LB v LC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Teoh Ai Lin
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 216
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 16 December 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tim Oei (Tan, Oei and Oei LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Kok Seng (David Ong and Company)
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 216

30 October 2005

District Judge Teoh Ai Lin :

1 The Appellant LB is the Defendant father. The Respondent LC is the Plaintiff mother.

2 The Plaintiff mother had applied for inter alia a sole custody care and control order for her only son B aged 10 years old under the Guardianship of Infants Act. She was also seeking maintenance for the child.

3 Both parents are aged 37 years old. They married in May 1993 in China and divorced on 10 December 2003 in China. The parties and their son are permanent residents in Singapore and habitually resident here.

4 The Plaintiff mother runs her own Chinese therapeutic business and the Defendant father is an engineer. The son is studying in Primary 4 [xxx].

5 The Defendant father came to Singapore in 1997, followed by the Plaintiff mother in February 1999, and then the child in December 1999 when he was about 4 years old. Prior to the child coming to Singapore, the child had for the most part of his young life been looked after by the paternal grandparents in Jiangxi Province as both parents had been busy with their work and other commitments.

6 In Singapore, the parties lived in a [xxx] flat initially and later moved to a [xxx] flat in 2002. The marriage started floundering in 2002\2003 amid allegations and counter-allegations of infidelity and domestic violence.

7 At the time of the hearing the child was living with the Plaintiff mother in the matrimonial flat in [xxx]. The Defendant had moved out of the matrimonial home since January 2005. By arrangement he had been seeing the child on weekends and he spent time tutoring the child. Defendant counsel said that presently the Defendant was living in a rented room in [xxx].

8 There was a related application OSF 37\2005 taken out earlier by the Defendant father against the Plaintiff mother under Section 59 of the Women’s Charter relating to the [xxx] flat. The mother then cross-filed this present OSF 53\2005 against the father. Both OSFs were consolidated for hearing. However the hearing before me proceeded only with the custody application under OSF 53\2005 as the Defendant counsel was taking instructions whether to proceed with the property issue under the Defendant’s OSF 37\2005. At a subsequent PTC after the hearing of this OSF 53\2005, Defendant counsel informed that his instructions were to withdraw OSF 37\2005 and proceed with the appeal on custody.

9 There should be a clarification on the different references to “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” in the minute sheets and in these grounds. The two OSF applications were to have been heard together, and in arguments counsels had referred to the father as “the Plaintiff” and to the mother as “the Defendant”, with like references to their respective bundles and affidavits. The minute sheets so reflect.

10 The present appeal is in respect of the custody application in OSF 53\2005 which was an application taken out by the mother. I have referred to the mother as the Plaintiff and to the father as the Defendant in these grounds.

11 Each party filed 3 affidavits. They are referred to as PA 1-3 ( Plaintiff mother’s affidavits chronologically ) and DA 1-3 ( Defendant father’s affidavits chronologically).

Orders Made

12 I made the following orders :

(a) Joint custody, care and control to the Plaintiff mother with reasonable access to the Defendant father

(b) Defendant father to pay $300 monthly as maintenance for the child with effect from 31 August 2005 and payment to be made into the Defendant wife’s bank account. In addition the Defendant father is to contribute $120 towards the child’s year-end school expenses by 15 December each year with effect from 15 December 2005.

Appeal

13 The Defendant father appeals against both orders.

14 The Defendant prays that :

(a) custody care and control be given to him with reasonable access to the Plaintiff, and

(b) that the Plaintiff mother contribute to the maintenance of the child.

Custody care and control, and Access

15 At the hearing, the Plaintiff counsel informed the court that although the Plaintiff’s OSF had prayed for sole custody, the Plaintiff would only be asking for a joint custody order in line with the current judicial trend, citing CX v CY (a minor ) [2005] 1 SLR 724.

16 Defendant counsel argued that the Defendant should be given custody care and control because the Plaintiff mother had initially given up custody of the child to the Defendant. In the Divorce Agreement dated 19 November 2003 ( DA 1 pages 8-10 ) that the parties had signed, it was also agreed that the Defendant father would provide for the child ( paragraph 2 ) and in the event the Defendant should give up custody of the child he would pay $700 monthly as the child’s maintenance ( paragraph 8 ). In the subsequent divorce granted by the People’s Court of Zhongsan District, Dalian on 10 December 2003, a mediation was held before Judge Fan Yeqiang of the Dalian Court where the parties were represented by proxies. Pursuant thereto, the Civil Mediation Certificate issued by the Dalian Court dated 10 December 2003 provided that by agreement the custody of the child was given to the Defendant father ( DA 1, page 16, paragraph 2 ).

17 The Defendant father alleged that the Plaintiff had agreed to give him custody of the child as she was at that time planning to remarry and settle down in France with a C. It was not in the interest of the child to be with the mother as the Plaintiff had originally intended to leave the child behind in Singapore. The Defendant also submitted that there had not been a material change in circumstances to warrant a variation of their agreement on the custody of the child.

18 The Defendant’s allegations were refuted by the Plaintiff mother ( page 5 PA 1 and pages 9-10, PA 2 ). She pointed out that there was in fact a prior Divorce Agreement which they signed in August...