District Judge Goh Zhuo Neng:
INTRODUCTION
This grounds of decision concerns cross applications by the Mother and Father in respect of orders made for the maintenance, custody and access to the two children of their marriage who were aged 4 and 5 as of the date of the hearing (“Children”): SUM 1829 of 2020 (“Father’s Application”) – To rescind orders made for the maintenance of the Children at Annex A. (“Maintenance Orders”). SUM 2535 of 2020 (“Mother’s Application”) – To vary orders made for the custody and access to the Children at Annex B. (“Child Orders”) to provide that : The Father is to have supervised access to the Children at the Divorce Support Specialist Agency (“DSSA”) without overnight access. That the Mother shall have sole custody of the Children, and in the alternative, the Mother shall have the final decision making on issues pertaining to the Children’s education, religion and all medical matters.
After hearing parties, I made the following orders. Child Orders to be varied such that: The Mother will have sole authority to determine which schools the Children will attend, if she consults the Father and does not receive any reply within 3 days. For avoidance of doubt, the Children will continue to attend their current schools. On 20 December 2020, 27 December 2020, 3 January 2021, and 10 January 2021, the Father shall have supervised access to the Children on Sunday 2.30pm to 5pm. Access will be supervised by the Mother or a person appointed by the Mother. From the week of 11 January 2021, the Father shall have unsupervised access to the Children from 5.30pm to 8.00pm on Fridays and 10am to 5pm on Saturdays. From the week of 1 February 2021, the Father shall have unsupervised alternate overnight access to the Children on 5.30pm Friday to 5.30pm Sunday. Father will notify the Mother within 1 week where he is residing in Singapore. Any changes to this residence must be notified to the Mother immediately. Maintenance Orders to be varied such that: With effect from 1 January 2019, the maintenance payable by the Father for the Children shall be $2,968.00 ($1,484.00 per child). With effect from 1 October 2020, the maintenance payable by the Father for the Children shall be $5,181.00 ($2,590.50 per child). No orders as to costs.
For avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the following aspects of the Child Orders and Maintenance Orders remain the same: The parties shall have joint custody of the Children. The Mother shall have care and control of the Children. If the Children have any activities just before or after the Father’s access, the Father shall pick the Children up from or send them to the activity venue. Otherwise, the default handover venue shall be at McDonalds at *xxx. The Father is not permitted to take the Children out of Singapore without the written consent of the Mother. The Mother shall hold all of the Children’s passports and travel documents (both Singaporean and Swedish passports and travel documents), which are to be placed in the Mother’s care by 14 September 2018. The Mother shall have the sole authority to apply for all of the Children’s passports and travel documents both in Singapore and Sweden. The Father shall not apply for any passport or travel documents for the Children without the consent of the Mother. The Father is to pay the Mother arrears of maintenance for the period from February 2018 to September 2018 amounting to $17,000.00. The Father shall pay such arrears by instalments of $500.00 per month starting from 1 October 2020 and each first day of the month thereafter. From 1 October 2018 to December 2018, the maintenance payable by the Father for the Children shall be $3,750.00 ($1,875.00 per child). The maintenance for the Children shall be paid on the first day of each month into a bank account designated by the Mother (currently DBS Account No. xxx).
On 21 December 2020, the Father filed a Notice of Appeal against my decision. On 28 December 2020, the Mother filed a Notice of Appeal against my decision for the Father to resume access to the Children. I set out below the full grounds of my decision.
B. BACKGROUND
OSG168 and 183 of 2017/Divorce Ordered by Swedish Court
On 12 September 2018, I heard the applications in OSG168 and OSG183 of 2017. At this juncture, parties had also pending divorce proceedings and a summons for spousal maintenance (SUMxxx of 2018) in Dxxx of 2017.
Parties informed me that on 7 September 2018, part judgement of divorce had been granted in Case No. xxx-18 by the District Court of Stockholm, Sweden (“Swedish Court”). Parties sought leave to discontinue Dxxx of 2017 and SUMxxx of 2018. Leave was granted and I proceeded to make orders in OSG168 and 183 of 2017.
Both parties appealed against my decision. The Father and Mother filed their respective appeals on 25 and 26 September 2018. My grounds of decision are set out in URM v URN [2018] SGFC 119.
In its decision granting the divorce in Case No. xxx-18 on 7 September 2018, the Swedish Court found that the outstanding ancillary matters were “custody, residence and visitation regarding the common children as well as maintenance to spouse”. The Swedish Court subsequently made the following orders in Case No. xxx-18: 14 January 2019 – Dismissed the Father’s claim for custody of the Children and that they reside with him was rejected. 23 November 2019 – Ordered the Mother to pay maintenance to the Father. 23 April 2020 – Orders for the distribution of the matrimonial property (through an Estate Distribution attorney appointed by the Swedish Court on 7 September 2018)
Commencement of Variation and Committal Proceedings
On 30 January 2019, parties filed the following applications: The Mother filed SUM229 of 2019, seeking an Access Evaluation Report for the purposes of evaluating the Father’s access arrangement with the Children and for access to be supervised at a DSSA pending resolution of her application. This application was withdrawn on 4 April 2019. The Father filed SUM400 of 2019, seeking an order that the Mother be committed to prison or fined for withholding access to the Children from 8 December 2018. Leave had been granted for him to file this application on 28 January 2019 by SUM309 of 2019 (filed on 23 January 2019).
Result of Appeal Against OSG 168 and 183 of 2017
On 18 March 2019, the High Court affirmed my decision in OSG 168 and 183 of 2017, save that an adjustment was made giving the Father incremental access to the Children:
| |
|
| Access Timings (My Orders) | Access Timings (High Court) |
| a) With effect from 19 September 2018: i) 5.30pm to 7.30pm on Wednesdays. ii) 10.00am to 8.30pm on Saturdays. After access on 4 consecutive Saturdays, the Father is to have access from 8.30am Saturday to 8.30am on Sunday. | a) From 5:30pm to 8:00pm on Fridays, 10am to 5pm on Saturdays, and 10am to 5pm on Sundays for the weekends of 22 March 2019, 29 March 2019, and 5 April 2019; and b) Commencing from 12 April 2019 onwards, overnight access on alternate weeks from Friday 5:30pm to Sundays 5:30pm. |
Determination of Committal Proceedings
On 7 May 2019, I heard both SUM400 of 2019. In SUM400 of 2019, I found that the Mother had acted in contempt of my orders made on 12 September 2018 and ordered that she pay a fine of $2,000.00.
Father Leaves Singapore and Ceases Contact with Mother
On 9 May 2019, the Father through his lawyers informed the Mother that he was “totally mentally burnout and out of all financial means”, and that he would from June “retreat and put (his) focus on getting back on (his) feet.” He asked her if he could let the Children stay with him from 17 to 26 May 2019, given that after that he “might not see the children until they are much older.” He also mentioned that he was “likely to not be able to make too much payment” for 6 to 9 months as he worked on getting out of “his burned out state and regain(ed) financial ability”.
On 5 June 2019, the Father did not show up for access. He would not contact the Mother directly on access issues until 12 April 2020.
Commencement of Swedish Child Maintenance Proceedings
On 20 June 2019, the Father filed an application in the Swedish Court for child maintenance payable by him to be fixed at $1,224.00 or an amount the Court found reasonable and proper, or that he had no legal responsibility for paying maintenance for the Children. This application (filed in xxx-20) was not filed in the same case docket as the Swedish divorce (filed in xxx-18). On 10 January 2020, the Swedish Court decided that the Father’s application for child maintenance would be heard in separate proceedings from the Swedish divorce, and on 16 January 2020 held that it had jurisdiction to hear the child maintenance application.
Father Resumes Contact with Mother
On 12 April 2020, the Father contacted the Mother to re-establish a dialogue with her in respect of the Children, and following that, sought to have access to the Children. The Mother asked for the Father’s proposal for access as he had been absent from their lives for more than a year. Parties were unable to reach an agreement, and the Father was unable to have access to the Children as of the date of the hearing.
Swedish Child Maintenance Order Made
On 26 May 2020, the Swedish Court heard the Father’s application for child maintenance. It ordered that the Father would pay $1,224.00 in child maintenance to the Mother (“Swedish CM Order”). This was a judgement made in default of the Mother’s appearance, but with reference to Singapore law, and with knowledge of the Maintenance Orders made in Singapore.
Commencement of the Current Applications by Both Parents
On 7 July 2020, the Father filed his application to set aside the Maintenance Orders, citing the making of the Swedish CM Order, which he characterised as a “final maintenance order”. He also...
