TDZ v TEA
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Sharon Lim |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 83 |
| Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
| Hearing Date | 17 June 2015,26 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | D 1163/2012 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Mr P. Jeya Putra and Ms Thuolase Venga [M/S ASIALEGAL LLC] |
| Defendant Counsel | Ms Adriene Cheong [M/S HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP] |
| Subject Matter | Catch Words: Family Law,Divorce,Ancillary matters-Care and control of children-Access to children-Division of matrimonial assets,Maintenance for children |
| Published date | 20 August 2015 |
The plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married on 20 February 2004. They have two children, a son aged 10 years old, who is in Primary 5 this year, and a daughter, aged 8 years old, who is in Primary 2. Interim judgment for the divorce was granted on 24 September 2012 based on 3 years’ separation with consent.
Parties were able to agree that they would have joint custody of the children. However, they fought bitterly over the issue of care and control. There was also no agreement on the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance claimed by the plaintiff for herself and the children.
As the biggest issue in contention was the care and control of the children, with parties taking diametrically different positions and making strong allegations about each other in their affidavits, I ordered that a Custody Evaluation Report (CER) be prepared by the Family Justice Court’s Counselling and Psychological Services. After reading the affidavits, the CER and the submissions of the parties, I made the following orders:
The defendant subsequently wrote in to request for further arguments on the issue of care and control and access. I considered his request carefully but as declined to call parties back for a further hearing as I would not have changed the orders that I made on those matters based on his request. The defendant then filed an appeal against orders (2) – (7) and (9). I now give the reasons for my decision.
Brief background factsThe plaintiff wife is 37 years old and works as a nurse. She earns over $5,000 gross per month including bonuses. The defendant husband is 44 years old. He is the Chief Operating Officer at a local business entity and earns over $16,000 gross per month including allowances.
The parties were able to agree to an uncontested divorce sometime in 2012. Thereafter, up to April this year, the parties continued to reside at an apartment (‘the xxx property’) held in the name of the defendant’s mother, where they had lived since marriage. The other residents included the defendant’s mother, the parties’ two children, and the defendant’s domestic helper. Tensions remained high during this arrangement, culminating in a physical altercation between the parties in late April 2015 over allegations that the defendant was secretly recording the plaintiff with an audio recorder and that the plaintiff was deleting the existing recordings. The plaintiff left the xxx property and was not allowed to return by the defendant and his mother. Arrangements were made for the plaintiff to have access to the children in the interim.
Care and control of and access to the childrenThe central issue in contention between parties concerned care and control of the children. Both sought care and control of the children with access to the other party. Their submissions largely consisted of painting a strongly negative picture of the other party’s parenting abilities and allegations about how the other parties’ characters made them the less fit parent to have care and control.
The plaintiff submitted that she was the parent more suited to have care and control for the following reasons:
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant was not the suitable party to have care and control as he indulged in pornography; had extra-marital affairs; kept late nights; brought the children to his office till late on weekdays and left them to their own devices; had to travel quite often for work; had a heavy workload and unexpected work commitments; kept the children up late at night on school nights; was not exemplary in his hygiene practices; insisted on being present while their 8 year old daughter took a shower; insisted on having his way with the children including using physical force on them and terrifying them into submission; acted violently and losing his temper in front of the children; exercised domineering and overbearing behaviour over the children in relation to their academic work without regard for their need for sufficient sleep, regular breaks and a well-balanced lifestyle; was insensitive to the children’s emotional and psychological well-being by bad-mouthing the plaintiff in front of the children; threatened to alienate the children from the plaintiff; embarrassed the plaintiff without regard to the children’s feelings; turned the children against the plaintiff; put his own needs ahead of the children’s well-being; was not of exemplary character; took full credit for the children’s academic performance but blamed the plaintiff for any failings; did not rationalise with the children, but bribed them to do his bidding; was critical of the plaintiff’s approach to raising the children and adamant about his methods and decisions; and, was not able to provide a conducive environment for the children as his mother is not in an adequate physical and mental state to take care of the children and the defendant has to work late and travels for work.
The plaintiff highlighted that the court should take into account the fact that the plaintiff, as a mother, would play a greater relative role in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UEV v UEW and UEX
...The petitioner ought to have some weekends to enjoy his son’s company. He also relied on the decision of the Family Court in TDZ v TEA [2015] SGFC 83 where the court ordered fortnightly access on the basis that time during weekends and holidays should be split equally between the parents so......