UPA v UPB

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wendy Yu
• Judgment Date: 09 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGFC 87
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: FC/OSG 55/2017
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 16 October 2018
• Hearing Date: 27 June 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Amy Lim (M/S Amy Lim Law Practice)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Ng Eu Jin Timothy (M/S Tan Lay Keng & Co.)
• Subject Matter: Joint custody,Care and control
• Citation: [2018] SGFC 87

District Judge Wendy Yu: Introduction

The parties in these proceedings were never married to each other, but have one son, namely xxx, born on 21 November 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Child”). The Child was about 5 years 7 months old at the time of the hearing, which meant that the Child was at an age where issues of Primary One Registration had to be dealt with. The Defendant (“Father”) was still in prison at the time of hearing and he was legally aided. His Counsel, Mr Timothy Ng, had informed the Court that the Father’s earliest date of release is 2020. The Plaintiff (“Mother”), who was also legally aided, filed this OSG application on 15 March 2017 for the following orders: “The Plaintiff shall have sole custody, care and control of the infant xxx with supervised access to the Defendant; The infant shall be returned forthwith to the Plaintiff’s care and control with effect from the date of this Order; The infant shall not be removed from the jurisdiction without the Plaintiff’s written consent or without prior leave of Court; Such further or other (sic) that may be made by this Honourable Court as it deems fit.”

At the hearing on 27 June 2018, the Mother’s Counsel, Ms Amy Lim, had informed the Court that her client’s position has since changed and that the Plaintiff was asking for sole custody care and control with no access to be granted to the Defendant or any of the Defendant’s relatives.¹ The Mother’s Counsel had explained that the basis of her client’s position was because the parents “have a pretty toxic relationship” which is a “little more unusual” as “the Defendant was involved in criminal activities”. ² The Mother elaborated in her submissions why she is of the view that there should be no access to the Father or the Father’s family, because “the Mother does not does not wish for (the Child) to associate with the Father’s dysfunctional family as it does not set a good example for the Child”³ as “the paternal grandfather is a temple medium and has a mistress” and that the “paternal grandmother is a gambler”.

When the Court asked Ms Lim on the Mother’s position on Primary One registration as the hearing took place during the period where children at the age of the Child were due to be registered for Primary One, Ms Lim answered that she was “not at liberty to disclose (her) client’s instructions”.⁴ Ms Lim later informed the Court during the hearing that the Plaintiff’s long term plan is to move the Child to live with her overseas⁵, but the issue of relocation was not part of the application.

Mother’s Submissions

According to the Mother, the Child was taken care of by her parents and herself since the birth of the Child⁶. When the Child was 6 months old, the parties got together again. ⁷When the Mother was incarcerated for Criminal Breach of Trust during the period of February 2014 to July 2015, the Mother’s parents took care of the Child. According to the Mother, the Father was also incarcerated from 2014 to May 2016 for drug related offences. When the Father was released, he got in touch with the Mother, and the Mother decided to give him another chance. The Father and Mother had rekindled their relationship sometime in May 2016⁸. The Mother had also agreed then to include the Father’s name in the Child’s Birth Certificate.⁹

However, the Mother states that the Father had on 17 September 2016, removed the Child from the childcare centre without her knowledge, and had collected the Child’s Birth Certificate (with Father’s name inserted) without the Mother’s knowledge.¹⁰

Sometime in April 2017, after the arrest of the Father, with the assistance of the police, the Father’s father agreed to return the Child to the Mother in May 2017. The Child has since been living with the Mother and her parents,¹¹ even though the Mother is working in Cambodia¹².

Father’s Submissions

The Father disputes the Mother’s account that the Child was taken care of by the Mother and her parents since the birth of the Child. According to the Father, he states that the Child was taken care of by the Father’s mother since the birth of the Child.¹³ According to the Father, when the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority had informed the Mother to collect the Birth Certificate, the Mother had allegedly refused to and had demanded $10,000 from the Father as he was “on the police’s wanted list”.¹⁴ The Father had authorised his mother to collect the Birth Certificate on his behalf. It is also the Father’s case that the Mother has only been in contact with the Child after he was arrested in March 2017.¹⁵ The Father states that the Mother had not given any of his relatives any access to the Child since then.¹⁶

At the time of the hearing, the Father’s Counsel has indicated that the Father was asking for joint custody to be granted, with shared care and control to the Father’s parents, or alternatively with supervised access to the Father.¹⁷ The Father’s mother had filed a related OSG application (OSG 184/2017) seeking for interim custody, care and control of the Child but the application was subsequently withdrawn.

Orders Made

After hearing the parties, I made the following orders: “1. Parties are to have joint custody of the Child. However, on issues relating to the Child’s education (including the choice of school), the Mother is to decide, if after consulting with the Father there is no agreement. If there is no availability at the primary school of the Mother’s choice, the Child shall be registered at such other school that the Mother may select. 2. Mother is to have care and control of the Child. 3. The Child should not be removed out of jurisdiction by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 4. The Father’s parents will be granted supervised access to the Child every Saturday from 10am to 1pm. 5. When the Father is released from prison he is at liberty to apply for access to the Child.”

Appeal

The Mother has now appealed against my decision on the above orders that I have made.

I will now give my reasons for my decision.

The Law

The...