SHE wants the right to take charge of her daughter's life - but is quite happy to let the child live with her grandparents for the next few years.

Yesterday, the woman went to the High Court to appeal against an earlier order that had placed her 12-year-old in the care of the maternal grandfather. The parties cannot be named under the law to protect minors.

The girl was referred to Child Protection and Welfare Services in February 2004 after showing up in school with a black eye.

This April, Juvenile Court Judge Wong Li Tein ordered that she be placed under the care of her grandfather - legally termed the 'fit person' - for five years.

This means the grandfather is empowered to sign documents pertaining to the child. Also, the parents have limited access to the child and must provide $100 a month in maintenance. In addition, they must sign a bond to exercise proper care and guardianship, and another to undergo counselling.

As the mother had not complied with similar bonds made earlier, the court also ordered that a $5,000 bond she had signed be forfeited. The father had to serve a 14-week jail term for breaching his bond.

At her appeal yesterday, the mother, a housewife, said she had no issue with the girl living with the grandparents, but argued the bond forfeiture was unfair. She said the bond to exercise proper care served no purpose as the girl was not under her care, and she had no time for counselling as she had a younger daughter to care for.

She said she and her husband were on good terms, but they lived apart because their HDB flat had been repossessed for non-payment of arrears and she did not want to live with her in-laws.

She complained of being shut out of decisions concerning her daughter's education and disputed the picture painted of her as a bad mother by child protection officers.

For instance, she had refused to allow the child to receive dental services in school. Her reason: They had a private dentist. She also refused to allow the child to attend school excursions. Her reason: The forms were not given to her, so she could not sign them.

She also accused her father of being a womaniser and claimed that he had called her husband useless.

She went on for more than an hour before Justice Tay Yong Kwang told her to stop beating about the bush and to state exactly what she wanted.

Did she want her daughter back?

'No, I do not want the child returned to me,' she said. 'I don't have the energy to look after two children.'

She wanted the girl to continue living with the grandparents - with the grandmother designated as the 'fit person' instead - but she felt she was entitled to her 'natural parental rights'.

Justice Tay disagreed with her and dismissed the appeal. He made only one change to the orders - the girl will live with her grandparents until she turns 16, as the law is applied to those under 16.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.