UXX v UXY

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sheik Mustafa
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGFC 69
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: FC/OSG 129/2018
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 06 July 2019
• Hearing Date: 09 January 2019,21 March 2019,10 January 2019,10 April 2019,15 March 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Han Shurou & Ms Wong Kai Yun (M/s Chia Wong LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Tan Bar Tien (M/s B T Tan & Co)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Guardianship of Infants Act,best interest of child,custody care and control,access to child,supervised access,overseas access,joint custody
• Citation: [2019] SGFC 69

District Judge Sheik Mustafa: Introduction

In this case the mother of a child commenced an originating summons regarding custody care and control of the child. I heard both parties’ counsel, and ordered for both parents of the child to have joint custody of the child, and for them to share care and control. I ordered several detailed arrangements regarding the parents’ transactions relating to the child, the principal ones being that the mother is to have care of the child for up to 2 weeks each month, for which she is to give notice to the father. I also ordered that neither parent is to bring the child out of Singapore without the prior written consent of the remaining party, which shall be given if certain details of the travel are furnished 30 clear days in advance, that a security deposit is be furnished for the travel, and that a copy of the child’s passport be left with the remaining party.

The father has appealed against the judgment. I now give my reasons for it.

Background Facts

On the cornerstone facts, the parties’ versions do not diverge substantially.

The mother is a xxx-year old Russian woman. She is a permanent resident of Singapore.

The father is a xxx-year old Singapore male citizen. The couple married in Singapore in xxx 2012. He is the sponsor of the mother’s permanent residency.

The child, a daughter, was born in xxx. She is the couple’s only child. She is xxx years old. She is both a Russian and Singaporean citizen.

The mother was a stay-home mother. Except for occasional modelling jobs, she did not work throughout the marriage. The father worked in the family business that runs food and beverage establishments. He had become a bankrupt in 2013.

After the father’s bankruptcy, the family moved to Jakarta and lived there for more than 2 years. The family moved back to Singapore in February 2018. They occupied a bedroom in the father’s parents’ house.

The couple’s relationship had been deteriorating, and after the return to Singapore, the mother asked the father for a divorce. The father brought the child to Malaysia. According to the mother, he threatened not to come back. A few days later, he returned to Singapore without the child. The mother claims that the father chased her out of the house on 11 June 2018, with only the dress she was wearing, her identity card and a debit card. The father claims that the mother left home on her own accord. What is material, however, is the agreed fact that the parties have lived separately since then on.

The father brought the child back to Singapore on 21 June 2018. A few days later, the mother filed the present originating summons praying for care and control of the child, with access to the father. She also filed a separate summons requesting a stop order, which was resolved by consent¹ on 12 July 2018, where both of them agreed not to remove the child from Singapore or from the mother’s residence, as well as for the child’s passports and travel documents to be held by the mother’s solicitors.

The mother alleges that the father has been alienating her from the child. The couple’s relationship became worse when the father learnt that the mother had embarked on a new relationship. Both parents applied for personal protection orders on behalf of the child, and both of which were withdrawn. The mother claims that the father blocked the child’s communication with her and her family.

As a result of negotiations by their lawyers, the couple agreed to an order where the mother was to see the child for limited times on 29 November, 6 December and 13 December 2018. These were to be on Thursdays, after school.

The father wrote to the Immigration authorities to cancel the mother’s permanent residence. He was not successful. Nevertheless, the mother resolved to leave Singapore as she did not have means to continue to reside here, but she also wished to visit the child in Singapore regularly, as well as to travel with the child.

No divorce proceedings have commenced. The effect of the order to be made herein would be to govern the couple’s relationship in connection with the child, until such time that the marriage is dissolved.

In these proceedings, the mother prayed for – joint custody of the child, but for care and control to be shared, the mother to keep the child’s birth certificate and Russian passport, and for the father to keep the child’s Singapore passport, the parties to consult with each other and seek each other’s consent to the major decisions regarding the child’s welfare, including matters pertaining to her education, choice of school, religion and citizenship status, and not make unilateral decisions for the child, both parties to have the right to be designated on the child’s records as a person to be notified in the case of medical emergency, both parties to have the right to contact the child’s school directly to be provided with updates on the child and to attend at school activities, both parties to keep each other informed if the child falls ill, and if the child is hospitalised, both to be allowed to see the child and speak to her doctors, that during the school term, upon being given to the father 2 weeks’ notice, the mother shall have care of the child for 2 weeks per month. The mother shall collect the child from school and return her there, that during school holidays, the mother shall have care of the child for the last 2 weeks of the mid-year school holidays, and for the last 3 weeks of the year-end school holidays, that the father shall have care of the child for the first 2 weeks of the mid-year school holidays and the first 3 weeks of the year-end school holidays, that the parties be allowed to bring the child out of Singapore during their respective care periods, the travelling party shall give written notice of the intention to travel with the child at least 1 month in advance, with details of the travel, that such travel be at the traveling party’s own cost, that the father is to unblock the mother and her family from the Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger applications to enable them to contact the child, that the parent not having care of the child be entitled to call or Skype her every day at 8 pm for up to 15 minutes.

The father did not file his own summons. Instead, in his affidavit, he submitted his own requests – That he be given daily care and control of the child, That the mother shall have access to the child once a week on either Saturday or Sunday from 9.30 am to 6pm, subject to the following – The mother is to bring the child to all her existing and future activities, That during the access period, only the mother and her family members be present, in particular the mother should not allow the child to have contact with her boyfriend or his relatives, The mother shall surrender the child’s Singapore and Russian passports, birth certificate and health booklet, and the couple’s marriage certificate, That such access shall be cancelled if it falls on Chinese New Year’s Eve or the Chinese New Year, or Christmas Eve or Christmas.

The father argues that shared care and control is not suitable because the parents have conflicting parenting styles. He claims that he comes from a “traditional Chinese which emphasises moral values, filial piety, discipline, thriftiness and such other characteristics”, whereas the mother is a Russian who, before the marriage, had never been exposed to Chinese culture. He also accuses the mother’s lifestyle as being a freelance model who enjoys the high life, partying and socialising, and constantly taking luxury vacations. He argues that care and control ought to be solely granted to him.

The father also argues that the relationship between him and the mother is acrimonious. He denies that he blocked the mother from contacting the child. He accuses the mother of abandoning the child because of differences between him and her. He states that he found it unacceptable that she found a new partner in such a short period. He submits that it is obvious that there can be little or no cooperation between the parents.

The father argues that overnight access is inappropriate as the mother has not fixed accommodation in Singapore, and that the mother lives with a new partner.

The father objects to the mother having overseas access. He argues that the mother has made it clear she intends to leave Singapore, and that the only reason for her to come to Singapore is to see the child. He submits that there is a genuine and real concern that the child may not be returned to Singapore. he points out that in previous occasions when the child travelled to Russia, it was always accompanied by the father. Now that the marriage had broken down, he believes that the mother may attempt to “one-up” him by bringing the child overseas and not returning her to Singapore.

The father argues that she does not have her own place to stay in Singapore. The mother claims that she is residing with her new partner, and that if that turns out to be not permanent, then she would return to Russia. She would then come to Singapore to exercise her care and control times with the child by staying at a hotel or a friend’s residence. The father contends that it is...