Vdz v Vea

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Debbie Ong J
• Judgment Date: 10 January 2020
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce (Transferred) No 1677 of 2016; Summons No 190 of 2019
• Date: 10 January 2020

VDZ

and

VEA

[2020] SGHCF 2

Debbie Ong J

Divorce (Transferred) No 1677 of 2016; Summons No 190 of 2019

High Court (Family Division)

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Enforcement — Wife exposing children to litigation — Whether wife in breach of court orders

Contempt of Court — Sentencing — Principles — Wife in breach of court orders — Whether wife should be sentenced to imprisonment

Family Law — Custody — Access — Wife's alienating behaviour causing children to outwardly reject husband — Whether access should be ordered in favour of husband

Family Law — Custody — Care and control — Wife's alienating behaviour causing children to outwardly reject husband — Whether wife should be granted care and control

Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Insurance moneys — Wife receiving insurance payouts after cancer diagnosis — Whether insurance payouts are matrimonial asset — Section 112(10) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)

Held, ordering care and control of the children to the Wife, finding the Wife liable for contempt of court and sentencing her to one week's imprisonment:

(1) It was in the welfare of the children that they had healthy relationships with both parents, but the Wife's conduct made this endeavour immensely difficult. The children needed stability in their care arrangements and an opportunity to rebuild their relationship with their father. Should the Wife's cancer condition severely worsen, the children should be able to rely on the only other parent in their lives, the Husband. The Wife had, however, undermined the children's emotional and psychological wellbeing, and damaged their relationship with the Husband through her acts of influencing them towards a highly negative view of the Husband. Her conduct made co-parenting practically impossible. At the same time, the children were insistent on being with the Wife and outwardly rejecting of the Husband. As the Wife was in ill health, it was not in the children's welfare to be isolated from her at this time. Under the circumstances, both parents continued to share joint custody of the children but the children would be in the care and control of the Wife while the Husband would have reasonable access whenever the children were ready and willing to meet him: at [22], [24] to [26].

(2) The evidence in the committal proceedings clearly demonstrated the Wife's disregard and intentional breaches of the court's orders not to disclose or provide to the children information related to the court proceedings. The Daughter's posts were replete with details that she could not have obtained herself. The Wife had allowed access to the documents and acted in breach of the court order; in fact, the evidence suggested active support from the Wife for the Daughter's posts while well aware that the court orders prohibited her from doing so. She was liable for contempt of court: at [41] to [43].

(3) It was a misperception to think that court orders relating to a parent's relationship with their child could be disobeyed by putting up a veil that the children were independent beings over which the party had little control. While children would have their own opinions and would make their own decisions especially as they matured, parents could not disclaim all responsibility for their actions. Parents were responsible for providing a safe and secure environment for their children and for setting limits on what was acceptable behaviour. Another important aspect of parental responsibility was facilitating the child's relationship with the other parent: at [43], [45] and [46].

(4) The order on sentencing had to uphold the goal of deterring contemptuous behaviour and to protect and preserve the authority of the courts, and take into account the Wife's medical condition as well as the nature of the orders breached. The Wife was sentenced to one week's imprisonment: at [47] to [49].

(5) A matrimonial asset focused on two key features: first, it was an asset acquired by effort and not by gift or inheritance; and second, it was an asset acquired during marriage or had a connection to the efforts of the spouses during marriage. Determining the purpose of the insurance payouts was of critical importance. They were meant to cover the Wife's medical expenses and treatment for cancer. They were not assets acquired as a result of the efforts of the parties nor received in the form of income, and were therefore not matrimonial assets: at [55], [57] and [60].

(6) In relation to maintenance, two considerations arose because of the Wife's medical condition: her medical expenses and her income. The Wife had received almost half a million dollars in insurance payouts that were not included in the pool of matrimonial assets. Although the Wife had medical expenses, she used the insurance payouts to pay R. The Husband should not have to bear the Wife's medical costs. The Wife was also receiving rental income from a property and would also receive an equal share of the matrimonial assets (amounting to more than $3m), which covered her ordinary expenses. No maintenance was awarded to her: at [66] and [67].

(7) Although the Husband had had no meaningful contact with the children since March 2018, the amount of maintenance awarded was not dependent on access and the Husband was willing to provide financial support. He was to pay maintenance of $2,800 for both children with effect from the date of the decision: at [69] and [70].

Case(s) referred to

AMW v AMZ [2011] 3 SLR 955 (folld)

ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (folld)

Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao [2016] 3 SLR 1 (folld)

Nalini d/o Ramachandran v Saseedaran Nair s/o Krishnan [2010] SGHC 98 (folld)

PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2018] 4 SLR 828 (folld)

Saseedaran Nair s/o Krishnan v Nalini d/o K N Ramachandran [2012] 2 SLR 365 (folld)

TNC v TND [2016] 3 SLR 1172 (folld)

TND v TNC [2017] SGCA 34 (folld)

UMU v UMT and another appeal [2019] 3 SLR 504 (folld)

Facts

The plaintiff (“the Wife”) and the defendant (“the Husband”) were married on 6 June 1998 and had two children (“the Daughter” and “the Son”). Interim judgment of divorce was granted on 2 October 2017.

The parties' initial separation appeared to be relatively peaceable where both parties agreed on joint custody of the two children, with care and control to the Wife and reasonable access to the Husband. The Husband moved out of the matrimonial home in July 2016 and continued to see the children. In October 2016, the Wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. The Wife employed a colleague, “R”, as her “executive personal assistant”, initially paying him $8,500 a month and later $15,000 a month to remove her tumours, even though he was not medically trained. The sums paid to R consisted of payouts received by the Wife from her medical insurance. The Husband argued that these payouts were matrimonial assets.

In February 2018, the Wife wrote a letter to the court that included graphic details about a “home mastectomy” that R had purportedly performed on her. The letter suggested that the two children were present or aware of these “operations”. The DJ was troubled that the children were exposed to these “home surgeries” and by the extent of R's influence over them, and awarded interim care and control to the Husband. From March 2018, both children filed multiple affidavits repeating the Wife's allegations against the Husband. The High Court affirmed the decision to award interim care and control to the Husband in Registrar's Appeal No 24 of 2018, and ordered the Wife to have supervised access once a week and for the children to undergo therapy.

On 19 November 2019, the handover of the children to the Husband was carried out after much difficulty. On the second day the children were in the Husband's care, the children went back to the Wife. The children were later ordered to be placed temporarily in Gracehaven, a children's home, so that interventions could be carried out to assist them. After a month in Gracehaven, the children returned to the Wife's home. Attempts to get the children to return to Gracehaven were met with extreme resistance.

In June and July 2019, the Daughter posted on her social media accounts allegations that the Husband had sexually abused her and her brother. These were allegations that the Wife had included in her affidavits, and had already been proven to be unfounded. The allegations received media attention and the children were interviewed by at least one news outlet with the Wife present.

In Summons No 190 of 2019 (“SUM 190”), the Husband commenced committal proceedings against the Wife on the basis that she had breached orders not to make disparaging remarks about each other and to restrain from involving the children in the litigation. The Husband relied on the Daughter's social media posts as evidence. The Wife claimed that the Daughter had obtained the information found in the social media posts from documents in her unlocked cupboard, but that she had decided to lock the cupboard after her Daughter's second social media post. The Wife also denied that there was anything wrong with the children giving an interview to the news outlet, as it was “just to create awareness”. On 16 July 2019, the Daughter made a police report to state that she and her brother were solely responsible for the social media posts.

Legislation referred to

Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2001 Rev Ed) s 29

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 112(10) (consd); s 112

Plaintiff in person;

Luna Yap Whye Tzu (Luna Yap LLC) for the defendant.

10 January 2020

Debbie Ong J:

1 The plaintiff (“the Wife”) and the defendant (“the Husband”) were married on 6 June 1998. They have two children: a daughter who is now 15 years old (“the Daughter”) and a son who is now nine years old (“the...