JudgePhilip Pillai J
Judgment Date21 December 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 364
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date05 April 2010,06 May 2010,13 May 2010
Docket NumberDivorce Suit No 3710 of 2009
Plaintiff CounselYap Teong Liang (TL Yap & Associates)
Defendant CounselFoo Siew Fong (Harry Elias Partnership)
Subject MatterFamily Law
Published date19 October 2011
Philip Pillai J:

This was an application for custody, care and control as well as division of matrimonial assets. I will set out the grounds of my decision firstly on custody, care and control and then on the division of matrimonial assets.

Custody, Care and Control

Following the parties’ separation, the District Judge (“DJ”) made an interim order for care, control and access of the three children on 7 October 2008 in the following terms: The plaintiff has interim care and control of the three children, [B], [C] and [D]; The defendant shall have access to the children as follows: Weeknights: two weekday nights each week from 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm; Weekends: Alternate weekends from 7.30 pm on Friday to 8.00 pm on Sunday; School holidays: PSLE marking days, National Day, March and September school holidays to be divided equally by mutual arrangement; June holidays - first two and a half weeks; and December holidays - first three and a half weeks with Christmas week (25 December to 1 January) to be shared equally by mutual arrangement; Public holidays: Christmas Day to be shared (half day each from Christmas Eve). Other public holidays are to be alternated. Parents’ birthdays: children to be with the respective parent on the day of his/her birthday; and Father’s Day and Mother’s Day: children to be with the respective parent. The defendant is to be informed of all meetings with the children’s school teachers, children’s performances and other school events to which parents may be invited and is at liberty to attend them.

The husband appealed against the DJ’s orders to the High Court which made the following orders which were in place up until to the of the hearing of the application: The alternate weekend access is from Friday 5.00 pm to Sunday 8.00 pm; On the weeks which the husband has weekend access, he will have 2 weekdays’ access from 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm. On the week which the Husband does not have weekend access, he will have two weekdays’ access from 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm. Access during all public holidays are to be alternated and access on Christmas will be from 4.00 pm on Christmas Eve to 12.00pm on Christmas Day. The time for access on public holidays and other special days will be from 6.00 pm on the eve of the public holiday or special day to 8.00 pm on the day itself.

In the light of the above and given that family matters are fact-based and contextual, I considered the following to be significant factors and considerations in this particular case: the three children are all daughters with the two older daughters being young teenagers. Quite apart from the emotional impact of their parents’ divorce, I think it is important that there be some degree of continuity, certainty and stability in their upbringing during their teenage years. I noted that the decisions relating to the children’s education and religious upbringing have been made during the marriage and see no reason to change them. It is also equally important that both...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • ZO v ZP
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 May 2011
    ...in respect of custody, care and control of the children of the marriage, maintenance and division of matrimonial assets (see ZP v ZO [2010] SGHC 364 (‘the GD’)). The Judge had made the following orders with regard to the issue of custody, care and control (which includes access orders) (see......
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 December 2011
    ...in ZO v ZP[2011] 3 SLR 647 (ZO (CA)) stressed the importance of the principles enunciated therein. The High Court decision of ZP v ZO[2010] SGHC 364 was criticised in last year's review (see (2010) 11 SAL Ann Rev 368 at paras 15.1815.19). Sole custody was granted by the High Court together ......

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