VSR v VSS
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Kenneth Yap |
Judgment Date | 19 July 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGFC 76 |
Citation | [2021] SGFC 76 |
Docket Number | D 4903 of 2017 |
Hearing Date | 15 March 2021,08 April 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Yap Teong Liang (T L Yap Law Chambers LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Lim Poh Choo (Alan Shankar & Lim LLC) |
Subject Matter | Family Law,Ancillary Matters,Custody, Care and Control,Division of Matrimonial Assets,Maintenance |
Published date | 28 July 2021 |
The parties were married on 7 May 2007. The Defendant Husband is a Singaporean citizen while the Plaintiff Wife is an Indonesian citizen. The marriage lasted 11 years, before interim judgment dissolving the marriage was granted on 16 May 2018. There are three children to the marriage, all sons, aged 7, 11 and 12 at the time of the ancillary matters hearing.
After mediation, the parties reached an agreement with respect to the Husband’s access to the children on 11 November 2020. It was common ground that the terms of this consent order were to be included as part of the order for ancillary matters. As parties had reached agreement on access, the issues remaining to be determined in these ancillary proceedings were as follows:
The full terms of the consent order on access have some bearing on the remaining matters in these proceedings. It would be apposite to summarise its content as follows:
Having heard the parties, I made the following orders:
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the Wife filed the present appeal on 21 April 2021 against the orders on division and child maintenance. For the sake of completeness, and for reasons that will be made evident in the discussion on custody, I have provided my full reasons for the decision.
The FactsThe Plaintiff Wife is 42 years old, an Indonesian citizen and a Singapore Permanent Resident. She works as a Finance Director with PT FRP, a company incorporated in Indonesia and which is 90% owned by herself and 10% owned by the Wife’s mother.
The Defendant Husband is a Singaporean, aged 44 years, and works as a Regional Sales Manager with VEI Pte Ltd (“VEI”), a family company the shareholding of which is 70% in favour of his mother and 30% in his name.
During the start of the marriage, the Wife had set up her own business in Jakarta selling optical goods, clothes and bags, whereas the Husband was based in Singapore but travelled to China often to develop his business1.
All three children to the marriage are male and were born in Singapore. About six months after the birth of the first child (“C1”), on XXX 2008, the Wife brought him back to Jakarta with her to continue her employment and care for the child. She did the same about one month after the birth of the second child (“C2”) and third child (“C3”), on XXX 2009 and XXX 2013 respectively. C1 is now aged 13 years, while C2 is aged 12 years, and C3 is aged 8 years. The children are attending XXX in Jakarta, at Primary 6, Primary 5 and Primary 1 levels respectively. Apart from returning to Singapore for holidays, they primarily reside in Indonesia.
Between 2010 to May 2017, the Husband visited the children in Jakarta about once a month, usually on weekend trips lasting between two to three days on each occasion, amounting to a total of 256 days out of 11 years of marriage. A tabulation of his visitations was provided by the Wife as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The Wife would also bring the children to visit the Husband in Singapore from time to time, and the family would also go on holidays together. In summary, after the first 17 months of marriage, the Husband had resided in Singapore apart from the family since October 2008, apart from weekend trips and holidays. Despite this, the marriage appeared to be functional, and parties were able to co-parent effectively.
Matters however took a downhill turn from the end of 2016, when the Husband alleged adultery on the part of the Wife2. Tensions came to a head on his final visit to Jakarta on 22 May 2017. During that visit, the Wife alleged that he had committed family violence against her and made a police report3. Thereafter, the Husband did not return to Indonesia and has not seen the children in person since. It was only on 27 February 2020, when upon the application of the Husband, that the Husband obtained interim access by way of electronic communication including but not limited to video conferencing on Mondays and Wednesdays at 9 pm, and on Saturdays at 10 am.
Custody of the Children The Husband’s PositionThe Husband took the position that it was in the best interest and for the welfare of the children that there should be joint custody by both parties. At the hearing, Counsel for the Husband elaborated that the Husband was primarily concerned that he had been shut out of the children’s lives, having not been able to receive any information regarding the children with regard to their daily affairs, e.g. their school work and tuition.
The Husband was also frustrated that he was having trouble securing access to the children via mobile phone or video conferencing. According to the Husband, the Wife would keep her mobile phone off until the appointed time of access, and would switch it off immediately if the Husband failed to call at the exact appointed time.
The Wife’s Position The Wife sought sole custody over the children for the following reasons:
In the event that the court granted joint custody, the Wife requested in the alternative that she be given the ability to make final decisions on the children’s medical-related matters, as well as where they would live.
In support of her contention, the Wife charted out what she alleged was a history of violence and anger management issues which amounted to verbal, physical and emotional abuse. She recounts the following incidents:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
WBA v WBB
...depend on the circumstances of each case, with fairness and common sense as a guide. The Wife also referred to the case of VSR v VSS [2021] SGFC 76 (“VSR v VSS”) without any substantive commentary in her written and oral arguments. The Husband then relied on this case for the proposition th......