LZ v MA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Laura Lau Chin Yui
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 160
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 16 October 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Raymond K C Yeo (Jen Koh & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Foo Siew Fong (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 160

29 July 2005 Judgment reserved.

District Judge Laura Lau Chin Yui:

1 The Respondent wife (“the wife”) came to Singapore from China in 1989 and took up Singapore citizenship in 1994. Her marriage to the Petitioner husband (“the husband”), a Singapore citizen, was solemnised at the [xxx], on 20 March 1993. From this marriage, the parties have a son, now aged 10 years. In March 2003, the husband commenced divorce proceedings on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down by reason of the wife’s alleged behaviour. The wife contested the divorce petition. To resolve the dispute, the husband eventually amended the particulars of the wife’s alleged behaviour in the divorce petition. On 29 July 2003, a decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted on the husband’s amended petition and the wife’s cross-petition. The court accepted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that each of the parties had behaved in such a way that the other could not reasonably be expected to live with him/her. The decree nisi was made absolute on 24 November 2003. All the ancillary issues were adjourned.

2 Right from the outset, the question of custody, care and control of the child was the main bone of contention between the parties. After counselling however, the husband indicated that the wife was to have custody, care and control of the child, only to change his mind at the first hearing of the ancillary issues on 13 August 2004. The husband’s former solicitor, Mr Freddi Lim, contended that he was not bound by the “custody agreement” because there was “no global settlement”. As there were once again contested claims for custody and the child’s welfare was at stake, it was improper to my mind, to hold the husband to any “custody agreement”. It did not mean however, that the agreement could not be taken into account in determining the parties’ competing claims. To assist the court in its deliberations, a welfare report was subsequently obtained from a child welfare officer of MCYS.

3 Following the second hearing on 20 May 2005, I made the orders on the ancillary issues as follows:

(a) The husband and the wife shall have joint custody of the child of the marriage with care and control to the wife;

(b) The husband shall pay the wife $400 per month for her maintenance with effect from 1 September 2003 and thereafter on the first day of each month;

(c) The husband shall pay the wife $600 per month for the maintenance of the child with effect from 1 September 2003 and $700 per month with effect from 1 June 2005. All payments of child’s maintenance shall be on the first day of each calendar month;

(d) The payments of maintenance (both arrears and current maintenance) by the husband under orders (b) and (c) above shall be set-off against

(i) the sum of $10,000 paid by the husband to the wife as maintenance; and

(ii) all payments made pursuant to the interim order dated 13 August 2004;

(e) The husband shall sell his share, title, and interest in the matrimonial flat at [xxx] to the wife upon the wife paying the husband 35% of the market value of the matrimonial flat, as determined by a HDB approved valuer. Out of his 35% share, the husband shall reimburse to his CPF account the monies utilised for the purchase of the flat plus accrued interest. The sale shall be effected within 3 months and 2 weeks from the date of this order and the costs of the sale shall be borne by the wife;

(f) The husband shall pay the wife the sum of $73,422.59 for the division of the other matrimonial assets held by the husband and the wife, this sum to be set-off against the amount payable by the wife to the husband for his share in the matrimonial flat;

(g) The husband shall pay the wife costs fixed at $1,000;

(h) Liberty to apply.

In addition, I made orders for the husband’s access to the child. Neither party has appealed against the terms of the access orders. As the husband appeared to have difficulty in procuring access to the child, the access orders included provision for assisted transfer to be administered by the [xxx] for the initial 2 months. Thereafter, the husband will exercise regular access, including overnight access on a weekly basis, overnight access for half the June and December school holidays, day access on alternate public holidays and on Father’s Day and the child’s birthday, and telephone access twice weekly.

4 Both parties appealed against the orders pertaining to maintenance and division of the matrimonial home and other matrimonial assets. The husband appealed additionally, against the order granting the parties joint custody of the child with care and control to the wife.

Custody, care and control of the child

5 In his appeal, the husband sought sole custody, care and control of the parties’ 10 year-old son, with reasonable access to the wife. The husband claimed that he was the child’s main caregiver and ever since the child was 2 years old, he had devoted his time and energies in caring for him and educating him. The husband arranged for the child to be enrolled in pre-primary and primary school and provided for his textbooks and other educational needs. It is the husband’s case that the wife had neglected the child in the pursuit of her business ambitions. She frequently travelled overseas for prolonged periods of time to attend to her extensive business interests. Even when she was not travelling, the wife often returned home in the early hours of the morning, or the next day. Hence, the husband stated that he took it upon himself to re-schedule his working hours in order to spend time with the child. He claimed that it was only after he commenced these divorce proceedings that the wife “monopolised” the child and started taking a “vested interest” in him. According to the husband, the child has expressed his wish to live with him. Further, the husband has questioned the wife’s moral values arising from her alleged improper association with her business partner and alleged “illegal business activities” of procuring girls for prostitution and “smuggling illegal immigrants” to other countries. On his part, the husband brought the child to church and nurtured his spiritual growth.

6 The wife averred that the husband’s remarks were “untrue and hurtful”. She asserted that she had always been the child’s primary caregiver. She claimed that she spent a lot of time with the child, before and after commencement of the divorce proceedings. She attended to his schoolwork and ensured that he was up-to-date on his homework and assignments. Whilst admitting that she did travel overseas from time to time, she said she did so only to try to earn a living and had never made prolonged trips. On the contrary, the husband’s work took him away from home for long hours, often returning home at 5:00 a.m. and on some days, not at all. The wife took strong objections to the husband’s attempts to tarnish her character. She vehemently denied having had an adulterous affair with anyone. She denounced the husband’s accusations that she was involved “with international crime syndicates” and had facilitated prostitution. She stressed that these accusations were “false and without basis whatsoever”.

My decision

Care and control

7 In hotly contested custody disputes, it is not uncommon to find one or even both parents doing their utmost to put the other in a bad light and often resorting to unfair measures in so doing, in order to buttress his or her claim to the child. The present case is no exception. The husband produced many documents purportedly to show the wife’s alleged moral impropriety and illegal business activities. By pointing out that several of these documents were unsigned and undated, unexplained and easily created by anyone with access to a computer, the wife has cast doubts on the veracity of the husband’s allegations. Although the husband expounded at great length on the wife’s alleged conduct in his affidavits, in an about-turn at the hearing, his counsel, Mr Yeo, made but just a cursory reference to her alleged conduct and specifically asked the court “to ignore the mud-slinging”. Either the husband himself did not believe the truth of his own allegations or, he no longer regarded them as important to his claim. Be that as it may, it is only right and proper, in my view, to concentrate on matters pertaining directly to the child’s welfare, rather than to be caught up in casting aspersions on the wife, for which the evidence is at best, equivocal.

8 Both parties claimed credit as the child’s main caregiver. On the facts, it is more likely than not that the husband and the wife had each assumed the role of primary caregiver at different points over the last 10 years. It appeared to me that for the first 6 years, the husband was the more involved parent, as the wife was busy with her travelling and her work as a businesswoman. The turning point came in 2001, when the wife became a more active participant in the task of raising the child. According to the wife, she ceased her businesses in mid-2001, when the child was about 6 years old. She claimed she did so at the husband’s behest, to concentrate on caring for the child. The husband, however, denied that the wife had become a full-time housewife. He alleged that she continued to travel to countries like Malaysia, Thailand and China where she has been operating her businesses till now. Even if the wife has not ceased her businesses completely, I accept from my perusal of the entries in her passport, that she has reduced the frequency of her overseas travels considerably in the last 3 years. Further, it is not disputed that the parties have not employed a maid since sometime in 2001. This coincides with the time the wife was said to have wound up her business activities. Given that the husband ran a successful publishing and print broking business and that by his own evidence, he often placed the child in the maid’s care when he attended to his...