KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 16 — Ever wondered how judges navigate the delicate task of dealing with children in the midst of custody disputes?
Before her elevation to the Court of Appeal, former Family High Court judge Datin Evrol Mariette Peters set out to rethink that experience entirely, reshaping her courtroom into a safer, less intimidating space for children entangled in custody disputes — a transformation she hopes will inspire broader reform across the judiciary.
Recounting her experience, Peters said judicial interviews with children were among the most difficult responsibilities for a family judge, who must speak to a child involved in a custody dispute to assess which parent should be awarded custody.
“Even then, I do not like to use the word judicial interview because it sounds confrontational and antagonistic.
“You want to dilute that very intimidating setting, so I refer to it as judicial conversation or just conversation.
“This (awarding custody) is a very, very difficult decision, but a decision that has to be made,” she said during the Human Rights Day Forum 2025 — “Children’s Rights in Malaysia: From Commitments to Monitoring and Accountability” panel session held at the Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel here.
Peters served as a Family Court judge at the Kuala Lumpur High Court before her elevation to the Court of Appeal on July 28 this year.
She admitted that early in her tenure as a family judge, she had to carefully consider how to engage a child and what questions to ask, noting that every query had to be delicately framed to avoid placing the child in a conflicted position.
Worse still, Peters said the sterile look of a judge’s chambers did little to help, recalling how the child appeared visibly petrified.
It was only later that she discovered child-engagement guidelines used in places like New Zealand and the United States — guidance she was quick to put into practice.
“I turned my whole judicial chambers into a playground, (to a point) where some children came there and said it looked like the Ikea playground they’ve played with.
Picture for illustration purposes only. Peters transformed her chambers into a child‑friendly space, with children likening it to an Ikea playground. — Pexels pic
“I had a room full of soft toys, filled with goodies like cookies and chocolates, and instead of the wonderful paintings adorned on the wall, I replaced them with paintings made by my own daughter when she was in primary school.
“So when the child comes in, they can relate to something child-like,” she said.
She added that on days she interviewed a child, she kept an extra set of clothes ready, aware that the judge’s robe could feel intimidating, and would sometimes lay mats on the floor so she could converse with the child at their level.
She later acknowledged that family judges also face a delicate balancing act: earning a child’s trust while recognising that what the child wants may not always serve their well-being.
“The child’s wishes are only one of the many things to look at, and I found that to be the most difficult thing to do in a family court compared to dishing out decisions.
“You see, marital disputes are just that, it’s either this or that, but when a child comes to you, you wonder whether you made the right decisions,” she said.
Peters noted that judges assume multiple responsibilities during their tenure, one of which is taking a supervisory approach — a role unique to the family court. — Picture by Choo Choy May
Multiple roles to safeguard child rights
Peters noted that judges assume multiple responsibilities during their tenure, one of which is taking a supervisory approach — a role unique to the family court.
“I always say the family court is a court that deals with after-sales service, it never ends because people will come back, custody orders can be varied, there is neither time limit nor limit to the number of times.
“When litigants come back to vary custody orders, judges must see whether there’s material change in the circumstances, so you will find the judge having to go back to the case file and look at the child’s (development) to see whether change is necessary,” she said.
She explained that it was common for children to change their minds as they grow older, and their preference for one parent over the other could shift with the circumstances.
Beyond their supervisory duties, Peters said judges act as adjudicators in resolving disputes and as interpreters of legislation — including rules that directly affect children.
As an example, Peters cited how the Federal Court had to interpret the singular word “parent” in the Federal Constitution to include the plural “parents,” resolving a long-standing debate over parental consent for religious conversion.
Lastly, Peters noted that judges should assume a reformatory role, pointing out systemic weaknesses in the way decisions are delivered, with the hope that those in power will acknowledge the issues and enact needed reforms.
In fact, she said, most proposed and implemented amendments to the Federal Constitution stemmed from views expressed by judges in their judgments.