YY v YX
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Sowaran Singh |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] SGDC 135 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Citation | [2010] SGDC 135 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Irving Choh and Stephanie Looi (Khattar Wong) |
| Defendant Counsel | Raymond Yeo (Raymond Yeo) |
| Published date | 15 April 2010 |
[EDITORIAL NOTE: The details of this judgment have been changed to comply with the Children and Young Persons Act and/or the Women's Charter]
|
31 March 2010 |
|
District Judge Sowaran Singh:
Introduction
1 The earlier grounds of decision in this case that were issued on the 8 November 2008 can be found at
The Defendant Mother’s appeal (RAS 40/2010)
2 After the OSF proceedings had concluded[note: 2], the court had on the 9 July 2009 granted Interim Judgment based on both parties claims[note: 3] of unreasonable behaviour on the part of the other. The ancillaries came up for hearing on the 8 February 2010 and were concluded on the 16 March 2010. The court ordered that parties were to have joint custody[note: 4] of their two daughters but care and control was given to the Father with reasonable access to the Mother in accordance with the orders made in the OSF and that might be made after any reviews. The Father was also to maintain the children so long as they were in his care and control. The Mother was given a nominal maintenance of $1. On the division of the matrimonial home, the Mother was given a 60% share after payment of all sales expenses with each party to make their own CPF refunds. In addition, the Father was to pay the Mother a sum of $50,000 as her share of their other matrimonial assets. Each party was to bear their own costs of the ancillary hearing. On the 24 March 2010, the Mother filed this appeal in which she asks that the orders giving the Father care and control of their daughters be varied and instead she be given care and control[note: 5]. She also asks that the Father pay maintenance for the children. She also asks for costs. Essentially, her appeal is on the care and control order made by the court in the OSF proceedings which the court maintained at the ancillary hearing.
The OSF Proceedings – the CHILD programme
3 The OSF case proceeded under the new CHILD programme that was launched by the Chief Justice in May 2008. The new program envisages several steps namely a First Day Hearing (FDH) and a Final Hearing (FH). The other important feature is that a Family Counsellor (“FC”) is present during the hearings and both parties can speak to the Court directly. The seminal objective of the program is to focus on the interests of the child. The court is required to take an active role in the proceedings and can make interim orders at any stage. Counsels too have an important role to play in advising the client and sit next to him/her and can also address the court and ask questions of the FC and the other party as well as make submissions.
4 The FH took place on the 11 September 2008[note: 6] during which the FC presented her report[note: 7] copies which had been furnished to both parties. At the conclusion of the FH, numerous orders designed to progressively give the Mother additional access to the children and allow healing to take place were made. Overnight access (fortnightly) was to commence after the children’s examinations on the 25 October 2008 and the Mother could take the children for a holiday overseas in the 3rd week of December 2008. Her parents, however, were to be present. The access arrangements were to be reviewed after the 31 January 2009. In the meantime, both parties were to attend the Parenting Course and the children and the Mother to attend counselling. The issue of care and control was to be also reviewed although in the meantime, the Father was given interim care and control[note: 8].
The Reviews and interview of children etc
5 At the review[note: 9] held on the 20 February 2009 the FC presented her updated report[note: 10].The report revealed that much progress had been achieved in the interim period. The court continued to adopt a step-by-step approach that would allow the children and the parents and the extended family members, to heal their differences. The children said that they had enjoyed themselves during their holiday with the Mother to Hong Kong[note: 11] . The Father reported that the children were coping well. More importantly, the children themselves said that they were coping well with their school work[note: 12]. The court also interviewed the children on the 20 February 2009 and was satisfied that they were coping well although some negative sentiments towards the Mother still resided with them. The court varied its orders to give the Mother weekly overnight access from 5pm on Saturdays to 8pm on Sundays; 10am to 8pm on alternate public holidays[note: 13] , and half of all school holidays with liberty to take the girls overseas for holidays with prior notification to the other party. A review was to be done towards the end of the year[note: 14] when the children’s examinations would have concluded. The FC was to provide a brief report and could interview the parties and the children. The counselling was also to continue. The court constantly reminded itself of the need to keep in mind that the interests of the children are paramount.
6 The court took pains to explain at length, at each stage of the OSF proceeding and the reviews and kept reiterating that the central issue was the best interests of the two children. The court spared no effort in sharing with the parties on the need to move on, to forgive each other, and to bear in mind the higher needs of the children beyond the parties own hurt and feelings. However, the Mother is unable or unwilling to shake off the sense of injustice that she rightfully feels has been perpetuated upon her by the Father. Whilst the court has considerable sympathy for the Mother and her position, it could not ignore the objective facts and subjugate the interests of the children. Another review was held on the 18 November 2009[note: 15] during which the FC again presented her updated findings. The Mother wanted care and control of the children whilst the Father wanted the status quo to be maintained. In line with its step by step approach, the court, taking into account the progress that had been made, enlarged the access to the Mother. The court also ordered that parties could modify these arrangements themselves and unless they felt that a further review was unnecessary, it would be held after the 31 October 2010 at the request of either party when the children would have completed their school examinations.
7 At the ancillary hearing[note: 16], the Mother continued to ask for the children’s care and control. By this time the access that had been granted to her under the OSF and its subsequent reviews was to say the least generous. Despite the fact that both girls were in primary school, the Mother had access to them twice on weekdays from 5pm to 8pm as well as on weekends from 5pm on Saturday to 8pm on Sunday. She was also given reasonable telephone and email access. There was also access on alternate public holidays and any other holiday that the school might observe, half of the regular school holidays in March, June, September and November/December of each year with liberty to take the children overseas for holidays.
8 The Mother submitted[note: 17] that the Father had little time to take care of the children and had delegated most of the responsibility to his parents. A surveillance report by a private investigator was also used to show that on some days in February /March 2008 the Father was observed not to have spent time with the girls who were seen playing perilously outside the house. At meetings with parents in the school the Father’s mother went along with him. For events organised by the school it was the Father’s mother who was the parent volunteer. It was the Father’s parents who sent the children to their enrichment classes. The Mother claimed that the children had told her many times that they wanted to be with her. She asserted that she was not unfit and as a primary school teacher she was well placed to look after the children’s academic needs. She was also actively involved with the kids’ school and communicated with their teachers regularly.
9 The Mother also accused the Father of planning to separate her from the children whom she had taken care of since their birth by taking them away from her at the end of January 2008. The court was urged to send a strong message in disapproval of the husband’s act in removing the children in January 2008. The Mother also took issue with the court’s earlier findings regarding her mental condition and relied on the report of Dr Alex Su in support. The court was further urged not to accept the FC’s reports and recommendations.
10 The Father in his submissions[note: 18] urged the court to maintain the status quo as the children were doing well under his care and control. They had done well in school and there was no good reason to uproot the young girls. Many of the points made by the Mother had already been adequately considered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial