WAH v WAG
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Chia Wee Kiat |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] SGFC 6 |
| Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | D 399 of 2022 |
| Hearing Date | 04 July 2023,01 December 2023 |
| Citation | [2024] SGFC 6 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Plaintiff in person |
| Defendant Counsel | Ms Hing Wei Yuen Angelina and Mr Denny Lin DianYan (Integro Law Chambers LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Family Law,Custody,care and control,Matrimonial assets,Division,Maintenance,Child,Wife,Husband |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
The plaintiff (the “Husband”) and the defendant (the “Wife”) were married on 4 February 2018. The Husband is a practicing lawyer1, and the Wife is an auditor.2 The parties have a young child, [E], who is 5 years of age this year.
The Husband commenced divorce proceedings on 27 January 2022. The Wife filed her Defence and Counterclaim on 17 February 2022. On 30 June 2022, Interim Judgment of Divorce (“IJ”) was granted based on both parties’ unreasonable behaviour.3
At the ancillary matters (the “AM”) hearing on 4 July 2023, I gave directions for parties to file a Joint Summary and called for a Custody Evaluation Report (“CER”).
On 1 December 2023, I rendered my decision with brief written grounds. As the Wife has appealed against part of my decision, I now provide my full grounds of decision incorporating my brief grounds.
Custody, care and control Prior to the commencement of the divorce proceedings, the parties had each taken out cross-applications under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (“the OSG applications”) against the other. The procedural history of the parties’ litigation is set out in my decision in
The OSG applications culminated in my order dated 24 November 2021 (the “OSG order”) which provides,
Subsequent to the OSG order, I made further orders on 10 March 2023 (the “10 March order”) pursuant to the parties’ cross-applications
The Husband also filed FC/SUM 1112/2023 (“SUM 1112”). This is an application, which, according to the Husband, “relates to parents keeping each other updated reasonably quickly when E is unwell”.4 As the AM orders are final orders (see
In broad terms, the Husband is seeking joint custody, care and control of E.5 The Husband wants E to be within the care and control of one parent from Saturday 9pm to Wednesday morning while the other parent will have the remaining time with E.6
The Husband says that the OSG order has been intact since 24 November 2021. Approximately 18 months thereon, he has not missed one access session. This amounts to approximately 72 weekends. There were 5 weekends where access was denied because the Wife deemed E ill.7
The Husband says that even though the Wife has been tacitly alienating E from him,8 he has bonded well with E.9 The Husband says that E has expressed that he wants to spend more time with him. E has informed the Husband that he wants the Husband to pick him up and drop him off at school like other fathers who drop and pick up his friends. The Husband says that he too wants to be a part of E’s school life as it is and will continue to be a significant influence in E’s life.10
The Husband acknowledges that both parents share a strong love for E. The Husband says that he is a sole proprietor and can manage his time accordingly while the Wife appears to still be able to work from home. The Husband says that both have a support system that supplements their immediate care giving abilities.11
The Husband says that the two nights of access spanning the weekends has not disrupted E’s development and there are no adverse reports by the Wife from the school that E is unable to cope. On the contrary, E is growing steadily at school and has become focused since the beginning of 2023.12
The Husband says that the court can put in place several orders to facilitate cooperative co-parenting13 and should not allow the Wife to use acrimony for the self-serving position to prolong sole care and control and minimize progressive co-parenting.14
The Husband says that he does not seek to reverse care and control as such a request may be too drastic for the Wife to bear, given her emotional attachment to E. However, to not make changes to the care and control facet of the interim orders would effectively reward the Wife and embolden her behaviour towards co-parenting, thereby depriving the child of what is in his best interests.15
The Husband’s detailed proposals for access are set out at paragraph 4 of his Written Submissions.16
The Wife’s positionThe Wife says that after the OSG order, she has been doing her utmost to abide by the orders. As such, the framework set out in the OSG order has been working relatively well under the circumstances in supporting the child’s safety, well-being and development. The OSG order has provided a firm and secure scaffold for the child’s growth under her care and control as the primary caregiver of the child.17
The Wife is not in favour of shared care and control. She explains that the marriage has been extremely acrimonious, with legal proceedings lasting much longer than the length of the marriage itself. During the marriage, she was always the first one to want to resolve the issue, try to talk things out calmly and be prepared to forgive and forget. Even after the marriage had broken down, the Wife continued being the one trying various ways to urge the Husband to minimise acrimony. The Wife says that the Husband would case-build to show a “Sterling outlook” in court litigation while giving her “hell” by continually making harassing calls and emails during his access time so that he can turn round and accuse her of not responding to him or not co-parenting with him.18
The Wife says that the Husband would openly quote excerpts of Court Order and Grounds of Decision where it suits him to intimidate, bully and humiliate her.19 The Wife says that the Husband has been filing numerous applications to prolong litigation and increase legal fees for the Wife, and has refused to resolve matters amicably.20 For example, the Husband has sought to impose extremely prescriptive orders in SUM 111221 and refused to return the child after access so as to put the Wife under duress to get the Wife to agree to his demands.22
The Wife says that she, on the other hand, has been doing her utmost to put the past behind her and parent the child as best as she can. She has been doing her utmost to comply with the Court’s orders, despite it being extremely challenging.23
The Wife says that the child was often returned back (and often late) from his access from the Husband sick, resulting in the Wife having to bear the aftermath caregiving, which adversely affects the rest of the weekdays under the Wife’s care.24
The Wife says that the Husband is busy with work, and does not have support from his family members. The child is young and susceptible to falling sick. The refusal of the Husband to acknowledge this, and his constant clamoring for more time with the child as a matter of right, is not in the interests of the child, or the co-parenting relationship with the Wife.25
The Wife says that while she has been trying her best efforts to continually affirm joint custody, this is not the case for the Husband. The Husband’s conduct has deeply eroded any trust she has left, and instead of repairing it, the Husband continues to ravage through whatever little of it is left.26
The Wife submits that given parties’ relationship is highly acrimonious, it is clearly not in the child’s best interests that shared care and control is ordered in this case. This is especially so given the Husband’s inability to put the child’s interests in the forefront.27
Although the Wife proposes that the fundamentals of the OSG order be preserved28, she feels that the present OSG order effectively limits the time she has with the child during weekends to be on Sunday after 11am. This would effectively only leave time for the child to have lunch, a nap in the afternoon and dinner before turning in for bed at 8pm.29
The Wife says that while the present arrangement might have been applicable when the child was not in school, the arrangement is no longer ideal for the child, now that the child has started pre-school as it gives her very little quality time with the child. The current OSG order as it stands basically only gives the Wife a few hours in the day on Sunday. The Wife says that this is clearly insufficient for the Wife and her extended family to spend quality time with the child over the weekends which will impact the bonding and development of the child over an extended period of time.30
The Wife says that there is no opportunity for the Wife to bring the child for any activities, which may include movies, family get-togethers, with the child’s extended family. The Wife is also unable to schedule any trips to Sentosa, the Zoo, etc. with the child during her time with him. These activities often would be whole-day activities and the child would be extremely tired at the end of the day. The Wife says that most parents would have such activities on a Saturday so that the child can rest and recover and be ready for school on Sunday. The Wife would like to be able to do this once a fortnight.31
The Wife hopes that the Court would grant the Wife an apportionment of the prime weekend time which includes one non-school night to spend with the child so that the Wife is also given the fundamental opportunity to bond with the child as well as to allow the child to visit with the maternal extended family during the weekends. The Wife is a working mother and weekend time with the child is precious to her.32
A summary of the Wife’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial