Father of XGK v Child Protector

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 19 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] SGYC 3
• Court: Youth Court (Singapore)
• Parties: Father of XGK,Child Protector

Father of XGK v Child Protector

[2025] SGYC 3

Youth Court Appeal YA-0002-2025-01, Case No. CPO 000034-2022

Father of XGK

Child Protector

Youth Court

Wendy Yu

Children and Young Persons Act - Care and Protection Orders

Child Protector in person

Parent in person

19 June 2025

District Judge Wendy Yu:

Introduction

1. This appeal is brought by the Father, Mr B (“the Father”) of the child XGK, female, born on 27 July 2009 (“the Child”) against the final orders made on 19 June 2025 pursuant to an application brought by Child Protective Service (“CPS”), Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore (“MSF”) under Section 54 of the Children and Young Persons Act, Cap 38 (“CYPA”) for a review of an existing care and protection order (“the Application”). The mother of the Child, Mdm C (“the Mother”), had expressed her agreement in Court on 17 April 2025 to the making of orders as per the recommendations.

2. The orders that I have made on 19 June 2025 (“the Final Orders”) are set out as follows:

• (1) [The Child] is to be placed under the supervision of an Approved Welfare Officer, under the care of Mr D and Mdm E, for a period of 6 months, with effect from 19 June 2025.

• (2) [The Father] is to comply with the following conditions, under section 54(8) of the CYPA:

• (3) [The Father] and [the Child] are to be required to undergo any counselling/psychotherapy/assessment/programme/treatment as deemed necessary by the Approved Welfare Officer, and [the Father] shall execute a bond of $1,000.00 to comply with the order under Section 60(2), in accordance with Section 60(5) of the CYPA.

3. I will now set out the grounds for the Final Orders.

Background

4. CPS first took out an application on 4 December 2022, for a care and protection order after invoking Section 11(1) of the CYPA. The basis of their application was on Section 5(1)(d)(i) and Section 5(1)(f)(i) of the CYPA, that the Child has been, or is at risk of being ill-treated by the Father and that the Child behaves in a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to herself and the Father is unwilling to take necessary measures to remedy the situation.

5. The Social Report hearing was fixed on 9 May 2022, and CPS had recommended for, inter alia, an order for the Child to be committed to the care of the Fit Persons, namely her paternal grandparents, Mr D and Mdm E (“the paternal grandparents”), for a period of 12 months, with a review in 6 months. Besides the grounds set out in paragraph 4 above, CPS had added an additional ground in the social report, under Section 5(1)(g), that the Child was likely to suffer from emotional harm due to emotional or psychological abuse by the Father. The Mother had agreed to CPS’s recommendations on 5 May 2022. The Father disagreed with the recommendations and so the Court had fixed the matter for a Family Conference to allow a Family Court Specialist to facilitate the conversation between CPS and the Father and to address the Father’s concerns. After the Family Conference on 31 May 2022, the matter was resolved as CPS and the Father agreed for the Child to be placed under a statutory supervision order, under the care of the paternal grandparents for a period of 12 months, with a review in 6 months.

6. At the review hearing on 30 December 2022, CPS had recommended for the Child to be committed to the care of the Fit Persons, namely, the paternal grandparents, for a period of 12 months as they were of the view that the Child continues to be in need of care and protection. The Father contested the recommendations. The matter was fixed for hearing on 6 July 2023 before me.

7. After hearing the matter on 6 July 2023, I had directed for a child interview on 4 August 2023 to be arranged for me to speak to the Child to ascertain her views. The Child was 14 years old then and would be mature enough to express her views about her living arrangements and her relationship with her Father.

8. After considering the Child’s views at the interview (which remained confidential) and the parties’ submissions, I had ordered, on 30 August 2023, for the Child to be placed under the statutory supervision of the Approved Welfare Officer, under the care of her paternal grandparents, for a period of 12 months (“the August 2023 orders”). I had also expressed to parties at the hearing that the August 2023 orders will give time for professionals to help mend the Father-daughter relationship and that CPS should work with the Father towards the ultimate goal of reintegration to the Father, as the Father continues to receive services from the professionals.

The Current Application for Review and CPS’s position

9. CPS had subsequently requested for a review hearing on 30 August 2024 (“the Review Hearing”). The Child had turned 15 years old. CPS had recommended for the current order for statutory supervision to be extended for another 12 months. The matter was fixed for a contested hearing on 13 November 2024 (“the 13 November Hearing”) before me as the Father had objected to the recommendations. The Mother did not attend the 13 November Hearing as she had given her consent to the recommendations on 16 August 2024.

10. For the 13 November Hearing, CPS had filed 2 affidavits, namely, the Affidavit of CPO Mr F dated 4 October 2024 and the Affidavit of CPO Ms G dated 30 October 2024. CPS had also filed their submissions dated 6 November 2024. The Father had filed 2 affidavits dated 11 September 2024 and 16 October 2024.

CPS’s Position at 13 November Hearing

11. CPS had submitted¹ that there has been no material change in circumstances since the August 2023 orders and that the Child remains in need of care and protection under section 5(1)(g) read with sections 5(2)(a) of the CYPA. CPS is of the view that the Child has suffered and continues to be likely to suffer from emotional harm because she has been subjected to emotional and psychological abuse by the Father, as the Father has subjected the Child to persistent acts of rejection or degradation that are harmful to her well-being or sense of self-worth.

12. CPS had contended that there remains a significant risk that the Father may subject the Child to further acts of emotional or psychological abuse if she is returned to his care at this stage², which is shown by the Father’s confrontational behaviour during the access sessions between the Child and him, as well as the Father’s persistent acts of exposing the Child’s identity online.

13. CPS has informed³ the Court that two of the six access sessions (on 27 February 2024 and 26 March 2024) had to be terminated early at the Child’s request. CPS has added⁴ that since the August 2023 orders, the Father had persistently compromised the Child’s well-being by revealing her identity as being subject of CPS’s investigations and of previous care and protection orders, both online and in public⁵. In particular, the Father had recorded the six access sessions between January and March 2024 without permission and uploaded them on YouTube and/or his website and uploaded a full, unredacted copy of his affidavit filed in previous Youth Court proceedings which contained various references to the Child’s name. The Father had contravened Section 111 of the CYPA by recording and uploading photos of his access sessions with the Child onto social media platforms and was given a 24-months conditional warning by the Police⁶.

14. According to CPS, the Child’s “emotions became very unstable, and that she felt nauseous and experienced chest tightness, after [the Child] had learnt of [the Father’s] uploading of videos.”⁷ On 25 August 2024, it was also brought to CPS’s attention that the Father had...