Goh Heok Hoon v Ang Kok Keng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shobha G. Nair
• Judgment Date: 22 April 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGDC 84
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Citation: [2002] SGDC 84
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Petitioner ("wife") and Respondent ("husband") were married in 1980. The wife’s petition for divorce was based on the commission of adultery by her husband. The petition was not contested and a decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted in October 2001.

2. The husband and wife were not able to come to any agreement on the ancillary matters relating to the custody of the children, maintenance and the division of the matrimonial assets. Having considered the evidence and having spoken with the children, the Court made orders in respect of the same. The following were the orders made:

Custody, care and control and access to the children

i. The Petitioner and Respondent shall have joint custody of the two sons of the marriage with care and control to reside with the Petitioner. The Respondent shall have reasonable access to his sons which shall include:

a. Every Saturday from 1 pm to 9 pm or every Sunday from 10 am to 8 pm;

b. mid-week "dinner time" access from 6 pm – 8 pm; and

c. driving the children to and from their schools and/or enrichment classes.

Matrimonial home

ii. The matrimonial home known as [address] shall be sold on the open market within six months or such extended time agreed to by the parties and the net proceeds after deducting the outstanding housing loan and the sale expenses shall be divided in equal proportions. The Petitioner and the Respondent shall reimburse their own CPF accounts with the monies withdrawn for the purchase of the house, plus accrued interest.

Other matrimonial assets

iii. The Petitioner and the Respondent shall retain all other assets in their sole name and in the case of the Respondent, he shall retain all monies held jointly with his mother.

iv. In so far as the joint account held by the Petitioner and Respondent (DBS Autosave account no: 020-003864-0) is concerned, the same shall be closed and any liabilities incurred shall be borne solely by the Respondent.

Maintenance

v. The Respondent shall pay $5 500 per month to the Petitioner, being $2 500 per month as maintenance for the Petitioner and $3000 per month as maintenance for the two children ($1 500 each) with effect from 28^th February 2002 and by the last day of each subsequent month.

Other orders

vi. In the interim period (before the matrimonial home is sold), save for the monthly CPF/ASPF contributions towards the housing loan (which shall continue to be contributed by the Petitioner and the Respondent in the same proportions as is currently in place), the Petitioner and Respondent shall contribute to all the outgoings in relation to the property in the proportion 45% (Petitioner) - 55% (Respondent).

vii. No order on the missing jewellery.

viii. Costs fixed at $12 500 ($1 500 ordered at the divorce hearing which had yet to be paid at the time of the ancillary hearing, $ 8 500 for the cost incurred in engaging a private investigator and $ 2 500 for the ancillaries) to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

3. This appeal arises from the husband’s dissatisfaction with the orders of the court on the issues of:

i. the care and control of the children;

ii. the maintenance ordered for the wife; and

iii. the division of the matrimonial home.

4. In this appeal, the husband asks that:

i. Care and control of the younger son (Shaun) reside with him. The husband also asks that the children be brought together during the weekends from Saturday 2 pm to Sunday 8 pm in the care of one parent "in an alternating pattern";

ii. Maintenance for the wife be varied to $1000 per month; and

iii. The net sale proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home after redeeming the outstanding housing loan, deduction of expenses incurred in the sale and refund of respective CPF/ASPF accounts with accrued interests to be divided 70:30 in favour of the wife.

iv. The husband also asks that the wife bear a sum of $231.75 being half of the house valuation fee of $463.50.

5. I shall now furnish the reasons for my orders.

CUSTODY, CARE and CONTROL OF THE TWO SONS

6. The wife sought sole custody, care and control of the children on the grounds that the husband was filled with animosity and hatred towards her (paragraph 17 of her first affidavit "P1"), that parties had different parenting styles and that a lack of good communication between husband and wife made joint custody impracticable (see in this regard Ho Quee Neo Helen v Lim Pui Heng [1974] 2 MLJ 51, CA). The husband disputed this, saying that he had no feelings of hatred towards his wife and that he maintained a good relationship with her even though a decree nisi has been granted (paragraph 21 of his 2^nd affidavit "R2"). He explained that they continued to live their lives as before - they slept in the same bed, they went out on weekends together, the husband drove the wife and children to work and school etc. The court was not entirely comfortable with the statements by the husband given that in paragraph 2 of the same affidavit, he stated that since 13 years ago, they seldom communicated with each other and they quarreled over many matters. My conversation with the children also revealed that things were not as rosy between the parties as the husband painted it to be in his affidavits. Having said that however, I was mindful not to place reliance on the views of the children in this regard as their perception may be somewhat coloured by their sense of grief and betrayal as a result of their father’s extramarital affair – this sense of sadness and betrayal were expressed clearly to me, especially by Lance. Given that the husband had, in the past at least, taken an active interest in the education of the children, spent a lot of leisure time with them and he is able to play a constructive role in the raising of his two boys, the court felt that he should not be denied custodial rights. Although there appeared to be a lack of communication between the couple (certainly not a rare feature in the lives of divorced couples in general), it did not, in my mind, appear to be of an extent which would prevent the parties from coming together to make decisions on the important aspects of the lives of their children. I believed both parents had their different strengths when it came to raising their children and should continue to take an active interest in areas such as education, religion and health.

7. The court was not however, "with the" husband on his other request – that he be given care and control of the younger son, Shaun. He stated, at page 17 of his 1^st affidavit "R1", that:

"……The main reason is that I have been the one who has been the care-giver of the 2 children since birth. I know the characters of the 2 boys very well…….The boys tend to fight and quarrel a lot during the weekdays when the parents are not around. They cannot give way to each other when they want the use of common resources. It will certainly be beneficial to the 2 boys if they spend their time studying and learning during the weekdays instead of quarrelling and fighting……I have ascertained from the children that they are agreeable to the proposed living arrangement of each staying with one parent and meeting in the weekend. Shaun, especially has expressed his wish to stay with me……"

In paragraph 31 of the husband’s third affidavit "R3", he goes on to say:

"Though I can take good care and control of both children, it is with much consideration for the Petitioner that she should have a meaning in life after divorce at least in taking up a more active role in caring and controlling one of our children, which is Lance Ang……this is why I have proposed that the petitioner has care and control of Lance while I have care and control of Shaun in such a way that both children can be brought together to bond with each other and with each parent over the weekends in an alternating manner."

In my conversation with the boys, it was very clear that much of the content of the husband’s affidavits in respect of the issue of custody, care and control of the children (including the husband’s suggestion that he was acting purely out of benevolence in proposing that the wife have care and control of Lance), were inaccurate

. What was particularly inaccurate in the affidavits was in relation to the wishes of the children . I recall very well my conversation with Shaun. He was clearly torn between what he was expected to say and what he felt. Predictably, each parent had "brainwashed" him to some extent, to go against the other. After assuring him that I understood that both his parents love him, that the court merely wanted to what was best for him and his brother and upon my promise that whatever he said to me would be kept "our secret", he began to speak freely with me and expressed himself very well. I saw no reason to have the boys live separately. The older child Lance, voiced very firmly his desire to be with his mother. I believe the husband knows this. In my conversation with Shaun too, there was not the slightest hint that he desired to be separated from his brother nor that he preferred to stay with his father instead of his mother.

8. I was of the view that unless there were compelling reasons to justify siblings being separated from each other, the court must allow for siblings to be under the care and control of one party. These young boys must be allowed constant contact so that they can continue to grow older with each other’s support. They must share their thoughts, discuss schoolwork, help each other out and yes, even argue and fight over the smallest of things. Lance expressed his love for his brother. Shaun shared the same feelings and looked up to his older brother. In fact, at this point in Shaun’s life, he sees Lance as the person he can turn to. The view that they should be separated and brought together on weekends do not reflect the feelings of the children and is certainly not in their best interest. To do so would be to deny...