Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) v GAN

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGJC 2
• Year: 2014
• Docket Number: MA No 086/2013/03
• Published date: 26 May 2015
• Court: Youth Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 18 December 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Sim, State Counsel
• Citation: [2014] SGJC 2

District Judge Edgar Foo: Grounds of Decision Introduction

The Child Protection Services (“CPS”), Family and Child Protection and Welfare Branch, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore (“MSF”) had made an application (“the 1st application”) pursuant to Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38) (“the Act”) seeking care and protection orders for one GAN, male, born on XXX (“the child”) against his natural mother, Mdm B (“the mother”).

I heard the 1st application over 2 afternoons on 24 and 25 April 2013 and I made the following orders on 25 April 2013 (hereinafter called “my 1st order):- That the child be committed to a place of safety, namely XXX for a period of 7 months under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act; That the mother and Mr C (“the father”) to enter into a bond of $2000 each to exercise proper care and guardianship of the child under Section 49(1)(a) of the Act; That the parents, the maternal grandparents and/or any other significant person(s) to have regular access (supervised or otherwise) with the child during the period of the order, subjected to the review by the Approved Welfare Officer (“AWO”) and in accordance to the rules and regulations of the XXX; That the mother to refrain from visiting the child at his school, the XXX and the surrounding vicinity for the period of the order; That the mother and the child to be mandated to undergo any psychological and psychiatric assessment/treatment and/or counselling programme as deemed necessary by the AWO under Section 51(1) of the Act; That the mother to enter into a bond of $2000 to comply with the aforesaid order under Section 51(2) of the Act; and That the AWO is to keep the mother informed of the child’s progress in school.

The mother being dissatisfied with my 1st order then had appealed against my 1st order.

The appeal against my 1st order was fixed for hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck on 15 November 2013 and Justice Choo Han Teck granted leave to the mother to withdraw the appeal without prejudice to any appeal against an extension of my 1st order, if any, be granted.

On the 22 November 2013, CPS made another application for my 1st order to be extended by a period of 12 months (“the 2nd application”) and the mother objected to the 2nd application.

The 2nd application was fixed before me on 27 January 2014. The mother did not attend the hearing of the 2nd application. The father, Mr C, who was represented by XXX supported CPS’s application. I proceeded to make the following orders (“my 2nd order”):- That the child be committed to a place of safety, namely the XXX for a period of 12 months under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act; That the mother and the father to enter into a bond of $2000 each to exercise proper care and guardianship of the child under Section 49(1)(a) of the Act; That the mother to refrain from visiting the child at his school, the XXX and the surrounding vicinity for the period of the order. That the mother, the father and the child to be mandated to undergo any psychological and psychiatric assessment/treatment and/or counselling programme as deemed necessary by the AWO under Section 51(1) of the Act; That the mother and the father to enter into a bond of $2000 to comply with the aforesaid order under Section 51(2) of the Act; and That the parents, the maternal grandparents and/or any other significant person(s) access with the child during the period of the order, be subjected to the review by the AWO and in accordance to the rules and regulations of the XXX.

The mother being dissatisfied with my 2nd order appealed against my 2nd order.

The appeal against my 2nd order was fixed for hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck on 16 May 2014. Justice Choo Han Teck ordered the mother to go for psychiatric and psychological assessment and adjourned the matter to 22 August 2014. On 22 August 2014, Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the mother’s appeal against my 2nd order.

On the 28 November 2014, CPS made a third application for my 2nd order to be extended by a further period of 12 months (“the 3rd application”). CPS was unable to serve the 3rd application on the mother and the mother did not attend the hearing on 28 November 2014. CPS...