as a person with a sound financial standing, in receipt of an income twice that of the applicant and living in a single storey semi-detached house. The children also appeared very comfortable and acted in the normal way when interviewed giving an impression of reasonable satisfaction. According to her report the two children preferred to stay with the father. This view of the children I believe was not unexpected, bearing in mind that they had been staying with him for some time, compounded by the fact that that significant question was posed to the children in the father's house. I must stress that these two reports eventhough clinically prepared, were of no consolation to me before making my decision, as not only did the reports not indicate their firm opinions but extracted a relevant view of the middle child which was in total variance to that given in my chambers. The parents or lawyers were not invited to witness the interview and I merely had two lady interpreters to assist me namely Puan Jasvender Kaur and Puan Mary Chiew.