Islamabad:
The Apex Court has ruled that all courts, particularly the courts of family and judges of the Judicial Power of the District must listen and respect the child’s voice in each custody and guardianship.
“This is not an aspiration objective but a binding obligation under CRC [UN Convention on the Rights of the Child]”said a 12 -page written order in a request for review presented by a father in a case of children’s custody.
The UN Agreement on the Rights of the Child: Article 3 requires that the best interests of the child will be a main consideration in all actions related to them.
Article 12 of the CRC guarantees each child the right to express their views freely in all matters that affect them, with due weight given according to their age and maturity.
The court indicated that the previous procedures unfortunately could not provide children with the opportunity to be heard, an omission that, according to him, undermines both national constitutional protections and our international commitments.
“Given the central importance of a child’s voice determinations in custody, we seemed imperative to examine the case to ensure that these rights are not only recognized but also remain significantly.
“To rectify this supervision and ensure that the well -being and perspectives of the children were considered, this Court considered it necessary to interact directly with both children involved.
“The interaction allowed the bank to make an independent evaluation of their emotional well -being, level of comfort and preference expressed,” added the trial.
The verdict issued by a division bank comprised of Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Aqmed Ahmed Abbasi pointed out that the courts, especially family courts, have a moral and legal responsibility to see, listen and protect all children not as a passive issue of procedures, but as a person who loads rights whose dignity must be safe at each stage of the judicial process.
He also noted that in matters involving children, such as custody, protection and family disputes, courts must recognize that a strictly adversary approach often exacerbates the conflict, delays the resolution and undermines the sense of stability and safety of the child.
On the contrary, the resolution of alternative disputes (ADR), particularly mediation, offers a more collaborative, efficient and sensitive mechanism to the child to solve such disputes. Although the CRC does not explicitly reference to the term ADR, its spirit and structure clearly support its use.
“In the General Comment No. 12 (2009), the UN Committee on the CRC explicitly encourages states to develop mechanisms that guarantee a significant participation of children in family law procedures, even through non -judicial and informal processes such as mediation.
“Such processes must be voluntary, friendly for children and facilitated by trained professionals to respect the child’s evolution and prioritize their best interests.
“ADR mechanisms designed properly reduce psychological burden for children, promote parents cooperation and lead to faster and more sustainable results that support the child’s long -term well -being.”
He said that family courts and guardianship courts must prioritize mediation as the first appeal, particularly where the parties demonstrate the will to participate in good faith.
“The award must be carried out only when mediation fails or is considered inappropriate due to the concerns of safety, coercion or imbalance of energy.
“This approach is not only aligned with our international obligations under the CRC, but also reinforces the constitutional commitment to protect the dignity, well -being and future of each child,” he said.
