UUX v UUW

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Toh Wee San
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGFC 137
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: OSG 156 of 2015 & SS 537 of 2019
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 19 December 2019
• Hearing Date: 29 October 2019,14 October 2019,20 August 2019,04 September 2019,10 October 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff's counsel: Mr Hassan Esa Almenoar and Ms Lianne Yong (M/S R Ramason & Almenoar)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Diana Foo (M/S Tan See Swan & Co) Defendant's counsel: Mr David Liew (M/S David Liew Law Practice)
• Subject Matter: Committal and Personal Protection Order
• Citation: [2019] SGFC 137

District Judge Toh Wee San:

This is an appeal by the defendant wife (“W”) in respect of two of my decisions based on the same set of facts. W appealed against my committal orders against her and my dismissal of her application for a personal protection order for her child. Both sides also appealed against the two sets of costs which I ordered W to pay for both actions. I explain my decision below.

Background

Parties were married in December 2012. Their marriage fell apart and they filed many applications against each other. I heard their contested divorce and interim judgement was granted on 27 April 2017 based on the defendant husband (“H”)’s unreasonable behaviour. H did not dispute that he had an improper association with a female colleague. In May 2018, the court called for a custody evaluation report (“CER”) as parties have a daughter born in April 2014 (“the child”) and they could not agree on the child issues. After the CER was issued and while parties were preparing for the AM hearing, W alleged that H molested the child (“the allegation”). After that, W did not comply with the court orders which allowed H to have access to the child and H took up committal action. W also applied for a personal protection order (“PPO”) against H for the child.

For H’s committal application, his case was on 7th March 2017, the court ordered that H shall have weekly access and replacement access (if applicable) to the child (“Order 1”). However W refused to comply with the order on many occasions, thus breaching Order 1 due to her allegation. She also applied to vary the unsupervised child access. This was not entirely successful and on 7th September 2018, the court ordered that H had to bring along an adult relative for his access to the child (“Order 2”). But W still refused to comply even though W did not lodge any appeal against Order 2. The relevant parts under Orders 1 and 2 are set out below. Order 1: the Plaintiff (i.e. H) is to have unsupervised access to the child of the marriage as follows: (i) 8 am to 8 pm every Saturday and (ii) 5 pm to 8 pm every Tuesday and Thursday. In the event that either party is unable to comply with the aforesaid access orders, he or she shall inform the other party 3 days beforehand and an alternative suitable date for access in replacement shall be agreed upon. Order 2: For avoidance of doubt, the access order remains intact and the father shall bring along an adult relative for his access to the child.

In September 2018, the court ordered the child protection unit (“CPU”) to investigate the allegation and recommend a suitable access arrangement. After considering CPU’s report, the court ordered supervised access between H and the child. Upon completion of the supervised visitations, the court considered the confidential progress report provided and ordered supervised exchange in March 2019. W refused to comply but did not appeal against the order. Instead she applied for a PPO against H, for the child on the same facts alleged below. Pending the hearing of the PPO, parties attended mediation and agreed on an access arrangement.

I heard both H’s committal application and W’s PPO application before deciding on them concurrently.

The Law and issues The Committal application

Section 12 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act empowers the court to punish a person who has committed contempt of court, by a fine not exceeding S$12,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. Rule 763 of the Family Justice Rules (“FJR”) empowers the court to suspend the execution of the committal orders. In addition, there are well-established principles that committal proceedings are a last resort for family proceedings, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and procedural safeguards are important. In the present instance, H’s allegation was W breached the court orders which was not disputed by W. W’s defence was she had valid reasons not to give access and the issue was whether this was acceptable.

The PPO application

Section 65 of the Women’s Charter empowers the court to issue a protection order for the applicant if the court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed against a family member and that it is necessary for the protection of the family member to do so. Section 64 describes “family violence” under four types of acts of violence. In the present instance, W applied for a protection order against H for the child on her allegation. H did not dispute that he would have committed a criminal act and an act of violence if W has proven her allegation. However H’s case was he did not carry out any molest on the child and the police has confirmed that no action would be taken against him. Hence the issue was whether W had proven her allegation on a balance of probability.

Parties’ brief positions and decision H’s committal application

H’s case was W failed to give him access on 35 occasions and W did not have valid reasons for breaching the court orders. W did not dispute that she did not give access on the 35 occasions in question but countered that she had good reasons. I provide a summary table of the evidence adduced by the parties and the court’s decision.

Dates of breach	W’s case	H’s case	Court’s decision and basis
3 occasions in 2017: 1/11/2017 (Tues) 5/12/2017 (Tues) 7/12/2017 (Thurs)	Child on MC. No replacement access asked by H.	Asked for replacement later on.	Accepts W’s evidence. No breach. No appeal from H.
1 occasion in 2018 before child’s self touching conduct: 24/03/2018 (Sat)	Child on MC. Did not reply to H’s request for replacement on 25/3/2018 (Sunday) but kept child with her on 25/3/2018. W showed the phone message between parties to the court.	Asked for replacement but did not get any answer.	W has breached court order. No dispute from both sides that W did not give access and she also did not give replacement access when asked by H.
2 occasions in Aug 2018 after child’s self touching conduct but before child spoke up: 16/08/2018 (Thurs) 18/08/2918 (Sat)	W first saw the child touching herself at home and then she heard about child’s self-touching conduct some months ago from the childcare school. Both W and the school were under the impression that H taught the child to do so. W did not think that it could be child molest. Hence she continued to grant access but felt very conflicted. W decided to stop access on these two days in question.	W has breached the court order.	W has breached the court order. No dispute from both sides that W did not give access and she also did not apply to suspend the court order. W’s reasons are mitigating in nature.
29 occasions from August 2018 onwards, after child spoke up and police report made: 21/08/2018 (Tues) 23/08/2018 (Thurs) 25/08/2018 (Sat) 28/08/2018 (Tues) 30/08/2018 (Thurs) 01/09/2018 (Sat) 04/09/2018 (Tues) 06/09/2018 (Thurs) 08/09/2018 (Sat) 11/09/2018 (Tues) 13/09/2018 (Thurs) 15/09/2018 (Sat) 18/09/2018 (Tues) 20/09/2018 (Thurs) 22/09/2018 (Sat) 25/09/2018 (Tues) 27/09/2018 (Thurs) 29/09/2018 (Sat) 02/10/2018 (Tues) 06/10/2018 (Sat) 09/10/2018 (Tues) 11/10/2018 (Thurs) 13/10/2018 (Sat) 16/10/2018 (Tues) 18/10/2018 (Thurs) 20/10/2018 (Sat) 08/11/2018 (Thurs) 13/11/2018 (Tues) 15/11/2018 (Thurs)	On 20/08/2018, child told W that H molested her. W made a police report against H. The police commenced investigations. In the process, W and the child were examined and seen by doctors about the incident. W claimed that the police verbally told her not to hand the child over to H. A phone message between W and the police officer was shown in court. W instructed her lawyer to file a variation to the access order but was not successful. Instead the court issued order 2. She did

...