VIJ v VII

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chia Wee Kiat
• Judgment Date: 15 March 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 29
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: SS 1185/2018, HCF/DCA 117/2020
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 20 March 2021
• Hearing Date: 09 July 2020,23 November 2020,03 August 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Nandwani Manoj Prakash (Gabriel Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in Person.
• Subject Matter: Family law,Family violence,Orders for protection
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 29

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat: Introduction

This is an application by the applicant (“the Father”) for a personal protection order (“PPO”) against the respondent (“the Mother”) in connection with family violence allegedly committed by the Mother against the Father and the two children of the marriage. The application was contested by the Mother.

At the trial before me, the Father and the Mother were the only witnesses who gave evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the requirements for a PPO under s 65 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) (“the Charter) were not satisfied on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the application.

As the Father has appealed against my decision, I now set out my grounds of decision.

Background

The parties have been mired in litigation since 2013. The detailed history of proceedings is recorded in my earlier decision (VII v VIJ [2020] SGFC 48 (“VII”)) rendered in respect of the ancillary matters (“AM”) in the divorce proceedings (FC/D 3401/2018 (“D3401”)) filed by the Mother.

It is unnecessary to revisit the earlier proceedings in detail, but a few salient aspects are worth highlighting as they help provide context to the current PPO application.

The parties were married on 4 February 2020 in India. There are two children to the marriage who were referred to as [J] and [K] (redacted names) in VII. For consistency, I shall adopt the same redacted names in these grounds of decision. J is currently living with the Father and K with the Mother. The children turn 13 and 11 respectively this year.

The Father started work in Singapore in 1997 and obtained Singapore Permanent Residency in 1999. The Mother obtained Singapore Permanent Residency in 2003. J was born in May 2008 and K in June 2010. Faced with various challenges while living with the Father, the Mother left the Father in 2013 with the children.

On 20 June 2013, the Father filed OSF 272/2013/S (“OSF 272”) seeking joint custody of the children with care and control to him and reasonable supervised access to the Mother.

On 30 July 2013, the parties entered into a consent order giving parties joint custody of the children with interim care and control to the Mother and interim access to the Father. The interim access orders were subsequently varied on two occasions.

On 14 October 2013, the Mother commenced divorced proceedings (Divorce Suit No. D 5061 of 2013 (“D 5061”)) against the Father on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. D 5061 was dismissed by District Judge Wong Keen Onn (“the DJ”) on 19 July 2016 after a 14-day trial.

On 4 November 2016, the Mother obtained a PPO (PPO 1176/2016) in SS 2992/2014 (“SS 2992”) against the Father.

On 26 May 2018, the Father failed to return the children after exercising his lawful access. On 27 May 2018, the Mother made a police report.

The Mother found out on 29 May 2018 that the Father had taken the children to Kandang Kerbau Hospital (“KKH”) on 26 May 2018 and lodged a report that she had abused them. She was subsequently contacted by the Child Protection Service (“CPS”) of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (“MSF”) to arrange for a meeting.

On 1 June 2018, the Father filed the current PPO application (SS 1185/2018 (“SS 1185”)) against the Mother from committing family violence against him and the children.

On 13 June 2018, the Mother was informed that CPS and the police found no evidence of abuse and the matter was closed. She was also handed a Case Card with the classification “No offence disclosed” by the police officer present.

On 22 June 2018, the Father filed FC/SUM 2242/2018 (“SUM 2242”) in OSF 272 to seek, inter alia, care and control of the children.

In July 2018, K returned to the Mother out of her own volition whilst J continued to reside with the Father.

On 23 July 2018, the Mother commenced D 3401 on grounds of four years’ separation. The Father contested the divorce.

On 7 March 2019, an Interim Judgment was granted by the DJ after a one-day trial with costs of $3,500 to be paid by the Father to the Mother. The AM were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

The AM and SUM 2242 came up for hearing before me on 8 October 2019. The matters for determination were custody, care and control of the children and access, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance.

At the AM hearing, the Father acknowledged that parties have filed numerous applications against each other (see VII at [58]):

There have been numerous applications filed by both parties in respect of interim custody, care and control, access, maintenance, orders relating to the passports of the Children, orders for the Defendant to vacate the matrimonial home, as well as the filing of various police reports, applications for Personal Protection Orders (“PPOs”) and contempt proceedings from before D5061 to date.

Indeed, the level of acrimony between the parties was high. As I had observed in VII (at [59]-[61]): 59 Both have made serious allegations against the other. The Wife says the Husband is in breach of the access orders but the Husband says it was the Wife who has repeatedly denied him access to the children. The Wife says the Husband has been abusive towards the children but the Husband says the Wife has deliberately caused hurt to J on several occasions. The Wife says K has chosen to stay with her but the Husband says J has chosen to stay with him. The Wife says the Husband has turned J against her but the Husband says the Wife has deliberately alienated the children from him. The Wife says the Husband has forced a wedge in the relationship between J and K but the Husband says the Wife has deliberately pit the children against each other. The Wife says she does not trust the Husband that he will not use harsh disciplinary method on the children but the Husband says the Wife should provide an undertaking that she will not use family violence against the children. 60 The inability of the parties to see eye to eye and the deep mistrust for each other have led to multiple applications in court. Both are insisting that the care and control of the children should be awarded to them, each claiming that they are acting in the best interests of the children.

On 26 May 2020, I rendered my decision with full written grounds in the hope that my decision and the observations provided therein would provide some finality in the matter and help the parties let go and move on. I found that the children had been triangulated in the parents’ disputes (see VII at [55]) and impressed upon the parties the need to reduce conflict and minimise acrimony and reminded them of their responsibility to facilitate the children’s relationship with the other parent (see VII at [57]).

Both parties claimed to have acted in the best interests of the children but as I have noted in VII (at [61]):

The unfortunate reality is that the children are caught in the crossfire of their parents’ conflicts. It is apparent to me that the children are sad, confused and worried by all that has transpired. The parties seem oblivious to the fact that their endless conflicts have exacted a toll on the children, which must be overwhelming for any child to bear.

I assessed that any transfer of care and control to the other parent would be too drastic for the children, which might subject them to even more anxiety. I found that it would be in the children’s best interests for them to remain under the care of the current respective parent. This would support the children’s stability and continuity in the children’s current living arrangements and minimise the anxiety and uncertainty the children had been experiencing regarding their living arrangements.

I have no doubt that both parties love the children deeply and was hopeful that they could acquire the necessary skills to establish a co-operative parenting relationship with the help of a trained counsellor.

With these considerations in mind, I made the following orders with respect to the welfare of the children: (a) The parties be granted joint custody of the children with care of control of J to the Husband and care and control of K to the Wife. (b) The parties be granted facilitated access with the child not living with them with the support of the Divorce Support Specialist Agency (“DSSA”). The DSSA counsellor is to assess the progress of parent-child readiness and commence contact time at a suitable stage as determined by the counsellor. The parties shall cooperate and work with the DSSA counsellor. (c) The parties and the children are to attend such counselling and therapy as may be deemed appropriate by the DSSA counsellor to address the difficulty with regard to access as well as the following areas: (i) promoting each child’s relationship with both parents; (ii) promoting sibling relationship； (iii) address divorce-related stress and grief for parents and children； (iv) coaching parents on boundaries and age-appropriate autonomy; and (v) restoring adequate parent, co-parenting and parent-child roles. (d) The children should be encouraged to have regular contact time to bond with each other without the interference of either parent. (e) Subject to the prevailing regulations on Covid-19 to safeguard public health, the children shall have weekly contact time with each other, to be facilitated by the school counsellor, at the school till the start of the year-end holiday. (f) The children shall have weekly contact time with each other at the DSSA from the start of the 2020 year-end holiday. (g) The parties may, with the help from the DSSA counsellor, work out an access plan that caters to the developmental needs of the children whilst assuring them, to the greatest extent possible, of a normal family life with two parents. (h) The DSSA may, in its discretion, conduct such facilitated access, counselling or therapy via online platforms having regard to...