For Marlyn, motherhood became a journey filled with pain, uncertainty, and unwavering determination.
At twenty-nine years old, Marlyn never imagined that the greatest battle she would face would be the fight to be reunited with her own son. She and Carl were once in a relationship and lived together during the early years of their family life. In 2015, they welcomed their son, Charles, into the world. Although they were never married, Marlyn believed that love and cooperation would still allow them to raise Charles peacefully even after their separation.
When their relationship ended in 2017, both parties initially agreed on an informal co-parenting arrangement. Charles would stay with Marlyn during weekdays and spend weekends with his father. At first, the arrangement appeared manageable, and Marlyn remained hopeful that despite the separation, her son would continue growing up surrounded by the care and affection of both parents.
However, over time, everything slowly changed.
Without informing Marlyn, Carl transferred residence and gradually limited her communication and access to Charles. As months turned into years, the paternal family repeatedly moved from one place to another, making it increasingly difficult for Marlyn to locate her child. Every attempt she made to visit or reconnect with Charles was met with restrictions and conditions imposed by the respondents. There were moments when she was only allowed brief visits, while at other times, she was completely denied any contact at all.
The pain became even more unbearable during the COVID-19 pandemic when Marlyn was entirely deprived of seeing her son. For years, she carried the emotional burden of not knowing how Charles was doing, whether he was safe, or whether he still remembered her as his mother.
Despite the distance and emotional suffering, Marlyn never stopped searching for ways to reconnect with her child. She continuously reached out, hoping that one day Charles would finally return home to her.
On December 27, 2020, Marlyn was able to have physical custody of her son. However, the respondents instructed her to return Charles on December 30, 2020. Fearing that she might never see her son again if she failed to comply, Marlyn returned Charles to his father.
After that brief reunion, the respondents once again changed their address without informing Marlyn, resulting in another period of complete loss of contact with her son.
In April 2024, after years of uncertainty, Marlyn finally discovered the school where Charles was studying. Filled with hope, she attempted to peacefully retrieve her son. Instead of cooperation, however, she was allegedly threatened by the respondents with a kidnapping complaint should she refuse to return the child.
The experience left her emotionally devastated, but it also strengthened her resolve to fight for her parental rights through lawful means.
Determined to seek justice, Marlyn sought assistance from the Department of Social Welfare Services (DSWS), the Women and Children Protection Desk (WCPD) of PNP CCPO Station 4, and the Children’s Legal Bureau, Inc. (CLB).
Several case conferences were conducted through DSWS in an effort to amicably settle the custody dispute, as requested by the respondents. Unfortunately, the discussions did not result in an agreement. The father refused to surrender custody of Charles, alleging that Marlyn was not financially stable and was mentally unfit to care for the child. Consequently, the case conference ended without settlement. Both parties were advised by DSWS to pursue the matter through legal proceedings after attempts at mediation had failed.
On April 8, 2024, a coordinated rescue operation was conducted involving DSWS, the Mabolo Police Station, and CLB after information was received that Charles was allegedly staying inside a residence at Maria Luisa Estate Park. Upon arrival, however, the team was only allowed access up to the subdivision gate due to strict management policies. Despite explaining the urgency and legal nature of the operation, the responders were prohibited from entering the residence to immediately recover the child.
Further verification later revealed that Charles was no longer inside the residence. The paternal relatives allegedly refused to cooperate and continuously withheld information regarding the child’s whereabouts. Even the paternal grandfather reportedly refused to surrender Charles to his biological mother.
For Marlyn, every failed attempt to locate her son brought renewed heartbreak. The repeated concealment of Charles whereabouts and the respondents’ refusal to cooperate prolonged the separation between mother and child and caused tremendous emotional distress.
As the intervention continued, disclosures were likewise made that Charles had allegedly been emotionally influenced against his mother. According to information gathered during the case management process, the stepmother reportedly told Charles that his biological mother no longer loved him and had abandoned him. These statements allegedly affected the child emotionally and created confusion regarding his relationship with his mother.
Still, Marlyn never gave up.
Through the assistance of the Children’s Legal Bureau, Inc., legal counseling, documentation, affidavit preparation, and agency coordination were conducted. After careful legal assessment, it became clear that under Article 176 of the Family Code, sole parental authority over an illegitimate child belongs to the mother unless she is proven unfit.
No evidence showed that Marlyn was incapable of caring for her son.
Considering the continued unlawful withholding of custody and the repeated refusal of the respondents to cooperate, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Prayer for Custody and Sole Parental Authority was filed before the court.
As the case progressed, the court carefully evaluated the circumstances surrounding Charles’ custody. The evidence established that the prolonged withholding of the child had no lawful basis and that Mahrnel’s parental rights as the biological mother had been violated.
Eventually, the court recognized Marlyn lawful parental authority and ordered the turnover of Charles custody to his mother, while granting the respondent visitorial rights.
The court stated:
“In this case, the petitioner has a better right over the child under the law, the latter having been born out of wedlock. As a mother, the petitioner is presumed by law to have the fitness to take care of and look after the needs of the child, unless otherwise proven by evidence to the contrary. The Court sees no compelling reason in this case to overturn such presumption since there is no judicial pronouncement from any court as to the petitioner’s unfitness to take care of her child.”
For Marlyn, the moment was more than a legal victory. After years of longing, emotional pain, and uncertainty, she was finally reunited with her son.
During follow-up home visitations conducted by the CLB social worker, Marlyn shared that Charles gradually adjusted to living with her once again. Although the years of separation left emotional scars on both mother and child, Charles slowly became more emotionally open and began rebuilding his relationship with his mother.
Marlyn expressed deep gratitude to the Children’s Legal Bureau, Inc., DSWS, and the law enforcement agencies that supported her throughout the difficult legal process. Their coordinated intervention became instrumental in restoring not only lawful custody but also the broken bond between a mother and her child.
This case stands as a reminder that behind every legal battle is a deeply human story of love, pain, resilience, and hope. For Marlyn, the case was never simply about winning in court it was about bringing her son home.
Prepared by:
MELROSE CARABUENA, RSW
Social Worker
Children’s Legal Bureau, Inc.