Ten v Teo
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Eugene Tay |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] SGFC 112 |
| Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | D 6206/2012, FC/SUM 117/2017 & FC/SUM 1440/2018 |
| Year | 2018 |
| Published date | 15 December 2018 |
| Hearing Date | 13 September 2018 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | The Plaintiff, Mdm TEN, in person |
| Defendant Counsel | Ms Angelina Hing / Ms Eunice Loo (M/s Integro Law Chambers LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Family Law,Variation of Family Court Orders,Custody,Care and Control,Access |
| Citation | [2018] SGFC 112 |
This set of cross-appeals arise from the following orders made by me on 13 September 2018 (“the Orders”) in FC/SUM 117/2017 (“SUM 117/2017”) filed by the Plaintiff mother and FC/SUM 1440/2018 (“SUM 1440/2018”) filed by the Defendant father (collectively, “the Summonses”) in relation to the two female children of the marriage, namely C born in 2004, and L born in 2007 (collectively, “the Children”):
In the Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal in HCF/DCA 98/2018, the Plaintiff appealed against paragraphs (1) to (3) of the Orders, and sought reinstatement of an earlier Order of Court made on 2 August 2016 that prevented parties from removing the Children from Singapore without an Order of Court or prior written agreement of both parties to replace paragraph (4) of the Orders.
In the Defendant’s Notice of Appeal in HCF/DCA 99/2018, the Defendant appealed against paragraphs (1), (6) and (7) of the Orders as well as my decision not to grant the prayers in SUM 1440/2018 for the Plaintiff to undergo psychiatric/psychological assessment at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) and for all contact by the Plaintiff with the Children to cease pending the completion of a report from the IMH.
The grounds for my decision are set out below.
Background The sequences of events leading up to the hearing of the Summonses on 19 July 2018 are fairly lengthy and complicated, and proceedings involving the parties in relation to the Children have been long drawn and acrimonious. It would not be fruitful or productive to exhaustively set out the whole background and history of the case. Instead, for a start, background information on the case can be drawn from an earlier judgment involving the same parties and the Children in
On 6 March 2018, the Honourable Justice Debbie Ong (“Justice Ong”) allowed the mother’s appeal in YA2/2017 and set aside the Care and Protection Orders, and also directed CPS to transfer access arrangements to Divorce Support Specialist Agency (“DSSA”) and to provide a report on the same within one month. Justice Ong also subsequently made orders on 11 April 2018,
On 24 April 2018, the Defendant filed a fresh application in SUM 1440/2018 and sought the following orders:
To recap, the orders the Plaintiff applied for in SUM 117/2017 are set out at [18] of
On 26 June 2018, both DCA 156/2017 and SUM 1440/2018 came before Justice Ong. After hearing parties, Justice Ong remitted the matter in DCA 156/2017 (which is essentially the subject matter in SUM 117/2017) to be heard afresh by me, together with SUM 1440/2018, on 19 July 2018.
On 19 July 2018, I heard both SUM 117/2017 (remitted by the High Court) and SUM 1440/2018 together. On 13 September 2018, I passed the Orders set out at [1] above.
The DocumentsThe documents related to the Summonses are voluminous, totalling six volumes of affidavits (“Bundle of Affidavits”1), the affidavits filed by parties under SUM 1440/2018 (two from the Defendant2 and one from the Plaintiff3) as well as two bundles of documents (“Bundle of Documents”4) containing documents in the proceedings relating to YA2/2017. There was also a Notice of Intention to Refer filed by the Defendant’s solicitors on 12 July 2018 seeking to refer to 25 affidavits filed by both parties from April 2014 to April 2018 in various multiple proceedings in the Family Court (“Notice of Intention to Refer”). Parties also filed written submissions5. At the hearing on 19 July 2018, Defendant counsel also tendered a four-page document titled “History of Summonses Explaining Background to HCF/DCA 156/2017 & Summons 1440/2018” (“History of Summonses)6 as well as what Defendant counsel informed was the complete report by Raffles Hospital dated 19 September 2014 (“Raffles Hospital Report 2014”)7.
The Plaintiff objected to the Defendant seeking to rely on the Notice of Intention to Refer as well as the Bundles of Documents. The Plaintiff also voiced her right to object to the History of Summonses as well as the Raffles Hospital Report 2014. After hearing from parties, I allowed the Notice of Intention to Refer to stand, and allowed the Bundle of Documents, History of Summonses and Raffles Hospital Report 2014 to be admitted.
Finally, as parties’ written submissions are fairly lengthy, they will not be reproduced in this judgment. Only what I ascertained are parties’ key points made orally at the hearing on 19 July 2018 are set out below.
The Plaintiff’s Case At the hearing on 19 July 2018, the Plaintiff clarified8 that the orders she was now seeking are as follows;
The Plaintiff contended that the Children’s so-called reluctance to return to her was a result of the Defendant’s negative indoctrination9.
The Plaintiff disputed that the Children had suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She alleged that the various professionals engaged by the Defendant to see the Children were “hired guns”, who are not neutral and balanced10.
The Plaintiff claimed she was only seeking sole custody “to ensure continued and regular counselling for [the Children] from DSSA to restore normal lives for [the Children and her]”...
To continue reading
Request your trial