VMS v VMT

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Toh Wee San
• Judgment Date: 04 November 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGFC 93
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: D 5070 of 2018
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 12 November 2020
• Hearing Date: 09 June 2020,27 July 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Charmaine Chan (Veritas Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Patricia Quah (Patricia Quah & Co)
• Subject Matter: Ancillary Matters,Division of assets, Care for and access to children, Maintenance for wife and children
• Citation: [2020] SGFC 93

District Judge Toh Wee San: Background Facts

The Plaintiff will be referred to as the “Wife” and the Defendant will be referred to as the “Husband”.

The parties were married in Singapore on 28 December 1999. There are three children to the marriage, two daughters and a son, aged 17, 15 and 13 respectively. The eldest daughter is studying at a polytechnic, the second daughter is in secondary three and the youngest son is in secondary one. All three children have been residing with the Wife ever since the Husband left the matrimonial home in 2018.

Both parties are currently 46 years old. The Wife has been a homemaker for almost the entire marriage but had the assistance of a domestic helper for most parts of the marriage. The Husband is self-employed.

The Wife commenced divorce proceedings on 2 November 2018. Interim Judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on Husband’s unreasonable behaviour on 26 December 2018. As such, the marriage lasted for 19 years.

The ancillary matters were contested and the issues to be determined included the following: - Care and control and access to the children; Division of matrimonial assets including the matrimonial home, a Housing Board Development flat; Maintenance for the children; and Maintenance for the wife.

The parties filed their ancillary matters (AM) affidavits and two rounds of Written Submissions. After hearing parties, I made the ancillary matters orders on 27 July 2020. The Wife have appealed against these orders and I now set out the reasons for my decision. A copy of my AM order is annexed.

Children’s custody, care and control, and access

There was a consent order dated 1 April 2019 for the parties to have joint custody, with sole care and control of the children to the Wife and reasonable access to the Husband such as sending the children to school and subject to the children’s wishes.

The Husband had also filed Summons No. 362 of 2020 to vary the terms of the said consent order. In particular, the Husband sought a reversal of the care arrangements of the children. Alternatively, the Husband prayed that in the event that the Court was not minded to accord the children’s care and control to him, he sought a variation of the access arrangements.

As both the Summons No. 362 of 2020 and the ancillary matters were placed before me, I dealt with the issue of the children’s care and control and access as part of the ancillary matters and made no orders on the prayers in Summons No. 362 of 2020.

The wife’s case for care and control and access

The Wife sought sole care and control of all three children on the basis that she has been a full-time caregiver for the children ever since she stopped work when she was pregnant with the eldest daughter.

The Wife argued that she was far more involved in the children’s daily lives as compared to the Husband who was busy at work. She argued that the Husband was absent from the children’s lives for a significant period from 2010 to 2015 and had only started to get closer to the children after he left the matrimonial home in 2018 (paragraphs 23 to 24 of of PWS1¹). However, since then, she has also been caring for the three children single-handedly and did not have any assistance from a domestic helper.

The Wife was prepared to accord the Husband with reasonable access to the children subject to their wishes, including sending the children to school.

The Wife claimed that the Husband visited prostitutes, engaged in lurid conversation with his friends and had a pornographic habit (paragraphs 25 to 27 of PWS1) and stated that their daughters told her that they felt uncomfortable with staying with the Husband. As such, the Wife was not prepared to allow the Husband to have overnight access with the children.

The husband’s case for care and control and access

The Husband took the position that the three children were all afraid of the Wife and were not happy living with her. According to the Husband, all three children had expressed their desire to have overnight access with him and to go on overseas holidays with the Husband (paragraph 1.7.1 of DWS1²).

The Husband submitted that he fetches the children to school every morning (paragraph 1.7.3 of DS1) and has been a good provider and participative father to the children. He denied having a pornographic habit or causing their daughters to feel uncomfortable (paragraph 8 of DWS3).

The Husband further submitted that after parties entered into the consent order, he found out that the Wife had not been providing proper care for the children. Furthermore, he did not want the children to live in fear of not pleasing the Wife and bear the brunt of her emotional outbursts and tantrums (paragraph 2 of DWS3). These reasons prompted him to file his application to ask for care of the children in his Summons No. 362 of 2020 (paragraph 1.7.2 of DWS1; paragraph 2 of DWS3).

The Husband was prepared to allow the Wife overnight access with the children if he were to be the parent with care and control of the children (paragraph 5.3 of DWS3).

Court’s finding on care and control and access

At the hearing before me, both parties confirmed that they were agreeable for a joint custody order, but both asked to be the parent with care and control. Parties invited me to interview the children and a child interview was conducted for all three children.

Based on the evidence before me and taking into consideration what is in the children’s best interest, I ordered for there to be joint custody of the three children with sole care and control to the Wife and reasonable access to the Husband.

I encouraged parties to reach an agreement on the access arrangements as part of co-parenting. However, if both parties are not able to reach an agreement, then the Husband shall have access to the children every Saturday to Sunday (including overnight access). The Husband shall also have access to the children up to twice on weekdays. The children were comfortable with H and hence I did not restrict over-night access with H.

I also ordered for the access during school holidays (including overseas holidays) and public holidays to be equally shared between both parents.

The matrimonial pool of assets The wife’s sole assets Wife accepted husband’s position on Maybank fixed deposit account

In the Husband’s first Written Submissions dated 24 March 2020 (DWS1), he relied on the Maybank account statement that the Wife had furnished and submitted that the monies in the Wife’s Maybank fixed deposit account amounting to S$51,422.72 should be added into the matrimonial pool (paragraph 5.2 of DWS1). This was accepted by the Wife.

Accordingly, the assets in the Wife’s sole name are as follows: -

S/N	Asset	Value	My comments
1	POSB Savings	S$106,504.16
2	OCBC Savings	S$45,443.96
3	Maybank Fixed Deposit Account	S$51,422.72	This was raised by Husband’s counsel and was accepted by Wife’s counsel.
4	CPF monies	S$43,521.80
Sub-total	S$246 892.64

The husband’s sole assets Wife’s submissions on husband’s vehicles and bicycles

The Wife disputed the assets that were held in the Husband’s sole name.

In particular, the Wife wanted to include 5 cars and 6 bicycles. The husband was agreeable to include only three vehicles i.e. two cars and one bicycle. He argued that only these were presently in his possession.

In the Wife’s first Written Submissions dated 24 March 2020 (PWS1), she argued that the value of the following items should be included in the matrimonial pool. These were the vehicles that the Husband countered were no longer with him. Vehicle Number SJKXXXXP – It was not disputed that this was scrapped in November 2018 for S$7,000. W argued that the scrap value of S$7,000 should be added back to the matrimonial pool (paragraph 56 of PWS1). Vehicle Number SKGXXXXP – It was not disputed that this was transferred to the Husband’s business and used as a spare car. The Wife argued that the open market value of the said vehicle, amounting to S$27,271 ought to be added back to the matrimonial pool (paragraph 56 of PWS1). Vehicle Number SLQXXXXB – It was not disputed that this was scrapped in February 2019 for S$8,000. W argued that the scrap value of S$8,000 should be added back to the matrimonial pool (paragraph 56 of PWS1). Bicycles – The Wife argued that the Husband owed several expensive bicycles and the value of each of these expensive bicycles should be added into the matrimonial pool. The Wife identified at least 6 of such expensive bicycles and submitted for a value of S$5,000 to be ascribed to each bicycle (paragraph 61 of PWS1).

Husband’s submissions on husband’s vehicles and bicycles

The Husband’s submissions in his DWS1 to the above position was as follows: - Vehicle Number SJKXXXXP – The monies from scrapping the said vehicle was used for running XXX (paragraph 5.3 of DWS1). Vehicle Number SKGXXXXP – The vehicle was transferred to XXX in January 2020 as a spare vehicle for clients to rent free of charge when their respective cars were in the workshop. Vehicle Number SLQXXXXB – The monies from scrapping the said vehicle was used for running XXX (paragraph 5.3 of DWS1). Bicycle – The bicycles did not belong to him as he was merely helping his friends with repair and service. Furthermore, the bicycles that he had declared were of negligible value of S$200 to S$400 as they were purchased at judgment credit sales (paragraphs 5.3, 5.4 of DWS1).

Court’s finding on the husband’s vehicles and bicycles

Based on the evidence before me: - I accepted that the three vehicles, namely the vehicles bearing the registration numbers SJKXXXXP, SKGXXXXP and SLQXXXXB were owned by XXX, a sole-proprietorship owned by the Husband. Two out of the three vehicles have been scrapped and the remaining...