Re G (Guardianship of an Infant)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 29 October 2003
• Date: 29 October 2003
• Docket Number: Originating Summons 650238 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re G (guardianship of an infant)

[2003] SGHC 265

Tan Lee Meng J

Originating Summons 650238 of 2002 (RAS No 720030 of 2003)

High Court

Family Law–Custody–No order made–Whether joint custody order appropriate–Whether court should make no order as to custody

The respondent was the wife of the appellant. After the birth of their only child in 2002, their relationship deteriorated and the respondent left the matrimonial home. The appellant accepted that the respondent should be granted care and control of the child, but filed an originating summons to obtain joint custody of the child and for rights of access. The respondent sought sole custody of the child. At the time of hearing, neither party had instituted divorce proceedings. The district judge granted care and control as well as sole custody of the child to the respondent. The appellant was granted right of access for stated periods. The appellant appealed against the sole custody order.

Held, allowing the appeal, setting aside the sole custody order and making no order on custody:

(1) As a general rule, it was preferable that joint parental responsibility for a child's welfare be maintained. While it was true that a joint custody order might be unrealistic where the parents of a child had an acrimonious relationship, it did not always follow that the alternative was to grant sole custody to one parent. Where there was no immediate or pressing need for the question of custody to be settled, one should seriously consider whether an order for sole custody was in the best interest of a child, who should be entitled to the guidance of both parents: at [6] and [8].

(2) All that was presently needed was an order for care and control of the child. There was no urgent need for him to be placed under the sole custody of the respondent. If the parties could not cooperate in matters relating to the child's upbringing and it became necessary in the future to deal with the issue of custody, the parties could come to court to settle the issue: at [9].

Aliya Aziz Tayabali, Re [1992] 3 SLR (R) 894; [2000] 1 SLR 754 (folld)

Ho Quee Neo Helen v Lim Pui Heng [1974-1976] SLR (R) 158; [1972-1974] SLR 249 (folld)

Jussa v Jussa [1972] 1 WLR 881 (folld)

Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3

S Magintharan (Netto Tan & S Magin) for the appellant

Christopher Gill (Chris Gill & Co) for the respondent.

Tan Lee Meng J

1 The appellant, P, who contended that he and his wife, the respondent, B, should have joint custody of their son, G, appealed against the district judge's decision to grant his wife sole custody of G. I ruled that while B should have care and control of G...