Back
2013 MarsdenLR 270
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LIM ENG KUAN LWN. TAY SUAN SIM
[Saman Pemula: 24-133-02-2012]
The welfare of a child is paramount in custody decisions, favoring maternal custody for children under seven, combined with reasonable maintenance considerations.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 88(3) - Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Act 1950 - Section 3 - Custody of children - The presumption under section 88(3) favors a child under seven being with their mother, considering the child's welfare and stability. The court found that disrupting the child's current arrangement with the mother would harm the child’s well-being. (Paras [4], [6], [11])
(B) Maintenance - The court must consider the reasonable needs for a child's welfare, taking both parents' financial capabilities into account while ensuring the child's best interests are preserved. The plaintiff's proposed maintenance was deemed insufficient, resulting in a maintenance amount of RM1,500. (Paras [21], [25])
(C) Access - Joint custody was ruled inappropriate for a two-year-old to avoid destabilizing the child’s upbringing, ensuring periodic access rights were granted that respect the child's current living situation. (Paras [27], [30])
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and defendant were married and had a son, Lucius, born in 2010. Following marital disputes, the defendant left with Lucius, prompting the plaintiff to seek custody. The court emphasized the child’s need for stable care.
Findings of Court:
The court granted full custody to the defendant, establishing that any disruption to the current care by the mother would negatively impact Lucius. A maintenance amount of RM1,500 was ordered from the plaintiff.
Issues: Key issues considered include the appropriateness of the custody arrangement for Lucius, determining the proper maintenance amount, and access rights for the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court prioritized the welfare of the child as paramount, affirming the presumption that children under seven should primarily be with their mother unless proven otherwise. The court concluded that the plaintiff's financial contributions and existing arrangements should adequately support the child’s well-being without being burdensome.
Result: Custody granted to the defendant, with maintenance fixed at RM1,500 and access provisions outlined.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of custody claim. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal considerations for child custody. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. assessment of parental suitability for custody. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. determining child maintenance amount. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. visitation rights and implications for child. (Para 26 , 27) |
[1] Plaintif (bapa) di dalam saman pemula ini telah membuat satu permohonan di mahkamah ini supaya hak jagaan anak yang bernama Lucius Lim Jin Be Le (kemudian daripada ini akan disebut sebagai 'Lucius') diberi hak penjagaan pada beliau dengan defendan (isteri) diberi hak akses yang munasabah. Secara alternatifnya pihak plaintif memohon hak penjagaan bersama dan plaintif diberi akses seperti perenggan 5 dalam saman pemula tersebut.
Latar Belakang Kes
[2] Pada 10 Januari 2009, plaintif (suami) dan defendan (isteri) telah berkahwin dan hasil perkahwinan tersebut telah dikurniakan seorang anak bernama Lucius yang dilahirkan pada 10 April 2010. Pada masa permohonan dibuat, Lucius berumur dalam dua tahun.
[3] Selepas perkahwinan tersebut telah berlaku masalah dalam hubungan mereka dan usaha untuk kaunseling juga tidak dapat dilaksanakan disebabkan plaintif (suami) memberi alasan tiada kaunselor yang sesuai. Akhirnya, pada 18 Oktober 2011 defendan (isteri) telah meninggalkan rumah matrimonial tersebut bersama Lucius dan menetap di rumah ibu bapanya. Kemudiannya plaintif (suami) memfailkan permohonan ini untuk mendapatkan hak jagaan terhadap Lucius.
Isu Hak Penjagaan, Pengawalan Dan Pemeliharaan
[4] Anak hasil perkahwinan ini berusia dua tahun semasa pendengaran permohonan ini. Andaian di bawah s 88(3) LRA 1976 menyatakan bahawa adalah lebih baik seorang kanak-kanak di bawah tujuh tahun berada bersama ibunya. Seksyen tersebut memperuntukkan bahawa:
(1) The court may at any time by order place a child in the custody of his or her father or his or her mother or, where there are exceptional circumstances making it undesirable that the child be entrusted to either parent, of any other relative of the child or of any association the objects of which include child welfare or to any other suitable person.
(2) In deciding in whose custody a child should be placed the paramount consideration shall be the welfare of the child and subject to this the court shall have regard:
(a) to the wishes of the parents of the child; and
(b) to the wishes of the child, where he or she is of an age to express an independent opinion.
(3) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is for the good of a child below the age of seven years to be with his or her mother but in deciding whether that presumption applies to the facts of any particular case, the court shall have regard to the undesirability of disturbing the life of a child by changes of custody.
(4) ...
[5] Di dalam kes Tay Chuen Siang v. Wang, Chiao-Wen , [2009] 9 CLJ 84 , di ms 9, YA Vernon Ong JC menyatakan:
The children are both of tender age. The presumption under s 88(3) of the Act is that it is good for the children to be with their mother. In deciding whether the presumption applies to the facts of this cases 88(3) provides that the court shall have regard to the undesirability of disturbing the children's life by changes of custody. The court, however, is not precluded from considering any other factors which may be relevant or have an effect on the children's welfare. It is trite that the welfare of the children is paramount. What do we mean by the term 'welfare of the child'? The word 'welfare' is defined by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2nd edn as 'physical and mental health and happiness, especially of a person'. Clearly then, the court must have the physical and mental health and happiness of the children as its overriding consideration (see J v. C [1970] AC 668 ).
[6] Adalah tidak dinafikan bahawa anak ini yang berusia dua tahun kebanyakan masa berada bersama defendan/ibunya. Jika gangguan pada pe
