ADL v ADM

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 09 May 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 95
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 05 May 2014
• Docket Number: Originating Summons (Family) No 365 of 2013 (Registrar’s Appeal from the State Courts No 20 of 2014)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Siew Fong (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Simon Tan Hiang Teck (Attorneys Inc LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Custody,Access
• Published date: 14 May 2014

Choo Han Teck J:

The wife is a lawyer working as an in-house counsel. Her lawyer said she was 36 years old and the husband, a lecturer with a local university, was 37 years old. However, the parties’ respective NRIC numbers indicate that they were about 37 and 40 years old respectively as at the date of the hearing on 5 May 2014.

They married in Singapore on 8 August 2009 and have a daughter aged 21 months (born on 10 August 2012). The wife left the matrimonial home on 12 July 2013 with the child. The husband filed for divorce on 26 August 2013. In the interim, the parties appeared before the Family Court and, after arguments, obtained an interim order for care and control to be given to the wife with liberal access to the husband.

The court below fixed access times to be from 9am to 2pm every Monday, Wednesday and Friday (save for 31 January 2014 and the first day of Chinese New Year, when the husband was to return the child to the wife by 12noon). The husband appealed because he wanted greater access, as follows: Access from Monday to Friday from 9am to 5.45pm; and Access on Sunday from 11am to 9pm. He was represented by Miss Foo Siew Fong and the wife was represented by Mr Simon Tan.

The crux of Miss Foo’s submission was that the husband has a more flexible work schedule and should be given greater access. Miss Foo submitted that the husband is free to look after the child each day from 9am to 5.45pm. She said that under the prevailing arrangement, the wife left the child in the care of her parents (the child’s grandparents), in whose home the wife and child were staying. However, the wife’s mother works full-time and that leaves only the wife’s 70-year-old father (together with a domestic helper) to look after the child.

Miss Foo submitted that the husband loved the child and has shown himself capable of looking after her. He wished to have more time to form a bond with the child. Miss Foo and Mr Tan disagreed as to whether the wife had applied for the child to be admitted to a day-care centre. Miss Foo argued that the plan to send the child to a day-care centre was a clear indication that the wife’s father was incapable of looking after the child. Mr Tan claimed that this was untrue and that the decision to send the child to a day-care centre was a joint one. Mr Tan also submitted that the wife would return home during lunch on weekdays to feed the child and put her to bed for her afternoon nap.

The crux of Mr Tan’s submissions was that the order of the court below should not be disturbed, on the substantive grounds of parity (between parties) and the procedural grounds of “constancy”. He argued that if the husband were to be given more access time, it would be tantamount to sharing care and control, and that would be contrary to the court order granted below. He then gave a substantive reason not to disturb the order below. He argued that if the husband were given access from Monday to Friday and on Sunday, the wife would not have the opportunity to feed the child or put her to bed in the afternoon, save for Saturday afternoons. Mr Tan also submitted that since the husband already has access during the weekdays, he should not be entitled to access during the weekend, so that the wife can...