Chan Kah Cheong Kenneth v Teoh Kheng Yau

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: MPH Rubin J
• Judgment Date: 28 May 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 152
• Date: 28 May 1994
• Subject Matter: Family Law,s 3 Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122),Young children,Custody,All things being equal, young children generally to be with mother with generous access to father,Welfare of child paramount,Care and control
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 196 of 1994 (Summons in Chambers No 2421 of 1994)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Anamah Tan and Catherine Lim (Ann Tan & Associates)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Cheng Han (Drew & Napier)

This is a custody dispute between a young couple, both Malaysians, and they, having obtained Singapore permanent resident status, are currently working and living in Singapore. Married in 1982, they were, until 28 February 1994, living together with their two young children at Blk 118, Clementi Street 13, #08-89, Singapore. Photographs produced to the court show that they were a handsome pair. Both of them are graduates. The husband, who is a medical doctor by training, now works as an editor for a publishing firm known as World Scientific. The wife is at present an editor with the Singapore Broadcasting Corp. They are now in their mid-thirties and have two boys - Chan Thim Seng Michael Ryan (`Michael`) born on 20 July 1989 and Chan Thim Yan Neil (`Neil`) born on 16 September 1992.

They had a normal and happy married life until August 1993. The unexpected upheaval arose not because of any run of the mill matrimonial strife, but as a result of the husband`s new found zeal towards an esoteric fraternity known as Order of the Militia Crucifera Evangelica (`OMCE`). The wife, either fired by imagination or influenced by some well-known Christian writers, is convinced that OMCE is occultic and a splinter group of Rosicrucianism. The husband claims, however, that OMCE is a non-sectarian international fraternal order open to all without discrimination and is closely associated with the Ancient and Mystic Order of Rosicrucianism (`AMORC`). AMORC is a registered body in Singapore.

The wife regarded the husband`s involvement with OMCE as evil whereas the husband claims that it is founded on the tenets of human goodness and that the wife is totally misguided and paranoid. As their relationship worsened, civilized behaviour gave way to physical assaults. There was mutual recrimination and a noticeable erosion of the edifice of marriage due to constant bickering accompanied by physical violence. Complaints were made to the police on account of these alleged assaults. The husband had included in his affidavits a number of complaints made by him to the police alleging that he had been beaten up by his wife. The wife on her part produced photographs as well as documents evidencing the husband`s assault on her. The husband had also exhibited an interim personal protection order he had obtained from the subordinate courts on 26 February 1994.

As their relationship deteriorated, the children were unfortunately drawn into the picture. The husband is convinced that the wife is unfit to look after them and is accusing her of terrorizing the children and being destructive. The wife, on the other hand, claims that her love and dedication for her children is beyond doubt and that the children, in not being able to be with their mother, are being cruelly stressed. She also claims that the husband`s OMCE practices are damnable and are not conducive to the welfare of the children.

On 28 February 1994, the husband removed the children without the knowledge and consent of the wife from the matrimonial flat at Clementi and went to live elsewhere. At the time proceedings were instituted in this matter, the children were housed at the husband`s cousin`s flat at Blk 310, Tampines Street 32, #11-126, Singapore. The wife was kept in the dark for a few days as to the children`s whereabouts. Eventually, the husband, with a view to regularizing his action in removing the children from the matrimonial flat, applied to the court ex parte and obtained an order for interim custody of the two children with only supervised access to the wife. The said order was granted by the court on 2 March 1994.

The main ground on which the husband applied for the interim custody with supervised access to the wife was that the wife, being a Malaysian, was likely to spirit the children away from Singapore and that the children were being tormented by her violent behaviour.

The wife was distraught when she learnt of this ex parte application. She still wanted to reconcile with her husband and did not wish to aggravate matters. She tried her best to persuade her husband to return home but it was not to be. The supervised access given to her was traumatic both to her and the children.

When the matter came up for hearing before me for the variation of the interim order, it was apparent that the wife was still desirous of salvaging her marriage. A perusal of the husband`s two affidavits filed in support of his earlier ex parte application indicates that the basis on which he applied for interim custody was that the children were attached to him, that he had been looking after them constantly, and that the wife was likely to abduct the children to Malaysia. He claimed that while the wife was away in the United States pursuing a course of studies in 1990 and 1991, it was he who cared for them. There were, however, some singular omissions. His two affidavits did not bring out the fact at the ex parte stage that he too is a Malaysian; neither did he disclose to the court his wife`s unhappiness over his OMCE association.

Affidavits filed by the wife showed, however, that when the wife left to pursue a course in the United States, it was with the consent of the husband and since her return they have been living at their Clementi residence without any apparent trouble until about August 1993, when the respondent started to associate with OMCE. Another fact which was not in dispute was that both Michael and Neil were living with their parents at their Clementi residence until 28 February 1994, when the husband suddenly removed the children from their normal abode.

Noting that both the husband and wife are extremely fond of the children, I adjourned the hearing for two days in order to enable parties to work out a mutually acceptable solution as to access, indicating to them that the court would consider granting them joint custody of the children.

However, when counsel appeared before me at the adjourned hearing on 14 May 1994, counsel for the husband informed the court that the parties could not agree on the issue of care and control and as to which kindergarten Michael should attend.

Having considered all the relevant issues, I varied the interim order granted by the court on 2 March 1994 and made the following orders:

(1) the two children of the marriage be in the joint custody of the husband and wife;

(2) the said two children shall stay and live with the wife from 8pm on Sundays till 7pm on Fridays;

(3) the children shall stay and live with the husband from 7.01pm on Fridays till 7.59pm on Sundays;

(4) Michael, the older child, shall attend kindergarten to be decided by the wife;

(5) the passports of the children...