Child Custody: Does the Child’s Choice Decide the Case?

After parents separate, disputes over custody or the child’s living arrangements may reach the courts. Some attempts to influence the child can themselves cause harm: excessive indulgence, expensive gifts such as smartphones, unrestrained freedom, or criticism designed to damage the child’s relationship with the other parent. A sudden display of attention during proceedings may also disappear once the dispute ends, leaving the child without consistent care.

The Omani legal framework discussed here does not make a binary choice between parents a mandatory deciding step in every custody case. Judicial discretion and the child’s best interests remain central. Listening to a child and treating that child’s preference as conclusive are different matters.

Following separation, the mother has the starting priority for custody under the applicable rules. Article 129 of the Personal Status Law sets the ordinary custody period for a boy at age 7 and for a girl at puberty, while allowing a different arrangement where the child’s interests require it. A boy reaching 7 therefore does not mean that every case must mechanically result in transfer to the father. Suitability of the home and any circumstances favouring continued care by the mother must be examined.

Courts may consider the views of a child capable of understanding and expressing a preference. That opinion can assist the assessment, but it does not amount to an unrestricted right to determine custody. It should reflect genuine understanding rather than pressure or inducement.

The judicial approach discussed in this article allows attention to the child’s age, environment and maturity rather than an inflexible rule applied without regard to individual differences. The purpose of hearing a preference is to inform a decision that protects the child, not to transfer the court’s responsibility to the child.

Providing material needs and undertaking the responsibility of upbringing are related but different. Daily provision matters, while upbringing also concerns character, stability and preparation for life. If a preference is influenced by gifts, disparagement of the other parent or other inappropriate pressure, those influences must be evaluated rather than accepted as a reliable indication of welfare.

Some parents may compete for a child’s affection through greater spending or fewer boundaries. Others may become unusually attentive only during the case. The independence of the child’s views and the continuity of actual care therefore deserve careful examination. A temporary preference cannot replace a comprehensive assessment of living and developmental needs.

Custody proceedings should keep the child’s best interests at their centre. The court’s task is to exercise its powers according to the particular facts and applicable law, preventing the parents’ competition from undermining the stability and care the child needs to grow.

By Mohammed bin Saeed Al-Maamari, Advocate and Legal Consultant.

Al-Maamari & Al-Saidi Law Firm | +968 90605000 | info@mflegal.net | mohd@mflegal.net