Yesterday morning, after nearly two years of proceedings, the parties in this matter reached a global settlement. As a result:
The father was awarded Joint Custody and Joint Guardianship of the minor child(ren).
In addition, he secured Sole Care and Control.
This outcome represents a significant vindication of the father’s parental rights, and — more importantly — a legally endorsed affirmation of the child’s right to meaningful, ongoing involvement with both parents.
What This Means (in Legal Terms)
Under Malaysian law, custody arrangements commonly distinguish between:
Custody / Guardianship rights — the authority to make major decisions regarding a child’s upbringing, including education, health, religion, and welfare;
Care & Control — the day‑to‑day care, living arrangement and actual physical custody of the child.
By granting Joint Custody and Joint Guardianship, the court recognised that both parents share legal and decision‑making responsibility for the child’s long‑term upbringing. Meanwhile, awarding Sole Care & Control to the father ensures that the child’s primary physical care and residence will be with him.
Why This Resolution Matters
Balanced parenting: The child benefits from being raised under the supervision and guidance of both parents. Legal decisions remain shared, ensuring both voices matter.
Stability & continuity: With the father having care and control, the child’s living environment can remain stable, reducing disruption and uncertainty.
Recognition of father’s role: This result challenges the conventional presumption (especially for younger children) that custody must default to the mother, demonstrating that the court will prioritize the child’s welfare and the parents’ demonstrated capacities over rigid assumptions.
Child‑centered outcome: Most importantly, this arrangement places the child’s best interests at the forefront, allowing both parents to contribute meaningfully to the child’s emotional, moral, educational and social development.
Implications for Family Law Practice
This case reinforces several important principles for divorced or separated parents (and their lawyers) seeking custody or guardianship orders:
The court’s paramount concern remains the welfare of the child. Custody and guardianship outcomes will be determined based on what best serves the child, including emotional stability, ongoing relationship with both parents, and continuity in living conditions.
Joint legal custody / guardianship remains viable: Where both parents demonstrate commitment and capability, a shared guardianship order can be appropriate, allowing both to participate in major life decisions for the child.
Sole physical custody (care & control) is not necessarily inconsistent with joint guardianship: The court may split the roles. One parent may have day‑to‑day care while both share long‑term decision‑making.
Flexibility in custody arrangements is real: The courts are guided by statutory frameworks [the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA 1976”) and the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (“GIA 1961”)], but ultimately exercise discretion to tailor orders to the facts and welfare needs of each child.
Conclusion
We are pleased to announce that this settlement, granting Joint Custody, Joint Guardianship and Sole Care & Control to the father, represents a fair, balanced and child‑focused resolution.
At Malcolm Fernandez, we remain committed to advocating for fair parenting arrangements that preserve the bond between children and both parents, even where relationships between the parents have broken down.
The Children always come first.
This article is prepared by Vhimall Murugesan