私生子: 亲生父亲是否有探视权 [2012] 8 MLJ 180 P1

案情:

1. 原告（P）是已婚男子，被告（D）是离婚女士。
2. P和D在2002年相遇并开始了亲密的关系。
3. 由于关系恶化，P和D于2006年5月签署了和解协议，其中P同意分期支付140万令吉，分期付款的最后一期是2011年1月。
4. 2009年4月，D非婚延下私生子。P每月为孩子的抚养费支付3千令吉。
5. 从孩子出生的那个星期日开始，P每天都在看孩子。
6. 但是，2011年2月开始，D不再让P看孩子。
7. P在法庭上申请，批准他获得探视小孩的权力。
8. 法院必须决定的问题如下：(i) 法院是否有权给予亲生父亲探视私生子; (ii) 在这个案件， 法院应不应该给P孩子的探视权。

法院判决：

1. D对孩子拥有完全的合法权利，而亲生父亲却没有合法权利。
2. 如果D希望与P彻底分手，并且希望自己抚养孩子，那么这个愿望必须得到尊重。P从未想过要娶D，而只是让她继续成为他的情妇。
3. 如果亲生母亲希望与亲生父亲有永久的了断，并希望自己抚养私生子，出于公共政策考虑，法院不适合广义裁决亲生父亲一定拥有小孩的探视权力。如果法院允许此探视权，这将开创先例，让亲生父亲拥有绝对权力，申请私生子的探视权利。
4. 至于小孩的福利和利益方面，亲生父亲的小孩探视权，是否有利于小孩的福利和利益，法院判决这案件是对儿童的福利或最大利益没有利。原因如下：

(a)  在D完全拒绝P接触小孩后，该小孩于2011年2月与P是没有接触的;

(b)  从孩子只有约22个月大的时候开始，P未定期接触该小孩;

(c)  P没有提出娶D，并让小孩合法化变成自己的孩子。尽管P自己主动每个月为孩子支付了3千令吉，但它无法弥补这一事实，即通过P与D的关系，使这个孩子现在变成私生子。所以最好的结局就是让D与孩子开始没有P存在的生活;和

(d)  没有证据证明D在道德上不适合或在其他方面不适合，无法独自监护及照顾该小孩。

6. 法院只应在特殊情况下才允许亲生父亲有权接触私生子。每个案件都必须根据自己的个别案情来决定。
7. P的申请，被法院驳回（即亲生父亲是不拥有私生子的探视权）。

Facts:

1. Plaintiff (P) is a married man and Defendant (D) is a divorcee.
2. P and D met each other in 2002 and started an intimate relationship.
3. As the relationship turned sour, P and D, had in May 2006, signed a settlement agreement where P agreed to pay D RM1.4m by instalments which the last instalments was January, 2011.
4. In April 2009, the illegitimate child was born and P had been paying a sum of RM3,000 per month for the child’s maintenance.
5. P had been seeing the child everyday, except on Sundays, from the time the child was born.
6. However, in February 2011, P was denied access to the child by D.
7. P applied in Court that he be granted access to the illegitimate child.
8. The issues raised for the determination of this court were as follows: (i) whether the court had the jurisdiction to grant access to the putative father of an illegitimate child; and (ii) whether access should be granted in this case.

Court held:

1. The court had the jurisdiction to decide on matters regarding access by putative father to an illegitimate child after considering what was for the welfare and best interests of the child.
2. D had full legal rights to the child and the putative father had no legal right or say on the matter.
3. If D wanted a clean break from P, and wished to bring up the child on her own, that wish had to be respected, considering that P had never thought it fit to marry D, but merely kept her as his mistress.
4. Going by strong public policy considerations, it would not be proper for this court to come up with a blanket ruling that a putative father must necessarily be given rights of access to an illegitimate child if the mother of such child wants a clean break from the putative father and wishes to bring up the illegitimate child on her own. That would set precedent and open the floodgates for all putative fathers to claim, as of right, access to illegitimate children.
5. As for the question, whether it is for the welfare and best interests of the child that access should be granted to the putative father, the Court is of the opinion that it would not be for the welfare or best interests of the child for the following reasons:

(a)  the child had no contact with the putative father from February 2011 after access was totally denied by D;

(b)  the child had not been accessed regularly by P from the time the child was only about 22 months old;

(c)  P had not made any offer to marry D and to legitimise the child. Even though P, on his own initiative, was paying RM3,000 per month for the child, it could never make up for the fact that it was through P’s affair with D that this child was now rendered illegitimate. It was best that D be allowed to move on with her life, with the child, without P; and

(d)  there was no evidence at all that the defendant was morally unfit, or unfit in other ways, to have sole custody, care and control of the child.

6. The Court should only be in exceptional circumstances that a putative father be given the privilege of access to an illegitimate child. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.
7. P’s application for access to the illegitimate child is dismissed (i.e. punitive father has not visiting rights over his illegitimate child).

Source: Lai Meng v Toh Chew Lian [2012] 8 MLJ 180. HC. YEOH WEE SIAM J

*请阅读·延长版：私生子: 亲生父亲是否有探视权 [2012] 8 MLJ 180 P2

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务，您可以联系我们。

*如果您需要法律咨询(付费)，您可以联系我们。

*我们的律师楼拥有超过15年的执业经验。我们处理民事纠纷 (打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆都处理。

*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.

*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekongklg.com

*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*加入我们的网络论坛: www.queco.org

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼

#Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #divorce lawyer #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师 #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #民事诉讼律师 #打官司的律师 #打离婚案的律师 #离婚律师