EY v EZ

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng
• Judgment Date: 12 April 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 91
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2004
• Published date: 11 January 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Koh Tien Hua (A Ang Seah and Hoe)
• Defendant Counsel: Engelin Teh SC and Wendy Yu (Engelin Teh Practice LLC)
• Citation: [2004] SGDC 91

[EDITORIAL NOTE: The details of this judgment have been changed to comply with the Children and Young Persons Act and/or the Women's Charter]

12 April 2004

District Judge Hoo Sheau Peng

1 The parties were married on 16 December 1996. They have a daughter (‘the child’). On 28 November 2001, the wife filed the divorce petition, and the husband filed a cross-petition on 24 January 2002. Then, parties agreed to proceed on the divorce petition, with amendments, on an uncontested basis. On 29 April 2003, a decree nisi to dissolve the marriage was granted on the amended divorce petition based on the unreasonable behaviour of the husband. The ancillary matters were adjourned. On the ancillary matters, I made the following orders on 19 December 2003, with clarifications on 31 December 2003:

(1) sole custody, care and control of the child be granted to the wife;

(2) there be liberal access by the husband to the child including,

a) every alternate weekend – Wednesday 7 pm to Sunday 8 pm;

b) every alternate public holiday from 9 am to 6 pm;

c) in alternate years, Chinese New Year eve or Chinese New Year first day from 10 am to 9 pm;

d) first half of the mid-year and year-end school holidays.

(3) the husband is to be consulted on matters relating to the child’s education and religion;

(4) the husband is to pick up and return the child from and to the wife’s residence for access;

(5) the husband is to pay maintenance of $2,000 per month for the child with effect from 31 December 03, and thereafter on the last day of each month;

(6) the husband is to pay a lump sum maintenance of $30,000 (being $500 x 12 x 5) for the wife. The lump sum maintenance of $30,000 is to be paid by way of six monthly instalments with effect from 31 December 2003 of $500 each, and then the balance to be paid by 30 June 2004;

(7) the matrimonial home at [xxx] is to be sold in the open market, and after repaying the outstanding loan and costs and expenses the sale, including any agent’s commission, valuation costs and stamp fees, the net proceeds be used to refund both parties’ Central Provident Fund (‘CPF’) accounts with monies used to purchase the flat and interest, in accordance with CPF rules and regulations;

(8) to effect the above order, the wife is to sign all necessary documents to give DBS bank first priority to the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, with the remaining proceeds to repay the parties’ CPF accounts;

(9) each party to retain other assets in his/her name;

(10) liberty to apply, including terms of access when the child begins formal schooling;

(11) each party to bear his and her own costs.

2 The husband has appealed against orders 1 to 6, and 9 to 11, and I now give reasons for my decision.

Background facts

3 The parties met in 1989, when they were colleagues. Both of them were already married when they started their relationship. The husband has a son from his previous marriage. Following their divorces from their respective first spouses, they married on 16 December 1996. They bought [xxx] (‘the home’). After the birth of the child on 2 August 1999, the wife stopped working.

4 In 1999, the husband had an affair with a colleague, one A (‘Mdm A’). He informed the wife in early 2000 about the affair. Thereafter, for various reasons, the marriage deteriorated. In November 2001, the wife and the child left the home.

5 At the time of the hearing, the husband was 44 years old, the wife was 41 years old, and the child four years old. The wife continued to be unemployed, and was living in rented premises. The husband was the general manager of [xxx] Pte Ltd, a German multi-national company. He was living with his mother, one Mdm B (‘Mdm B’), and his sister, one Mdm C (‘Mdm C’), at the sister’s place. The home was unoccupied.

6 For the ancillary matters hearing, the wife relied on 18 affidavits, admitted and marked as Exh PA1 to PA18. The husband relied on 25 affidavits, admitted and marked as Exh RA1 to RA25.

Custody, care and control

7 Prior to the grant of the decree nisi, parties filed applications for interim custody, care and control of the child, as well as maintenance for the wife and the child. On 27 September 2002, District Judge Emily Wilfred made the following orders in relation to the custody, care and control of the child:

(1) the husband and the wife shall have joint custody and joint care and control of the child;

(2) the wife shall have care and control of the child every Wednesday (after school) to Saturday 8 am;

(3) the husband shall have care and control of the child every Sunday 8 pm to Wednesday (when school starts in the morning);

(4) the parties shall have care and control of the child every weekend alternating from Saturday 8 am to Sunday 8 pm…

(5) the husband or the husband’s relatives known to the wife shall pick up the child and drop off the child at the wife’s residence or at school;

(6) …

(7) …

(8) All parties (including the child) shall attend counselling …

(9) Both parties shall attend the parenting workshop…

Parties both appealed against the orders, and the High Court dismissed the appeals.

8 Before me, both the husband and the wife resisted a joint custody order. Parties complained about their problems with the interim order for joint custody, care and control, blaming each other for these problems. In the long term, a joint custody order was out of the question. Parties would not be able to co-operate. Instead, both parties wanted sole custody, care and control of the child.

9 In addition to the affidavit evidence of the parties and their witnesses, a report was furnished by one Dr [xxx] (‘Dr [xxx]’) of the [xxx], Institute of Mental Health, dated 11 July 2002. On 19 September 2003, a social welfare report prepared by the Child Welfare Officer of the Ministry of Community and Sports (‘MCDS’) was submitted to the court. The court ordered these reports. In addition, the husband engaged a child psychiatrist, Dr Lim Yun Chin (‘Dr Lim’), who furnished a report dated 24 July 2002. Dr Lim observed the child’s interactions with the husband and his family members, but the wife did not agree to be interviewed by Dr Lim.

The wife’s case

Her suitability as a custodial parent

10 In support of her claim for sole custody, the wife stated that she was the best person to care for the child, being the primary caregiver since her birth. From 1993, before the marriage, the wife was employed with [xxx] as a lecturer. She was promoted to the position of [xxx] in January 1997. In 1999, she gave up her career at the husband’s request, to take care of the child full time, both day and night. She set out how she meticulously attended to the child’s needs and wants, including her meals, baths, play and education. The parties had a maid for less than a year, from May 2000. During this time, the wife taught and supervised the maid in doing the housework. She continued to take care of the child herself. The maid was caught and dismissed for theft, and the parties did not engage further help.

11 The wife was concerned about the child’s educational and physical needs. She brought the child to various childcare centres, and the child chose to attend [xxx], which was a good pre-school. The child was happy there. The wife has also created a room for the child where the child has her own books, games and toys. She also took the child to the movies, performances and on other outings. The wife denied the allegations made by the husband and his witnesses against her. She explained that some incidents were taken out of context. She also explained her estranged relationships with his witnesses.

His unsuitablity as custodial parent

12 The husband was unsuitable to have sole custody, care and control of the child. The wife made numerous allegations against the husband, and the main ones are summarised as follows. The husband was often out of the country as he travelled a lot in the course of work. When he was at home, he preferred to spend time on the computer, or on his own activities such as golf, rather than with the child.

13 The husband’s morals were questionable. In 1999, while the wife was pregnant with the child, he committed adultery with Mdm A. Then, he blamed Mdm A entirely, saying he was forced or blackmailed into the relationship, and was a victim of extreme violence on the part of Mdm A. Also, the husband read pornography at home, and surfed pornographic websites.

14 From 14 to 21 July 2001, the parties were in Perth, Australia, on a family holiday in an attempt to save the marriage. On 18 July 2001, the wife witnessed a disturbing incident when the husband held the child just after he had finished his bath, and lowered the child to such a position that his private part touched the child’s private part. There was a similar incident on 21 July 2001. Since then, the wife has seen the child touch the husband’s lower body.

15 After she left the home with the child, the husband found them on 6 December 2001. The husband recklessly snatched and abducted the child from the wife because he believed it was his entitlement, and refused to return the child to her. It took an order of court to compel him to return the child.

16 The husband did not know how to look after the child himself, and relied primarily on Mdm B for help. Since the interim orders were made, during her time with the husband, the child stayed in the home of Mdm C. As the husband and his sister were working, in the day, Mdm B and the maid looked after the child in the day.

17 Twice in February 2002, the child returned from access with the husband with inflammation in the vagina area because of lack of cleanliness. The first time, the child was coughing, and the second time, the child also had bad diarrhoea. In April 2002, the child experienced hygiene problems again after access with the husband.

18 The husband was also selfish and uncaring, insisting on pick-up and drop-off arrangements for his convenience, rather than the child’s. The...