High Court affirms father's right to access despite maintenance arrears

New Straits Times

13 hours ago

KUALA LUMPUR: A father's failure to pay child maintenance should not prevent him from having access to his children, the High Court has ruled.
Judge Evrol Mariette Peters said it was important to draw a clear distinction between the issues of maintenance and access, emphasising that they are legally and conceptually separate.
She said that if the father had indeed defaulted on maintenance payments as ordered by the court, the mother had legal recourse through committal proceedings.
Peters said this during a committal proceeding initiated by a 45-year-old man (the petitioner) against his former wife (the respondent), after she denied him access to their 11-year-old son and unilaterally moved the child to Singapore.
The court ruled in favour of the petitioner and imposed a RM20,000 fine on the respondent for contempt of court.
According to court documents, the petitioner claimed he had been denied access to the child and had not been provided with any information about the child's whereabouts or well-being since January 2022.
It was later discovered that the respondent had relocated and unilaterally moved the child to Singapore, where they were both currently residing.
The respondent claimed that the child had expressed unhappiness and refused to meet the petitioner.
However, Peters said her judicial interview with the child revealed that the child's perspective was not entirely autonomous, as the responses lacked spontaneity and depth.
"The child appeared to echo sentiments that seemed rehearsed or externally influenced.
"He was unable to offer any substantial or cogent reasons for his refusal to have contact with the petitioner.
"Instead, his justifications centred around relatively minor grievances and a few isolated incidents that he claimed had occurred several years ago," she said in her grounds of judgment dated June 4.
Peters said the dynamics of a relationship between a father and child differ from those with the mother.
"Parties must be reminded that the role of a father is to ensure that a child is raised in a nourishing environment.
"In my view, the child's continued clinging to his mother's influence, to the exclusion of meaningful contact with his father, was not a healthy dynamic.
"It is important for the child to benefit from balanced parental input, including the presence of a consistent and positive male role model.
"Exposure to both maternal and paternal guidance serves not only to enrich the child's emotional development but also to foster a more balanced and resilient sense of identity," she said.
The court said denying the child that opportunity based solely on his current attachment to his mother would not serve his long-term interests and could risk perpetuating a narrow and emotionally limiting environment.
"In the present case, there was also no evidence before the court to suggest that the petitioner had ever been abusive, neglectful or otherwise unfit to have contact with the child.
"In light of this, I was of the firm view that it was in the best interest of the child's welfare for the petitioner to continue having access."