TFP v TFQ

• Judge: Regina Ow-Chang Yee Lin
• Judgment Date: 01 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 343
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 343
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 09 September 2014
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No. 3311 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr K. Mathialahan (M/s Guna & Associates)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Jeyabalen (M/s Jeyabalen & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Catch words: Division of matrimonial assets care and control of child
• Hearing Date: 20 May 2014,14 January 2014

District Judge Regina Ow-Chang Yee Lin: Background

The plaintiff (“wife”) and the defendant (“husband”) registered their marriage in the Singapore Registry of Marriages on 15 July 1999. There is 1 child of the marriage, a son aged 13.

The wife is a xxx earning a gross monthly salary of $6,495.51 (take-home salary of $5,202.51). The husband is a xxx earning a gross salary of $6,357.60 per month (take-home salary of $5,086.25).

On 10 July 2012, the wife filed her Writ for divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down because the husband had behaved in such a way that the wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. On 6 August 2012, the husband filed a Defence and Counterclaim alleging the same of the wife, and the allegation of adultery. The Statement of Claim and Statement of Particulars were later amended to the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down because the parties had lived apart for 3 years preceding the date of presentation of the Writ and the husband consented to the divorce. The divorce proceeded for hearing on an uncontested basis on 18 March 2013 and an Interim Judgment was granted on the wife’s amended claim. The husband’s counterclaim was withdrawn. All the ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

At the ancillary matters hearing before me on 14 January 2014, parties agreed to have joint custody of the child and reasonable access to the non-care and control parent, leaving the issues of care and control, the child’s and the wife’s maintenance and the division of assets to be decided by the Court.

After reviewing the evidence in the affidavits filed by the wife and the husband, and submissions by their respective counsel, I adjourned the matter for a Specific Issues Report (“SIR”) to be furnished by a court counsellor. In particular, I wanted a trained counselor to speak to the child and ascertain the underlying reasons for the apparent estrangement between the mother and the child; whether the father had “brainwashed” the child; and whether the father was excluding the mother in an attempt to form a new family unit with his girlfriend and his son. This report was premised on interviews with the child and observations of interactions between the child and his parents. The report would not cover the views and positions of the parents as these were amply set out in the ancillary affidavits filed by both parties.

Pending the further hearing of the matter, I also made assisted access orders at the Centre for Family Harmony as the mother had not seen the son since April 2013. Only 1 access session was carried out on 20 January 2014. The remaining 5 sessions were aborted as the child refused to see his mother.

At the resumed hearing on 20 May 2014, after hearing further submissions, I made the following orders: Custody, care and control Joint custody of the child of the marriage, R (“the Child”) to the parties, with care and control to the parties as follows: Plaintiff to have the care and control of the child from Friday 7 pm to Sunday 2 pm; and Defendant to have the care and control from Sunday 2 pm to Friday 7 pm. The Plaintiff and Defendant shall prevent third parties from being present when the child is in their care and control, unless the said third party is in a serious relationship with a view to marriage with the Plaintiff/Defendant. Each parent shall not denigrate the other in the presence of the child or carry out any action which would exclude the other parent from the life of the child. The Plaintiff and Defendant shall encourage the child (in verbal and non-verbal ways) to spend time with the other parent while the child is in his/her care and control. Both parties and the child shall attend the Parenting/Children Workshop on a date to be arranged. Maintenance for the child The Defendant shall maintain the child. The Plaintiff shall pay for the expenses of the child while he is in her care and control. Maintenance for the Plaintiff The Defendant shall pay the nominal sum of $1 per month for the maintenance of the Plaintiff with effect from 15 May 2014 and thereafter on the 15th day of each month. Payment to the Plaintiff’s POSB account number xxx. Division of Matrimonial Assets The xxx shall be sold in the open market. The proceeds of sale, after deducting the outstanding mortgage loan, return of the $30,000 renovation loan to the Plaintiff’s parents, and costs and expenses of sale, be divided 60% to the Plaintiff and 40% to the Defendant. Each party to refund their Central Provident Fund account, the monies withdrawn for the purchase of the matrimonial flat, together with accrued interest from their respective share of the proceeds of sale. Each party to retain the other matrimonial assets in their own name. Parties to have joint conduct of sale. Penal notice to be inserted. The Registrar of the State Courts be empowered to sign all documents relating to the sale of the matrimonial flat on behalf of the parties, in the event that the party fails to do so within 7 days of written notice to sign the same. Liberty to apply.

The wife has filed an appeal against the orders made for custody, care and control, prohibition of third parties during periods of care and control and division of a specific insurance policy (paragraphs 5(a), (b) and (i) above).

Issues Custody, care and control and access

At the hearing on 14 January 2014, counsel for both parties agreed that there be joint custody of the child and reasonable access to the non-care and control parent. As there were no disputes over the issue of custody or submissions on this point, it is unclear why the wife is appealing against the joint custody order.

The outstanding issue to be determined by the Court is the care and control of the child. Both parties wanted care and control. The mother’s case is that she was the primary care-giver of the child for the first 11 years of his life. Being a xxx, she coached, supervised and monitored the child’s homework and studies. She also gave him emotional, financial and moral support.

The father’s case is that he also took care of all the child’s needs. However his main concern is that the mother seemed to prefer spending time with her “boyfriend” to the detriment of their son. The child is treated as an “errand boy” and bore the brunt of the mother’s anger (verbal and physical abuse) whenever she quarrelled with her boyfriend. She would also “flaunt” her relationship with her boyfriend by going into the master bedroom and locking the door behind them. Her behavior became more blatant after the father left the house. As a result, the child was “disgusted” with his mother...