Child's welfare always comes first: High Court | The New Paper
Singapore

Child's welfare always comes first: High Court

This article is more than 12 months old

Divorced parents must not use care and custody as instruments of control: Judge

When a court makes an order on the care and control of a child whose parents are splitting up, it does not presume that shared care and control are always in the child's welfare.

Neither is there any legal principle against such an arrangement. Rather, the focus is on the child's welfare, not the interests or wishes of either parent.

The High Court said this in a judgment yesterday in a case where the divorced parents of a girl have been tussling over her care arrangements since 2013.

"By focusing on the child's welfare, the courts remain vigilant that custody, care and control, and access are not used by a parent as 'instruments of control' over the child and the other parent," said Justice Debbie Ong.

The case, which raises the question of how the notion of joint parental responsibility should be applied to determine orders for care and control, and access, centres on a girl who will turn six next month.

Her parents are British citizens who have lived in Singapore since September 2011. A decree absolute ending the 11-year marriage was granted in May 2016.

In Singapore, the legal fight over the girl's care culminated in a High Court decision in May 2015. The couple were given joint custody, meaning they have to consult each other and jointly make major decisions, including healthcare and education issues, for the girl.

The mother was granted care and control of the girl, and is responsible for making day-to-day decisions.

In August 2016, the father applied to vary the orders made by the High Court. Among other things, he sought shared care and control of the girl.

A district judge allowed parts of his application in relation to the terms of access, but declined to grant shared care and control.

The judge said such an arrangement - which means the girl would split her time between two homes - would not work because of the parties' acrimonious relationship and different parenting styles. The father appealed against the decision.

Justice Ong varied a few aspects of the district judge's orders on access but dismissed the request for shared care and control.

In her judgment, she said in appropriate cases, the court may grant both parents shared care and control if this was feasible and best served the child's welfare.

But in this case, it was not necessary as both parents have joint custody. She said the girl will start primary school later in the year, and shared care and control may not be practical.

COURT & CRIME