AWN v AWO and another appeal

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date16 November 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] SGHC 228
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberOriginating Summons (Family) No 274 of 2010 (Registrar’s Appeal No 189 of 2011) & Divorce No 4739 of 2011 (Registrar’s Appeal No 148 of 2012)
Year2012
Published date16 November 2012
Hearing Date17 September 2012,24 April 2012,28 March 2012,12 September 2012
Plaintiff CounselTan-Goh Song Gek Alice (A C Fergusson & Partners) (appointed by Legal Aid Bureau)
Defendant CounselThe husband in-person.
Subject MatterFamily Law,Custody,Divorce
Citation[2012] SGHC 228
Choo Han Teck J:

These appeals before me were brought by the appellant–husband (the “husband”) from two decisions of the family court. The first appeal before me is from the decision of the learned District Judge Angelina Hing (“District Judge Hing”) in Originating Summons (Family) No 274 of 2010 under the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) ordering, inter alia, joint custody of the child of the marriage with care and control to the respondent–wife (the “wife”) and access to the husband by way of two-way assisted transfer on Saturdays. The second appeal before me is from the decision of the learned District Judge Tan Shin Yi ( “District Judge Tan”) in Divorce No 4739 of 2011 dismissing the husband’s application under s 99(2) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) to rescind an interim judgment of divorce (the “interim judgment”). I now deal with the two appeals in turn.

In September of 2010, the husband filed in the family court Originating Summons (Family) No 274 of 2010 under the Guardianship of Infants Act praying for sole custody, care and control of the only child of the marriage between the parties, a son, and for supervised access to be granted to the wife. The husband alleged that the wife had since February 2009 prevented him from having access to the child. The child in the present case is of a very young age. At the hearing of the matter in the family court below, he was only 3 years of age. He also suffers from a submucous cleft palate, a congenital disorder, which affects his speech. Having sight of a social welfare report by the Family Welfare Service of the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (“MCYS”) which was prepared pursuant to the order of the mediation judge, District Judge Hing was of the view that in light of the tender years of the child and the fact that he was attached to his mother having lived with her for more than two years, care and control should be granted to the wife. At the same time, District Judge Hing was cognisant that it is in the child’s interest to be allowed to bond meaningfully with the father and so made orders granting access to the husband. District Judge Hing ordered four assisted access sessions to reacquaint the child with the husband and thereafter for the husband to have unsupervised access by way of two-way assisted transfers at the Centre for Family Harmony on Saturdays from 10am to 4pm. The parties were granted joint custody of the child. Unhappy with this decision, the husband appealed.

At the first hearing before me on 28 March 2012, it was disclosed that the wife had on several occasions failed to comply with the access order, citing reasons such as her work obligations on Saturdays and the child’s sickness on two occasions. To this end, I ordered that the arrangement be continued for a further four Saturdays and for the facilitator of the two-way assisted transfer to report on the transfers. When the parties returned before me on 24 April, it was reported that the access orders had been carried out satisfactorily. I then ordered another social welfare report be prepared by MCYS to investigate the best interests of the child vis-à-vis the parties’ wishes for care and control and access, as well as the conduct of the parents during the two-way assisted transfers for access. Several things were borne out in the report. First, the family welfare office was of the view that both parents and their respective families share a deep concern for and enjoyed a close relationship with the child. Secondly, the child is comfortable with both parents and their respective families. Thirdly, the wife appears to be harbouring fears and distrust of the husband, and this has led her to take steps to minimise the interactions between the child and the husband. Fourthly, the maternal grandparents appear (justifiably or not) to have a strong dislike for the husband,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Yap Chai Ling and another v Hou Wa Yi
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 12 November 2015
    ...in argument as set out at [36] above, there appears to be one decision of the High Court and several decisions of the District Court (see, eg, AWN v AWO and another appeal [2012] SGHC 228 (“AWN”) and Shameek Bhushan v Tina Gupta [2014] SGDC 425) (“Shameek Bhushan”)) which have applied s 99(......
  • TCY v TCZ
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 25 May 2015
    ...care and control, and take necessary steps, even steps as drastic as reversing care and control orders. He also highlighted AWN v AWO [2012] SGHC 228 where Choo Han Teck J stated that, “it is in the interest of the child’s development as a healthy and balanced individual that the husband be......
  • ADJ v ADK
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 May 2014
    ...decision of the Judge. The Judge’s reasons for his decision are found in his written judgment identified as AWN v AWO and another appeal [2012] SGHC 228 (“the Judgment”). The defendant resists this application on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the three prescribed......
  • Shameek Bhushan v Tina Gupta
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 16 December 2014
    ...Judgment and destroyed the very basis upon which the decree nisi was granted. Hence, the decree nisi had to be rescinded. In AWN v AWO [2012] SGHC 228, the High Court upheld the District Court’s decision to dismiss the husband’s application under section 99(2) of the Women’s Charter to resc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...the child does not wish to see the mother or the child has not been livingwith the mother. Indeed, the prior decision of AWN v AWO[2012] SGHC 228 had stated that the maternal bond is only a factor and there is no operative presumption in favour of the mother in care and control matters: see......
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...previous marriage, that marriage is void for breach of s 5 of the Women's Charter. Custody of children Care and control 16.7 In AWN v AWO[2012] SGHC 228 (‘AWN v AWO’), the husband applied, under the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed), for the sole custody, care and control o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT