VVO v VVP

JudgeKathryn Thong
Judgment Date07 September 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] SGFC 95
Citation[2021] SGFC 95
CourtFamily Court (Singapore)
Published date15 September 2021
Docket NumberDivorce No 1695 of 2019, District Court Appeal No. 71 of 2021
Plaintiff CounselDaljit Kaur D/O Harbans Singh (N S Kang)
Defendant CounselDharmambal Shanti Jayaram [Dharma Law LLC]
Subject MatterFamily Law,Ancillary Matters,Shared care and control,Stay pending appeal
Hearing Date03 February 2021,27 May 2021
District Judge Kathryn Thong: Introduction

These grounds of decision are issued pursuant to the Defendant Father’s (“the Father”) appeal against the entirety of my decision on the ancillaries.

I had awarded care and control of both young sons to the Plaintiff Mother (“the Mother”) with liberal access to the Father such that on alternate weeks, he had dinner access with them up to six times a week.

As for the asset pool, 52.5% of it was awarded to the Mother and 47.5%, to the Father.

The Father would also pay a sum of $170 as maintenance for both sons plus bear his half share of the childcare and medical fees not covered by insurance.

After filing his notice of appeal, the Father also filed a summons (“the summons”) for stay of my orders. These grounds of decision will also deal with the arguments advanced for the summons and my decision. All names are pseudonyms.

Background facts

The Mother is a 31-year-old financial planner and the Father, a 31-year-old project coordinator. Parties were married in January 2015 and the interim judgment (“IJ”) was granted in December 2019 on an uncontested basis on the Father’s counterclaim of unreasonable behaviour and adultery on the Mother’s part. This was thus a very brief marriage of just under 5 years.

After their marriage, parties lived with the Father’s parents in their 5-room HDB flat, which they subsequently bought over. Their first son, Lionel, was born in April 2015 and a second son, Josh, was born in September 2017.

While the flat was bought from the Father’s parents with the help of a bank loan, it was the Mother’s parents who extended to the parties a renovation loan which both parties repaid in monthly instalments shared equally between themselves. At the time of hearing, some $30,000 of the loan remained unpaid.

During the renovations, parties resided with the Father’s parents at their new flat. In September 2016, parties finally moved into the matrimonial home and the Mother decided to quit her job to spend more time with Lionel. Three months later in December 2016, the Mother enrolled Lionel in a childcare centre just below the matrimonial home.

In February 2017, the Mother secured a new job and started working again. By this time she had fallen pregnant with Josh and parties decided to engage a domestic helper.

In April 2018, the Mother decided to pursue an insurance course to better the family’s financial position. The Father expressed his support and parties were aware that this would entail late night studying as the Mother would still be working, and the Father would return home earlier to see to the kids.

The Mother’s subsequent behaviour while pursuing her course aroused suspicion on the Father’s end and he eventually engaged a private investigator where he was unfortunately, proven right.

When parties’ domestic helper left around December 2018, the Father’s mother helped care for Josh whilst parties were at work. If they had to work late, Josh would spend the night with his paternal grandmother. The Mother had however wanted to engage a new helper so that they could rely on the helper with the pick-up of Josh, instead of it being subject to parties’ schedules. The Father was however not enthusiastic or responsive and felt it was fine for Josh to be cared for by the Mother.

That same month, the Mother sent a letter to the Father through her solicitors of her intention to commence divorce proceedings.

In March 2019, the Mother told the Father that she would be hiring a helper and since he was disinterested and not paying for the helper, the helper would take instructions only from her.

On 1 April 2019, the helper was slated to commence employment and the Father brought Josh over to his parents’ place as usual. By this time, the Mother had secured a place for Josh at the same childcare centre Lionel was attending and parties’ plan had been for Josh, like Lionel, to enrol there once he turned 18 months. To her surprise, the Father refused to let the Mother pick up Josh that day and stated that he would not return him to the matrimonial home “until everything is settled”. He also told the Mother she could visit Josh at his parents’ place but only when he was around.

The very next day, the Father filed his guardianship application (“the OSG”) for care and control of both children. That same month, the Mother filed for divorce.

On 27 May 2019, with the benefit of legal representation, parties entered into a consent order under the OSG for parties to have shared care and control of the children. On weekdays, the Father would bring Josh to his parents’ home in the morning and Josh would stay there throughout the day. Either party would pick Josh up from 5pm onwards and bring him back to the matrimonial home.

On weekends, the children would be at the matrimonial home on Saturday from 10am to 8pm and the Mother and her parents would be allowed to spend time at the matrimonial flat.

It was also in the consent order that there was to be no interaction between the domestic helper and the children.

After the order, parties remained in the matrimonial home with their sons and took turns on Friday and Saturday nights to respectively sleep with the boys. However, a sticking point would later be the childcare centre to enrol Josh in.

Parties’ respective cases The Mother’s case

The Mother believed that the Father’s uncooperative conduct in relation to Josh’s school (see [40]-[46] below) meant that sole custody with care and control to her, would be more appropriate. She cited how she had been the primary caregiver of the children and the Father had never been involved in the children’s lives as seen from his request for discovery and interrogatories where he had asked the following:

The Mother also pointed out the Father’s reckless regard for the children’s safety, such as smoking in their presence. In fact, his parents would also smoke in front of the children and the Mother alleged that Josh fell ill at least three times a month while under the paternal grandparents’ care. He was later diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. She also complained that the Father’s parents owned a dog with skin problems and the Father seldom changed his bedsheets.

She also criticised the Father’s failure to fit out his vehicle with a booster seat for Josh and how during the COVID-19 circuit breaker period, would be out for 2 to 3 hours each time, even dropping off food for foreign workers at their dormitories. It concerned the Mother that on social media there were photos of him eating out with his friends at far flung places too and the Mother sought to portray the Father as someone who was indiscriminately meeting up with people during the circuit breaker period.

There was also no civility accorded to her by the Father from the impolite names he called her and it was unlikely that they would be able to communicate on the children’s matters. Most of all, the Father harped on her affair, which he repeatedly raised across all three affidavits of his.

In her view, the Father’s prayer for shared care and control on the mere fact that there was a pre-existing consent order to this effect was baseless. Simply because there had been a consent order reflecting such “shared care and control” did not mean that it was to continue. Besides, the consent order had not given specifics on how to effect such shared care and control. Parties’ inability to communicate and cooperate – for instance, the Father’s refusal to allow the Mother to accompany Josh for immunisations or to allow her to care for the children even when the Father was overseas – meant shared care and control was out of the question. He had ultimately failed to prove why shared care and control would be in the children’s best interests.

In relation to the children’s maintenance, the Mother sought $1,350 from the Father for both children. While she acknowledged she was earning more as a financial planner, her income had dropped due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She also felt that the Father could exert greater effort to earn a higher income.

In terms of her indirect contributions, the Mother referred to how she had quit her job to look after Lionel full time and how she was responsible for enrolling the children in childcare and paid for most of their expenses. She pointed out she had paid for the groceries and outgoings of the household and even had to pay the Father’s share of the renovation loan. She attributed 70% to herself.

The Father’s case

The Father prayed for shared care and control, contending that the arrangements under the consent order had been working out fine. While he was not as highly educated or financially successful as his degree holder wife, what he lacked in these aspects, he had more than made up for it in terms of his care and love for their sons and he did not wish for this to change. He did not want the children to feel that they had to choose one parent over the other and was keen to play an active role in their lives as he had always done. Specifically he sought to have the children from Saturday evenings to Wednesday mornings.

He asked that the children’s maintenance be borne by each party when the children were in their respective care and control.

As for his indirect contributions, the Father attributed 70% to himself. He spoke of having to care for the children while the Mother was out studying and living a double life, and how he had paid towards the household expenses and holidays at the start of the marriage. He had...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT