Advertisement

Child Custody Fight: Law Gone Blind in Malaysia

3599 Views  ⚫  Asked 8 Years Ago
asked on Sep 14, 2010 at 21:04
by   Need Change ASAP
edited on Jun 2, 2016 at 14:00
 
Friday August 13, 2010

I don't want mummy, says girl in custody fight

By M. MAGESWARI

PUTRAJAYA: It was a heart-wrenching scene at the Court of Appeal here when three appellate judges tried to persuade an 11-year-old girl to give her mother a second chance.

Low Bi-Anne had initially refused to meet her mother Tan Siew Siew, 37, when the custody battle case was called up. The mother has been given custody of the child.
However, Bi-Anne, who was in tears, sat close to her father, real-estate negotiator Low Swee Siong, 40.

Upon hearing submissions by the parties, Court of Appeal judge Justice Sulong Matjeraie, who chaired a three-man panel, asked the girl to give her mother a chance to show her love.

"Your mother came all the way from England to see you," he said.

Justice Mohamed Apandi Ali told her: "Your mother took care of you for nine months. Give it a try."

Upon hearing this, Bi-Anne said: "She took care of me for nine months but my father took care of me for 10 years."

Justice Jefrey Tan Kok Wha told the girl: "I am sure (both your parents) love you equally."

The girl then wept and said: "I don't love her."

Lawyer T. Susamma, who acted for the girl's mother, said her client was heartbroken at not having access to her daughter. Susamma applied to the Bench for the girl's father, Low, to surrender her birth certificate and all school records.

Counsel Chan Kah Ling, who represented Low, requested that the court give them 14 days or a month to comply with the order.

Justice Sulong ordered that the birth certificate be given to Tan within seven days.
The couple married on Aug 2, 1999. When they divorced on June 19, 2006, the custody of the girl was given to the father.

After two years, the mother applied for custody.

On Aug 6, 2008, High Court judge Justice Hinshawati Sharif ordered that custody of the girl be given to the mother and the father be given reasonable access. However, the order could not be executed because Bi-Anne did not want to go to her mother.
On July 27, the father appealed to the Court of Appeal against the lower court ruling but later withdrew it. Yesterday was the execution of the High Court order for the custody of the child to the mother.
Published: Monday September 13, 2010 MYT 4:21:00 PM

Court cites dad for contempt for not handing daughter to wife

By M. MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: A real-estate negotiator has been cited for contempt of court and sent to Sungai Buloh jail for his failure to hand over his 11-year-old daughter to his former wife in a custody battle for the girl.

Family Court Judicial Commissioner Justice Yeoh Wee Siam also fined Low Swee Siong RM20,000 in default two months' jail.

Justice Yeoh said Low would be fined another RM400 for each day he did not surrender his daughter or her passport.

His former wife, London-based restaurant manager Tan Siew Siew, 37, had won the custody of Low Bi-Anne in a High Court ruling in 2008.

In her judgment on Monday, Justice Yeoh said she was not satisfied with the explanation given by Low, 40.

He knows that he should comply with the court order. I had given him the last opportunity to hand over his daughter to his ex-wife.

In her ruling, Justice Yeoh said Low could have exercised his parental supervision by encouraging his daughter to come to court. "It is his duty to comply with the court order," she said.

Justice Yeoh said Low had ignored court orders thrice and that this was contempt of court.

Upon hearing this, Low who stood near the witness box, gripped both hands on his back and looked down.

The judge also dismissed a stay application by Low's lead counsel Ravi Nekoo over the court ruling.

Questioned by Tan's lead counsel Kiran Kaur Dhaliwal Low said he was only trying respect his daughter's wishes.

"I tried my best to persuade her to attend the court."

He said Bi-Anne was now staying at his home in USJ 19, Subang Jaya with his eldest sister and that he did not have enough time to collect her passport that was kept at his mother's house.

Low also said he asked Bi-Anne to come to court but she was frightened, cried and refused to attend the court proceedings on Monday.

When questioned by Ravi, he said Bi-Anne was under Tan's care between Aug 12 and Sept 4 after the girl was handed over to his ex-wife during the Court of Appeal proceedings.
He said Bi-Anne told him that she had attempted to run away from Tan twice because her mother had disallowed her from keeping in touch with him.

She tried to climb out from the window on one occasion. Asked if he could force Bi-Anne to come to court, he said 'no'.

He said he saw Bi-Anne and Tan at a shop on Sept 4 and that the girl later followed him after she cried and held him tightly.

At the court proceedings earlier Monday, Justice Yeoh revealed that Tan had also succeeded in her bid on Thursday to get an order from the Family Court to take Bi-Anne to the United Kingdom.

At the Court of Appeal on Aug 12, three appellate judges had to persuade Bi-Anne to give her mother a second chance.

The couple married in 1999 and divorced in 2006.

The custody of the girl was given to the father but two years later, Tan applied for custody.

On Aug 6, 2008, High Court judge Justice Hinshawati Sharif ordered that custody of the girl be given to the mother and the father be given reasonable access.

However, the order could not be executed because Bi-Anne did not want to go to her mother.

On July 27, the father appealed to the Court of Appeal against the lower court ruling but later withdrew it.
Tuesday September 14, 2010

Dad to pay for ignoring order

By M. MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: A real-estate negotiator has been cited for contempt of court for failing to hand over his 11-year-old daughter to his former wife in a custody battle for the girl.

Family Court Judicial Commissioner Justice Yeoh Wee Siam fined Low Swee Siong RM20,000 in default of two months' jail.

Justice Yeoh said Low would be fined another RM400 for each day he did not surrender his daughter or her passport.

His former wife, London-based restaurant manager Tan Siew Siew, 37, had won custody of Low Bi-Anne in a High Court ruling in 2008.

In her judgment yesterday, Justice Yeoh said she was not satisfied with the explanation given by Low, 40.

He knows that he should comply with the court order. I have given him the last opportunity to hand over his daughter to his ex-wife.

In her ruling, Justice Yeoh said Low could have exercised his parental supervision by encouraging his daughter to come to court.

"It is his duty to comply with the court order," she said.

Justice Yeoh said Low had ignored court orders thrice and that this was contempt of court.

The judge also dismissed a stay application by Low's lead counsel Ravi Nekoo over the court ruling.

Upon questioning by Tan's lead counsel Kiran Kaur Dhaliwal yesterday, Low said he was only trying respect his daughter's wishes.

"I have tried my best to persuade her to come to court."

Low said he informed Bi-Anne to come to court but she was frightened, cried and refused to attend the court proceedings yesterday.

Questioned by Ravi, he said Bi-Anne was under Tan's care between Aug 12 and Sept 4 after the girl was handed over to his ex-wife during the Court of Appeal proceedings.
He said Bi-Anne told him that she had attempted to run away from Tan twice because her mother had disallowed her from keeping in touch with him.

"She tried to climb out from the window on one occasion. She also tried to get out through the door but failed in both attempts because the alarm went off," he said.

Asked if he could force Bi-Anne to come to court, he said 'no'.

He said he saw Bi-Anne and Tan at a shop on Sept 4 and that the girl had followed him, crying and holding on to him.

At the court proceedings yesterday, Justice Yeoh said Tan had also succeeded in her bid to get an order from the Family Court to take Bi-Anne to Britain.

At the Court of Appeal on Aug 12, three appellate judges had to persuade Bi-Anne to give her mother a second chance.

The couple married in 1999 and divorced in 2006. The custody of the girl was given to the father but two years later, Tan applied for custody.

On Aug 6, 2008, High Court judge Justice Hinshawati Sharif ordered that custody of the girl be given to the mother and the father be given reasonable access. However, the order could not be executed because Bi-Anne did not want to go to her mother.
Two months ago, Low appealed to the Court of Appeal against the lower court ruling but later withdrew it.
Published: Tuesday September 14, 2010 MYT 2:20:00 PM

Dad pays fine, released from prison

By M. MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: Real estate negotiator Low Swee Siong, cited for contempt of court for failing to hand over his daughter to his former wife, has been released from Kajang Prison after a close friend paid the RM20,000 fine imposed by the Family Court. Low was released at 1pm Tuesday.

Family Court Judicial Commissioner Justice Yeoh Wee Siam had on Monday fined Low RM20,000 in default of two months' jail.

Justice Yeoh had said Low would be fined another RM400 for each day he did not surrender his daughter or her passport.

His former wife, London-based restaurant manager Tan Siew Siew, 37, had won custody of Low Bi-Anne in a High Court ruling in 2008.

At the Court of Appeal on Aug 12, three appellate judges had to persuade Bi-Anne to give her mother a second chance.

The couple married in 1999 and divorced in 2006. The custody of the girl was given to the father but two years later, Tan applied for custody.

On Aug 6, 2008, High Court judge Justice Hinshawati Sharif ordered that custody of the girl be given to the mother and the father be given reasonable access. However, the order could not be executed because Bi-Anne did not want to go to her mother.

Two months ago, Low appealed to the Court of Appeal against the lower court ruling but later withdrew it.
0 had this question
Me Too
0 favorites
Favorite
[ share ]
123 Answers
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   Next »  Last »

answered on Sep 9, 2010 at 02:22
by   Better Wife
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 07:03
 
High Court Judge feels that the mother who have left the 10 year old girl since she was an infant should be given a chance. The other reasons was because the child was not staying with the father but with aunty and according to the mother the father has no legal employment. Hope SFKL is satisfied with this Judge decision. When the case went to Appeal Court the same reason of giving the mother a 2nd chance was also decided by the 3 judges by allowing the child to leave with the mother from the judges private room without the father's knowledge. Is this right?

Total of 4 judges made the same judgement i.e. give the mother a 2nd chance. What is the state of mind of these judges when making this decision which they deem to be the best interest for the child future is anyone guess unless SFKL can read judges mind. The judges based their decision on facts of law or feelings or experience I would like to know.

The mother left an infant child with the father and the father takes care of the child for almost 11 years speaks for the fact that the father is a responsible person. However Hishawati choose to ignore this 10 years fact and based on some law to say father not responsible and give mother 2nd chance. How the father did that for 10 years is admirable and I would like to know how he did that if he did not have a job.

I guess the mother is now rich in UK and regretted her action 11 years ago decides to redeem her action. Is this wrong?

Mother regrets her action should be given a 2nd chance but the method she is doing it is morally wrong. You can not force someone to love you. If you think you can force someone to love by using law, court & judges then you are wrong. The child will grow up with emotional wound that will never heal. The mother should go for spiritual healing to heal her inner soul then shower the girl with love. Keep regular contact with the girl. Encourage her to do well in her exams and prepare to do A level and degree thereon in UK. Here you will have her happy and a whole undamaged person who loves you as a mother.

Bi-Anne has only one mother and one father and the world can not change that. To the lady lawyer which I think from the description given above you are only doing your job but if you are not lying to yourself then your karma would be good but if you are lying to yourself then...
1 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 9, 2010 at 03:15
by   experience
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:14
 
An interesting point to note...

My lawyer for instance, said that my opponent lawyer is a senior lawyer and needs to respect that!

Well, a lawyer is only a lawyer and it does NOT matter if the lawyer is senior or NOT!

Moral of the story is: "fight for justice" & don't protect the criminals.

LOOKS LIKE SENIOR LAWYERS ARE USING THEIR INFLUENCE TO INFLUENCE OUR JUDGES!

...I wonder why SFKL is missing in action?
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 10, 2010 at 03:41
by   lowyar
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:21
 
God bless 'Better Wife', 'Experience' and all of you! To those of you who have heart for this poor girl will know how to Judge. I wonder what is happening in Malaysian Family courts - truth has gone hiding. Has God gone on vacation.

Bullying tactics employed by certain lawyers come to the fore. This ugly head should be chopped-off immediately. We will adorn SFKL or anybody else who has heart to reason with the "REAL" facts. In every situation, always look at both sides of the coin. Lets make it clear, we all love MOTHERS but that does not mean we love FATHERS any bit lesser.

Remember, without a FATHER there would be no MOTHER and vice versa. People who think they are a superior sex are called SEXIST, people who think they are a superior race are called RACIST. That's why we go to see a Judge to when things gone crazy. A good judge will not be intimidated by a senior lawyer or any rotten arguments. A small investigation with some serious thought will shed light to the case.

Let's not forget we are God's creation - whether Judge, Doctor, Engineer, Accountant, Teacher, Priest, Policemen, Clerk, Mechanic, Waiter, Cook, Butcher, Wireman, Tailor, Postman, Priest, Gardener, Plumber, Labourer or Maid - we all have equal rights to our children.

Why will someone who gives up a toddler and later come back to get that child. What does this person take this  FATHER for - HUMAN INCUBATOR / STUD. Common, use your god given senses. Only the weak or greedy will  employ bullying tactics. Don't be fooled. If you have a sound mind then listen to your heart and your conscience will tell the truth.

If we cannot get justice on this land then there is Justice from up above. Beware to those who have taken the power from up above or granted this far. It works in mysterious ways. To all those greedy parties, you will perish or rot in hell soon - pick your choice..
1 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 10, 2010 at 19:16
by   TransParent
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:24
 
The age at which children are considered responsible for their own actions (e.g., marriage, voting, etc.) has also changed over time, and this is reflected in the way they are treated in courts of law.

In Roman times, children were regarded as not culpable for crimes, a position later adopted by the Church. In the nineteenth century, children younger than seven years old were believed incapable of crime. Children from the age of seven forward were considered responsible for their actions. Therefore, they could face criminal charges, be sent to adult prison, and be punished like adults by whipping, branding or hanging.

Surveys have found that at least 25 countries around the world have no specified age for compulsory education. Minimum employment age and marriage age also vary. In at least 125 countries, children aged 7-15 may be taken to court and risk imprisonment for criminal acts. In some countries, children are legally obliged to go to school until they are 14 or 15 years old, but may also work before that age. A child's right to education is threatened by early marriage and child labour.
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 10, 2010 at 19:42
by   TransParent
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:25
 
CUSTODY - of a child should be based from what is in the Best interests of the child - it is widely used by most courts to determine a wide range of issues relating to the well-being of children.

The most important questions that arise upon the divorce/ separation of parents with whom will the children live. How much access or visitation will the other parent be allowed to have? The courts will determine about maintenance payment for that child be paid, what amount will be.

The will be seen to be grossly unfair (vicious) of any party or courts to displace such a THINKING MATURED child from a stable loving home of that particular child. It's becomes a mockery of justice to children.
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 14, 2010 at 13:47
by   alice
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:27
 
Today, animals have better order (laws) and live a blessed life than humans. Seems that our system cannot see the light from darkness. What is wrong seems right. What is unfair seems fair in the above system. We have some infinite humans doing greater damage to fellow mankind with no regard to humanity. These savages have no heart or responsibility to the creator. These people cannot see the truth from lies. It's true money corrupts the mind and power follows to these lower beings. This is a clear sign of doomsday. We shall all perish together in the end.
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 14, 2010 at 14:04
by   Reality
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:41
 
The real culprit of the whole issue was start by this clown where the rest are trying to protect. Let's Face it, Hishawati choose to ignore a strong 10 year old fact and based her decision on "some law of her own fancy" to state that the father was irresponsible and gave the mother a 2nd chance. This is certainly a biased decision. She doesn't befit her position. There has been numerous complaint against such a Judge yet nothing done to move here out, like this. How can anyone have confidence in the Judiciary.
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 14, 2010 at 21:40
by   Angel
edited Jun 4, 2016 at 04:26
 
Truly, this Judge gone crazy in trying to protect her fellow colleague and the Three Palace clowns. We in Malaysia and watching this happen in our Judiciary. It's a Black Monday and clearly a miscarriage of Justice and fairness for this poor little girl and her father. The public cannot be fooled to believing whatever the Judge says is absolute truth. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can be a better Judge than all of them.. i.e all of the Judges are collaborating with one another to protect the first one. Shame befall these lopsided Judges with bad judgement.
1 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 14, 2010 at 22:09
by   Wind
edited Jun 4, 2016 at 04:32
 
News from the grape vines is that this women is being financed by her rich Hong Kong restaurateur boyfriend in London who is helping finance this battle. It's a shame that we Malaysian cannot even protect our families. It's a wholesale shame on us, we have to give away this poor little girl as a sacrificial lamb to the wolves from overseas. Poor father who has to lose his daughter this cruel way.
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Sep 15, 2010 at 17:06
by   TransParent
edited Jun 5, 2016 at 03:46
 
Looks like vultures out there are preying on this little girl. I hope God steps-in to allow shame to befall on them. It is very blatant of them to to use the vehicle of miscarriage in Justice. It is very clear to me what is happening and I despite the manner in which this what I consider a legal crime taking place.
1 found this helpful
Helpful


 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   Next »  Last »

Your Answer





By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy, cookie policy and terms of service.