BF v BG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 197
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 09 November 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Petitioner in person
• Defendant Counsel: Indranee Rajah SC and Daryl Mok (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Divorce,Ancillary matters,Appeal against District Court's orders on access, maintenance and division of matrimonial assets
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 197

7 November 2006 Judgment reserved.

Woo Bih Li J:

1 The parties, BF and BG (“the Wife” and “the Husband” respectively), were married at the City Hall Marriage Registry, Hong Kong, on 17 March 1995. They have two sons. The Wife and the Husband were born in 1955 and 1956 respectively. The couple had stayed together in Hong Kong before and after their marriage. Thereafter, they moved to and stayed in an apartment in Singapore. Both are Australian citizens domiciled in Singapore. The Husband is also a Singapore permanent resident. After the first child was born, the Wife became a homemaker. The Husband is an international management consultant. He claims that he is at present engaged primarily by CMA Co. (The names of the parties and the corporate entities in which the Husband are involved have been changed in this judgment to protect the identities of the children.) I will say more about their income-earning capacities later. On 17 December 2002, the Wife left the matrimonial home with the children and filed a divorce petition the same day on the ground of the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour. The Husband was away then on a business trip. When he returned home on 19 December 2002, he found that his family had left with clothing, household appliances and some furniture. He was served that same day with the divorce petition and an application for interim care and control. From 20 January 2003, the parties attended court mediation and then private mediation. On 6 February 2003, the Husband filed a cross-petition based on three years’ separation. On 11 February 2003, the Wife was allowed to withdraw her divorce petition. On 11 March 2003, a decree nisi was made on the Husband’s cross-petition. The ancillaries were adjourned to be heard in chambers. The parties eventually signed an agreement dated 15 March 2003 (“the Agreement”) which provided for custody, school and public holiday access, an arrangement for a holiday and maintenance. The Agreement was incorporated into a consent order on 20 April 2003 (“the Consent Order”). The date of 20 January 2003 thereon is a typographical error. Final orders on ancillaries were made by District Judge Khoo Oon Soo (“District Judge Khoo”) in August and September 2005 as elaborated below.

2 The Husband and Wife, each being dissatisfied with certain parts of District Judge Khoo’s order, have appealed against parts of his orders. The appeals are:

(a) the Husband’s appeal in Registrar’s Appeal from the Subordinate Courts (“RAS”) No 720075 of 2005 (“RAS 720075/2005”) on access;

(b) the Husband’s appeal in RAS No 720081 of 2005 (“RAS 720081/2005”) (as amended) on division of matrimonial assets and maintenance;

(c) the Wife’s appeal in RAS No 720082 of 2005 (“RAS 720082/2005”) on access, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance.

3 There is also another appeal by the Husband in RAS No 720019 of 2006 (“RAS 720019/2006”) against orders made by District Judge Teoh Ai Lin (“District Judge Teoh”) which I shall elaborate on later. All the appeals were heard by me. Ms Indranee Rajah SC was the lead counsel who appeared before me for the Husband. The Wife appeared in person. The Husband filed the two notices of appeal referred to in [2(a)] and [2(b)] above because after District Judge Khoo made his final order on 17 August 2005, he heard further arguments on the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. District Judge Khoo’s decision, after further arguments, was given on 28 September 2005. The Husband’s notice of appeal in RAS 720075/2005 was filed first on 31 August 2005 to preserve the appeal timeline. The second notice of appeal in RAS 720081/2005 was filed on 4 October 2005 and amended on 11 October 2005. The Wife’s notice of appeal in RAS 720082/2005 was filed on 5 October 2005. The back page thereof indicates a filing date of 5 September 2005 which should probably read as 5 October 2005. I should add that Ms Rajah did not assert that the Wife’s notice of appeal, or any part thereof, was time-barred. Numerous affidavits and exhibits were filed. They occupied 15 bundles and over 6,000 pages in vol III of the joint record of appeal. Several issues relating to access, maintenance and division of matrimonial assets were canvassed in the various appeals.

Access

4 I will first deal with the access issues. There was a prior application under Summons in Chambers No 651539 of 2004 which was an application by the Husband for interim access during term time. District Judge Khoo had made certain orders thereon. The Husband then appealed to the High Court. His appeal was heard by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC, as he then was. Phang JC affirmed District Judge Khoo’s orders but added two other orders:

(a) that the Husband would have an additional hour of access to each child; and

(b) that the Husband was to have video access, when he telephoned the children, if possible.

5 In the final hearing on ancillaries, District Judge Khoo appeared to consider that he was bound by the decision of Phang JC even though that decision was in respect of interim access pending the final hearing on the ancillaries. In that final hearing, District Judge Khoo maintained the access orders he had made and the two additional orders of Phang JC with a qualification that any make-up access be done during the additional hour of access (see (b) below). The orders on access, as they stand before my decision, are as follows:

School time access

(a) The Husband shall have mid-week access every Wednesday from 5.30pm to 7.30pm.

(b) The Husband shall have make-up access to the children on Tuesdays from 5.30pm to 7.30pm, upon giving the Wife 24 hours’ notice, should the Husband be unable to have access on Wednesdays due to work commitments.

(c) The Husband shall have weekend access to the children each month as follows:

Week 1 and 3: Saturday 10.00am to Sunday 10.00am

Week 2 and 4: Friday 7.00pm to Saturday 7.00pm

(d) The Husband shall have an additional hour of access with each son on Tuesdays (according to Ms Rajah’s submission, this is homework/make-up access. I shall come back to this order later).

(e) The Husband shall have unrestricted and reasonable telephone access.

(f) The Husband is to have video access, if possible.

(g) The Husband may visit the children in school subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Husband’s visits to the school shall be no more than once a week;

(ii) the Husband shall inform the Wife as well as the relevant school teacher in writing at least one day before his visit, that he is intending to visit the boys (ie, if he intends to visit on Wednesday, for example, he should inform the Wife and the school by Tuesday); and

(iii) the Husband’s visits shall only take place during the boys’ respective lunch hours, and he shall not bring the boys out of the school premises during his visit.

(h) The Husband may attend any public event in the school to which all parents are invited, and any parent-teacher meetings or parent-child school activities to which he, as the father, is specifically invited, or to which both parents are invited.

(i) Both the Wife and Husband shall be allowed to do volunteer work with the school provided that it is by the invitation and agreement of the school.

School holiday access

(j) The Wife and the Husband shall have access as provided under the Consent Order, save that the Husband shall have unrestricted and reasonable telephone access when the children are with the Wife.

Under the Consent Order, the access for the summer school holidays was as follows:

Week 1 and 2	-	Husband
Week 3	-	Wife
Week 4 and 5	-	Husband
Week 6, 7 and 8	-	Wife

6 According to Ms Rajah, the access on summer holidays was subsequently varied by an order of District Judge Teoh on 15 March 2006 as follows:

Week 1 and 2	-	Husband
Week 3 and 4	-	Wife
Week 5 and 6	-	Husband
Week 7 and 8	-	Wife

That variation is not in issue before me. However, there are other orders of District Judge Teoh which are the subject of yet another appeal by the Husband, ie, RAS 720019/2006 mentioned in [3] above. I will come to those other orders later.

7 Before I deal with specific issues of dispute regarding access, I make the following general observations. From the Husband’s affidavits, I gather that his approach was that each parent should have equal time with the children during children’s available free time. He then sought to calculate those hours and to use his calculation to justify what he considered was reasonable access for him. In my view, this is not an issue where such an approach is appropriate and the court should take into account other factors such as who the primary caregiver is and what other arrangements he or she considers appropriate, the children’s needs not only in spending time with each parent but also to prepare for bed or other activities, and travelling time, as well as their overall schedule. These have to be considered in the round and not based on some mathematical formula.

8 Although Ms Rajah was not using the Husband’s calculation as such to support his appeals on various issues of access, it seems to me that the Husband was still trying to get as much time as possible with the children because, basically, he was still of the view that each parent should have equal time with the children from their free time. It also seems to me that the Husband, for all his success in his career, on which I shall say more later, is insecure about his children’s love for him and his influence over them. He may think that the Wife is poisoning their minds about him but, as far as I can tell, that suspicion is not well-founded. The Husband also sought to justify his applications and appeals on access by saying that the children wished to spend more time with him. I do not expect young children who love their father to say otherwise. However, issues of access should be considered in the round as I have said and not simply on what young...