VPN v VPO

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Zhuo Neng
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGFC 15
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No 3584 of 2019 (Summons No 2124 of 2021, Summons 2789 of 2021 & Summons No 2847 of 2021)
• Year: 2022
• Published date: 12 February 2022
• Hearing Date: 20 October 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nureliza Syahidain Bte Effendy (Yeo & Associates)
• Defendant Counsel: The Father in Person.
• Citation: [2022] SGFC 15

District Judge Goh Zhuo Neng:INTRODUCTION

This hearing comprised of variation applications (“Applications”) by the Defendant father (“Father”) and Plaintiff mother (“Mother”) to vary a consent order that they had entered into on 6 March 2020, that had been previously varied by on 25 November 2020 in the Father’s application of SUM 1323 of 2020 (“Order”). My grounds of decision in SUM 1323 of 2020 was published as VPN v VPO[2021] SGFC 20 (“VPN”). The full terms of the Order are set out at Annex A.SUM 2124 of 2021 (Father) – Filed on 18 June 2021, seeking an extension of time for the Flat to be transferred to him within 12 months from the date of an order being made in these proceedings. He was also seeking orders for the Mother to cooperate with him in providing documents and for a Registrar’s empowerment clause with 7 days written notice to be inserted.SUM 2789 of 2021 (Mother) – Filed on 11 August 2021, seeking that the Mother be given the final decision in relation to the child of the marriage (the “Child”), and to vary the Father’s access to the Child. In respect of the Flat, she was seeking orders that it be sold in the open market within 9 months from the date of an order being made in these proceedings, with consequential orders for the Father to vacate the Flat within 2 weeks of an order being made in these proceedings and for a Registrar’s empowerment clause with 7 days written notice to be inserted.SUM 2847 of 2021 (Father) – Filed on 7 September 2021, seeking shared care and control of the Child and consequential variations to the Child’s access. This included half of all the Child’s school holidays and make up access. The Father would also pay the monthly sum of $150.00 to the Mother with future anticipated school expenses to be agreed and divided 50%. Alternatively, each party would bear all of the Child’s expenses when the Child was spending time with them in the event of a shared care and control order being made.The full text of the summonses in the Applications are set out as Annexes B, C and D.

On 20 October 2021, I heard the Application. The Mother was represented and the Father was in person. I essentially ordered that the Order be varied as follows:That in the event of a deadlock between the parties, the Mother shall be authorised to make all decisions on the preschool institutions or childcare that the Child shall attend, and notify the Father of her choices.Both parties shall be responsible for ensuring that the Child is sent to picked up from his preschool/childcare while the child is staying with them.There shall be no make-up access unless agreed to by the parties.That the timeline for the transfer of the Flat to the Father will take place within 6 months of my order. If the Flat is not transferred by then, it will be sold in the open market with the Mother having sole conduct of the sale, including the authority to appoint agents to market the Flat, determine their remuneration, save that both parties must jointly agree to the sale price of the Flat.In the event of such a sale, the sales proceeds of the Flat will be applied in the following order:In full repayment of the housing loan for the Flat.In full repayment of any resale levy imposed on the sale of the Flat by the Housing and Development Board.To refund the monies withdrawn from the parties’ Central Provident Fund Ordinary Accounts (“CPF Accounts”) for the purchase of the Flat, with accrued interest.All costs and expenses of the sale, including without limitation, commission for agents and conveyancing fees.Payment of $20,000.00 to the Mother.The balance of the sale proceeds to be paid to the Father.The Father would move out of the Flat within 2 months after a sales and purchase agreement is signed for the Flat. He would also continue making payment of the outstanding housing loan and all other expenses of and related to the Flat pending the sale or transfer of the Flat. The Father was also not to obstruct the Mother or any agents appointed by her from holding viewings of the Flat, provided that the viewings take place at a time between 10.00am to 8.00pm, and 24 hours notice is given for the viewings.A Registrar’s empowerment clause with 7 days written notice would be inserted. Consequential orders were made for the orders to be made subject to the CPF Act and regulations, the CPF Board’s charge on the Flat and giving CPF Board and the parties liberty to apply.The full terms of my orders are set out at Annex E.

All the other prayers in the Applications were dismissed. I also ordered the Father to pay costs of $2,000.00 to the Mother.

On 1 November 2021, the Father filed a Notice of Appeal against my decision. I set out below the full grounds of my decision.

VARIATION OF CUSTODY CARE AND CONTROL AND ACCESSBackground

The Child was born on xxx 2018. It was not disputed that:The Child had been solely under the Mother’s care since March 2019.The Child had been attending the same Preschool since my decision in VPN in November 2020.The Child was attending full day Preschool from Monday to Friday, 7.00am to 7.00pm.

Should Shared Care and Control be Ordered?

The Father asked that he be given shared care and control to address the difficulties he was facing in getting information from the Child’s preschool and medical institutions. According to him:Medical institutions – He had discovered that the Mother had not registered him as a contact with one of the clinics attended by the Child (“Clinic A”). Another adult had been registered as the alternative contact of the Child. While Clinic A was willing to add him as a contact, they were not willing to provide him with the details of the other person who had been registered as an alternative contact.Preschool – The Child’s preschool was refusing to inform the Father about whether his Child was attending pre-school during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Father was unhappy that the Mother was still allowing the Child to attend preschool during the Covid-19 pandemic.Mother’s New Partner – The Father claimed that the Child was addressing the Mother’s new partner (an ex-boyfriend) as “Da-Da”, short for darling. This troubled the Father who expressed concerns about the partner’s moral values, and alleged that he was personally responsible for 2 out of 3 of the abortions that the Mother had previously.Child’s Weight – That the Child’s weight was fluctuating every week.

I was of the view that this was not a scenario which justified shared care and control of the Child. In TAU v TAT[2018] SGHCF 11, [12 to 19], the High Court noted that an order for shared care and control should be made taking into account the child’s need at that stage of life, the extent to which the parents can cooperate within such an arrangement with minimal conflict, and whether it is easy for the child to live in two homes within one week, noting that such an arrangement may reduce the flexibility the child has for his own activities.

Such an ideal situation did not exist in the present case. During the hearing, the Father admitted to me that he disagreed with the way that the Mother was raising the Child. It was also clear from the antagonism expressed in his affidavits that it would not be possible to expect parties to cooperate with minimal conflict.

On the other allegations, I note that:Medical institutions – The Mother explained that the alternative adult registered with Clinic A was the Maternal Grandmother, and the failure to inform them that the Father was an alternative contact was an oversight. I accepted the Mother’s explanation as she had complied largely with the requirements to provide such an update to all medical institutions attended by the Child. In December 2020, the Mother had notified the Child’s paediatric hospital and the National Healthcare Group of Polyclinics that the Father would be the alternative contact of the Child. His contact details were also provided to these institutions. Clinic A was a private clinic located near the Mother’s home and it was understandable that the Mother may have forgotten to do so.Preschool – In my view, the Preschool’s reluctance to communicate with the Father was probably part of their preference to communicate with a single parent, who had care and control. This factor alone did not justify shared care and control.Mother’s New Partner – None of the Father’s concerns were even proven, and even if they were, were not relevant in my determination of whether parties could cooperate. If anything, they emphasised the antagonism that the Father bore for the Mother.Child’s Weight – This issue had been considered in VPN and the fluctuations were not regarded as being substantial, [11] to [20]. As the Father did not provide a further medical report in these proceedings to explain the implications of these fluctuations, I did not attribute any weight to them in my decision.

In summary, the Father was seeking shared care and control to exert greater control over the decisions made in the Child’s life. However that cannot be the grounds for granting such an order. There are also other considerations to be made here, including whether parties can agree, and whether living in different homes is suitable for the Child. This was not made out on the facts.

Should The Father’s Access be Varied?

Both the Father and Mother were seeking variations of the Father’s regular access to the Child. The real issue underpinning this dispute was the Father’s reluctance to take the Child to preschool during his access. He was concerned that it was not safe for the Child to attend preschool, that this would reduce his own access to the Child. He was also dissatisfied with the preschool attended by the Child, for reasons that had been addressed in VPN, [24] to [25].

I set out below a table comparing the current regular access with the terms of access...