WDW v WDX and another matter
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chia Wee Kiat |
Judgment Date | 24 June 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGFC 55 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | OSG 51 of 2021 & OSG 103 of 2021 |
Published date | 01 July 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 10 February 2022,04 March 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Iman Marini binte Salem Ibrahim (Salem Ibrahim LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Lee Mong Jen (LMJ Law Corporation) |
Citation | [2022] SGFC 55 |
There were two applications before me, namely, FC/OSG 51/2021 (“OSG 51”) and FC/OSG 103/2021 (“OSG 103”). These were cross-applications under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (“GIA”). The applications concern a 2-year-old child (“C”) taken out by her parents whom I shall refer to as the “Father” and the “Mother”.
I heard the applications on 10 February 2022 and gave my decision on 4 March 2022 with brief grounds. The orders made were as follows:
Custody, Care and Control
Access
The Child's Passports/Child Development Account
Maintenance for the Child
Costs
As the parties have appealed against my decision, I now provide my full grounds of decision (“GD”).
BackgroundThe Father is an American citizen who owns a US-based construction company. The Mother, a Singapore citizen, is a Senior Associate at a bank.1
The Father met the Mother on a trip to Singapore in 20192 and the Mother became pregnant with his child.3 On 25 November 2019, the Father received a text message from the Mother explaining to him that she desired to get married before the child was born as she wanted to qualify for a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat. When the Father texted the Mother the following day, she informed him that since there was a 3-week period to solemnize a marriage and she was due to give birth in 4 weeks, she had gone ahead to register to marry a close friend of hers.4
The Father says he was worried that the Mother marrying another man was not in his child’s best interests. He therefore agreed to marry the Mother but told her that he intended to consult a Singapore lawyer to better understand what marriage in Singapore would entail.5
The Father arrived in Singapore about a week later and first met with a lawyer on 10 December 2019. He was advised that a pre-nuptial agreement would be prudent and suggested this to the Mother.6
The parties registered their marriage on 17 December 2019.7
The Mother says the marriage is not a conventional one8 - the parties are neither friends nor companions.9 As she was below the age of 35, she thought the best position for her to raise the child would be to get married to form a family nucleus to purchase a property.10
The Mother says the Father made her sign a Prenuptial Deed (“the Deed”) prior to the registration of the marriage.11 Under the Deed dated 16 December 2019,12 the parties agreed
The Father says after the Mother informed him that she was pregnant, he planned to relocate to Singapore at the end of November 2019 so that he could be present for the child’s birth and be part of her life thereafter.15
The child C was born on 18 December 2019, the day after the parties registered their marriage.16 The Father says he was present for C’s birth, and prior to 7 April 2020 (commencement of circuit breaker), he saw C every day when he was in Singapore.17 After the circuit breaker, he would see C at least 3 to 4 times a week. Regular access took place on Wednesdays at his home and on Sundays where he would typically take C on outings. On other weekdays, he would usually text the Mother to ascertain when he could pop in to see C at her home.18
Shortly after the marriage, the Mother discovered through enquiries made with the HDB that she was prohibited from buying a HDB flat as the Father owns several properties overseas.19 The Mother says her parents were not supportive of her relationship with the Father and had threatened to kick her out of their home and let her fend for herself.20 To appease her mother, she gave her a $20,000 ang pow on 11 February 2021 to cover the loss of rent for the past year.21
The Mother’s parents reside in Indonesia 22 and her sister [S] stays with her to help take care of C.23 The Father stays separately at a rented condominium, which the Mother says costs him at least $4,000 rent per month.24
The Mother says permanent housing for her and C is a perennial problem. The Father is only interested in becoming a permanent resident of Singapore (“PR”)25 and the state of her relationship with the Father changed when he approached her to provide her company documents in order for her to be his sponsor. The Father adopted the position that if he did not obtain PR, he would not assist her in obtaining a home for her and C.26
The Mother says she did not bother to argue with the Father27 and no longer wanted to stay married.28 She tried to get his consent for an annulment of the marriage but the Father refused to do so.29 This was despite cl 7 of the Deed which provides that in the event that the parties permanently cease their association as husband and wife for any reason, the parties will attempt to dissolve the marriage on an uncontested basis on a mutually agreed ground.30
The Father says the Mother approached him seeking to terminate the marriage at the beginning of 2021.31 The Father proposed a visitation plan to the Mother on 11 February 2021 but she became increasingly cagey and difficult. On 12 February 2021, he was informed by the Mother that he could no longer bring C to his home for access. He says that since then, the Mother has unreasonably denied and diminished his access with C.32
On 14 April 2021, the Father filed OSG 51 seeking the following orders:
b. On Sunday from 10 am to 6 pm;
d. Handovers shall take place at the Defendant’s home save for Wednesdays when the Plaintiff shall pick the Child up from nursery, where applicable;
The Mother says she has never denied the Father access or restricted his access towards C. In fact, she has been the one planning activities and inviting the Father to join them for outings.33 In June 2020 when C was 7 months old, the Father reduced his time spent with her by more than half on his own accord.34 The Father joined an expat recreational sailing team and his sailing activities is on every Saturday and some Sundays. He would join his expat group for drinks after their sailing and he almost never visited C on Saturdays.35 In November 2020, the Father stated that he could change his planned work schedule to visit C at the last minute but chose to participate in several weekend activities and visiting C became much more infrequent.36 After February 2021, he reduced his time spent with C to a mere 6 hours per week.37
The Mother says the Father is a Casanova. He had a girlfriend when she was pregnant and continues to have one after the solemnisation of the marriage and uses his Tinder Profile to meet other girls.38 The Father is not in Singapore often39 and attends rave parties and concerts in the United States.40
On 3 August 2021, the Mother filed OSG 103 seeking the following orders:
To continue reading
Request your trial