fc_judgments: 32

Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources

This data as json

_id _item_id tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _commit
32 a355c744a3e0a9d2cc2d2366a89792afde3ec3fa 
[
    "Family law \u2013 Variation of Ancillary Matters Orders \u2013 Care and control \u2013 Access"
]
 2024-05-27 Family Court Divorce Suit No. 155 of 2018 UYN v UYO [2024] SGFC 30 https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F31570-SSP.xml 
[
    "Jasjeet Singh (Dhillon & Panoo) for the Plaintiff/Mother",
    "Anil Narain Balchandani (Red Lion Circle) for the Defendant/Father."
]
 2024-05-30T16:00:00Z[GMT] Michelle Elias Solomon <root><head><title>UYN v UYO</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> UYN <em>v</em> UYO </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31570-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 30</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Divorce Suit No. 155 of 2018</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">27 May 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Michelle Elias Solomon </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Jasjeet Singh (Dhillon &amp; Panoo) for the Plaintiff/Mother; Anil Narain Balchandani (Red Lion Circle) for the Defendant/Father. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> UYN — UYO </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Variation of Ancillary Matters Orders</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Care and control</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Access</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">27 May 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Michelle Elias Solomon:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1       The parties in these proceedings were formerly husband and wife. In these Grounds, I shall refer to the parties as the Mother, who is the Plaintiff, and Father, who is the Defendant. The Mother and Father (“the Parties”) have one child, A, who was born in 2016.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       The Parties were married in 2014. The Mother commenced divorce proceedings in 2018 and the Interim Judgment was granted that year. I made orders in respect of the ancillary matters on 25 March 2019 (“the Ancillary Order<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span>”), which granted, among others, care and control of A to the Mother and reasonable access to the Father. Both Parties, being dissatisfied with parts of my decision, filed cross-appeals<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span>. Both appeals were dismissed in October 2019.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background and previous applications</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Application</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       After the Final Judgment was issued, the Father filed two applications to vary the Ancillary Order. The first application<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span>, filed in December 2019, sought a variation of the access orders in the Ancillary Order (“the 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Application”). The 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Application essentially sought to:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_a"></a>(a)     Start Monday access one hour earlier.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_b"></a>(b)     Extend overnight access to 2 nights per week (instead of 1 night per week).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_c"></a>(c)     Include Deepavali in the reckoning of Public Holidays.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_d"></a>(d)     Allow Parties to take A overseas irrespective of whether there were school closures.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_e"></a>(e)     Include orders for birthday access, being present at A’s medical check-ups and the Parties’ parents assisting with A’s handovers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       I dismissed the 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Application but made the following orders in addition to, and to be read with, the Ancillary Order:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_a"></a>(a)     Each parent shall update the other on A’s medical issues within two days of receiving such update (or within two days of the doctor’s visit, as the case may be).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_b"></a>(b)     The parent who does not have care of A on her birthday will have her birthday dinner with her from 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. on A’s birthday.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_c"></a>(c)     The parents of the Father and Mother shall be at liberty to assist the Father and Mother with access handovers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       The orders in respect of the 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Application were granted on 1 June 2020 (“the 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Order”). There was no appeal filed against the 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Order.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Application</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       The second variation application<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> was filed in May 2021, less than a year after the 1<sup>st</sup> Variation Order was granted (“the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Application”). The 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Application sought to expand overnight access from one to three nights and reduce maintenance for A. I dismissed the Father’s application to reduce A’s maintenance but increased overnight access from one night to two nights, ordering that the Father have access to A every Thursday after school to Saturday 6:30pm each week. I also made some orders on Father’s / Mother’s Day and birthday access.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       The orders in respect of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Application were granted on 21 February 2022 (“the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order”). There was no appeal filed against the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Primary One Registration Application</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       Parties could not agree on which primary school A ought to be registered in. I heard and made orders on the Mother’s application in respect of Primary One Registration, granting an order for the Mother to decide on A’s primary school in May 2022. There was no appeal filed against this order.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The current application and orders made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       The current application to vary the Ancillary Order and 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order was filed by the Father. The table below summarises the changes sought:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="0"><colgroup><col width="6.96%"><col width="18.04%"><col width="35.3%"><col width="39.7%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/no</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Order to be varied</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Current order</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Changes sought by Father</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Ancillary Order<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Mother shall have care and control of A with reasonable access to the Father.</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Mother and Father shall have</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">shared care and control of A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span>.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(a) The Father shall have access every Tuesday from 6:30 pm to 8:30pm.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(b) The Father shall have access every Thursday after school to Saturday 6:30pm (overnight access).</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(a) The Father’s care and control of A to be from Wednesday after school to Saturday 6:30pm. </p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(b) In the alternative, the Father’s Tuesday access be varied to the following: pick A up on Tuesday 6pm and drop off on Wednesday morning at school. The Father to be responsible for A’s pick up and drop off.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(c) Daily video call access to A for the parent who is not with A. Video call not to exceed 15 minutes and to be done prior to A’s bedtime. This would apply to the Mother if A is under the care of the Father<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span>.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">3</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Ancillary Order</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Clause 1(f): Every alternate Public Holiday from 10.00am to 8.00pm.</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The inclusion of the following clause:</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(i) For Deepavali, the parent who does not have Public Holiday access with A on Deepavali is to have dinner access with A instead from 6:30pm to 8:30pm<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span>.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">n/a</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">n/a</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The inclusion of the following clauses:</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(i) An order prohibiting the Mother and/or her family members from smoking and/or vaping in the presence of A.</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(ii) An order prohibiting the Mother from describing to A her relationships with men as ‘sugar daddies’<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span>.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     On 6 February 2024, I delivered my decision<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span>, allowing the Father’s application in part as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>The Order of Court dated 25 March 2019 shall be varied in the following manner-</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_10--p3_a"></a>(a)       The following sentence shall be inserted immediately after Clause 1(f) –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-3"> <em>For Deepavali, the parent who does not have Public Holiday access with A on Deepavali is to have dinner access with A instead from 6:30pm to 8:30pm.</em> </p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_10--p3_b"></a>(b)       Apart from the orders made herein, all other prayers in FC/SUM 1702/2023 are dismissed.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_10--p3_c"></a>(c)       The Parties shall continue to attend divorce counselling and co-parenting programmes.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_10--p3_d"></a>(d)       Liberty to apply.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     The Father appealed against part of my decision<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span>, specifically, the dismissal of his prayers for shared care and control, further changes to access, orders prohibiting vaping / smoking in front of A and an order prohibiting the Mother from describing to A her relationships with men as “sugar daddies”. I now provide the grounds.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The evidence and submissions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12     The following affidavits and submissions were filed for the current application:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a)     F1 – Father’s affidavit filed on 29 May 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b)     F2 – Father’s supplementary affidavit filed on 16 Jun 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_c"></a>(c)     F3 – Father’s affidavit filed on 4 Sep 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_d"></a>(d)     Father’s written submissions filed on 9 Oct 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_e"></a>(e)     Father’s letter dated 23 Oct 2023 with submission on electronic evidence;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_f"></a>(f)     M1 – Mother’s affidavit filed on 4 Jul 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_g"></a>(g)     M2 – Mother’s affidavit filed on 17 Oct 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_h"></a>(h)     Mother’s written submissions filed on 9 Oct 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_i"></a>(i)     Mother’s letter dated 17 Oct 2023 with submission on electronic evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     I now move on to the Parties’ cases.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Father’s Case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     According to the Father, there were several factors which formed the basis for a material change in circumstances, and that this change warranted a variation of the Ancillary Order and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Orders. He also argued that a material change of circumstances was often the result of a confluence of factors and not simply precipitated by a single event<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     The Father contended that the application was necessary for several reasons, including that A was growing fast and required an adjustment in terms of orders relating to care, control, access etc<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span>; it was because of inaction or impasse that the Father sought the assistance of the court<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span>. In support of his position, he raised the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_a"></a>(a)     A’s welfare was no longer well served by the current orders<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> and she wished to spend more time with the Father<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_b"></a>(b)     A was older and in primary school. She had greater demands now and was able to cope with more overnight access and had the capacity to do more activities<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_c"></a>(c)     Parties could cooperate and were not acrimonious<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_d"></a>(d)     He was a committed father, not missing a single access session and aspiring to be a more involved parent. He had taken positive steps to prioritise A and had left his previous job to be able to be increasingly involved in A’s life<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span>. He now worked at a bank which allowed flexible work hours and work-from-home arrangements resulting in more time and availability for A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_e"></a>(e)     Aspects of the Mother’s lifestyle were not favourable to A’s upbringing<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span> and she had work-related commitments resulting in her spending less time with A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     In support of his application for shared care and control, the Father raised the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_a"></a>(a)     Shared care and control would allow for better equanimity between parents when dealing with matters relating to A; shared care and control also had a bearing on A as she would be able to witness more co-operation and respect between her parents<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_b"></a>(b)     The party with care and control often uses acrimony to thwart meaningful cooperation and retain sole care and control<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_c"></a>(c)     Shared care and control would prevent the Mother from using the excuse that she can dictate matters, just because she had sole care and control<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_26" id="Ftn_26_1"><sup>[note: 26]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_d"></a>(d)     Under the present care and control orders, the Father’s access was treated as a burden that the Mother had to tolerate. The Mother did not value the Father’s contributions and/or burdens in relation to picking up and dropping off A and acts unilaterally to curtail Father’s access<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_27" id="Ftn_27_1"><sup>[note: 27]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_e"></a>(e)     Besides improving the imbalance, shared care and control would allow the Father more access time with A. This is coterminous with A’s desire to have more time with the Father and for the Father to be more involved in her life. This would eventually be in A’s benefit as she would see both parents as equal stakeholders in her formative years, and would appreciate the fact that both parents played an equal role in her life<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_28" id="Ftn_28_1"><sup>[note: 28]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_f"></a>(f)     An imbalance in equal status between parents may reflect onto the child in a negative manner and can possibly have lasting consequences. Arising from this, it is entirely possible for the child not to give any weight to the views of a non-care and control parent at a time of serious discussion, simply because it has been in-built in the child of divorce that the non-care and control parent is inferior to the other who has sole care and control<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_29" id="Ftn_29_1"><sup>[note: 29]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_g"></a>(g)     This application presents an opportunity for consideration of variation of its terms to allow A to continue growing under the joint care and control of the parents; shared care and control was therefore suitable for this family<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_30" id="Ftn_30_1"><sup>[note: 30]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     The Father also sought overnight access to be increased from 2 to 3 times per week<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_31" id="Ftn_31_1"><sup>[note: 31]</sup></a></span> for the following reasons:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a)     A was 7 years old; this increase in age and maturity was in itself, a material change in circumstances<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_32" id="Ftn_32_1"><sup>[note: 32]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b)     The present two-hour Tuesday access was very rushed<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_33" id="Ftn_33_1"><sup>[note: 33]</sup></a></span> and it was unfair and stressful for A. Now, in primary school, she takes longer to eat, needs time to do her homework, wants to spend time with her grandparents and needs to use the washroom before she leaves for the Mother’s residence<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_34" id="Ftn_34_1"><sup>[note: 34]</sup></a></span>. The Father constantly ends up sending A back between 8:30pm to 8:45pm on Tuesday evenings and both risk facing the wrath of the Mother during drop off<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_35" id="Ftn_35_1"><sup>[note: 35]</sup></a></span>. Due to the Mother’s work schedule and her constant desire in wanting to limit Father’s access, A is the one who bears the brunt of it. It is not fair to A that she has to endure being rushed when it is clearly not her fault; A is just growing up<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_36" id="Ftn_36_1"><sup>[note: 36]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_c"></a>(c)     The Mother uses the delays in handover to intimidate the Father with sanctions and threats of reducing access<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_37" id="Ftn_37_1"><sup>[note: 37]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_d"></a>(d)     Having overnight access from Wednesdays after school to Saturdays 6:30pm will allow the Father to leverage the work flexibility accorded and to do more for A, allowing him to be more involved in her life<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_38" id="Ftn_38_1"><sup>[note: 38]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_e"></a>(e)     Straight through access without any disruption prevents a nomadic situation for A on Tuesdays<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_39" id="Ftn_39_1"><sup>[note: 39]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_f"></a>(f)     Alternatively, instead of overnight access commencing on Wednesday after school, there should be overnight access on Tuesdays starting at 6pm<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_40" id="Ftn_40_1"><sup>[note: 40]</sup></a></span>. However, either way, the Father sought an order for shared care and control <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_41" id="Ftn_41_1"><sup>[note: 41]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18     The Father also stated that Parties were not acrimonious<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_42" id="Ftn_42_1"><sup>[note: 42]</sup></a></span>, citing the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_18-p2_a"></a>(a)     Parties were able to cooperate<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_43" id="Ftn_43_1"><sup>[note: 43]</sup></a></span> and A’s teachers observed that both parents were doing a “very good job in raising A”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_44" id="Ftn_44_1"><sup>[note: 44]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_18-p2_b"></a>(b)     When the Mother’s grandmother passed away, the Father had gone out of his way to be civil and respectful, sending the Mother a condolence message to help her get through the loss and asking for permission to attend the wake. The Father characterised this as the “selfless action by a concerned individual at the passing of a close relative of his ex-wife”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_45" id="Ftn_45_1"><sup>[note: 45]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_18-p2_c"></a>(c)     Cooperation was exhibited when A was presented on her first day at her new school; both the Mother and Father were beaming with pride<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_46" id="Ftn_46_1"><sup>[note: 46]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     In the current application, the Father also sought:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_a"></a>(a)     Video access, as it was important for A to know that she could speak to either of her parents on the days she does not see them without any fear<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_47" id="Ftn_47_1"><sup>[note: 47]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_b"></a>(b)     Deepavali access, in that the parent who does not have Public Holiday access with A on Deepavali is to have dinner access with A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_48" id="Ftn_48_1"><sup>[note: 48]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_c"></a>(c)     Orders prohibiting the Mother from smoking and/or vaping in the presence of A. This is because, according to him, A had shared that the Mother, the Mother’s mother, and the Mother’s father would vape or smoke in front of A. According to the Father, A revealed this to him during a casual conversation which he recorded and transcribed.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_d"></a>(d)     An order prohibiting the Mother from referring to her male counterparts as “sugar daddies” when speaking to A. The Father believes that A will come to have a negative view of relationships with men, and may believe that relationships with men should be modelled after the Mother, which involves someone buying expensive items for her<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_49" id="Ftn_49_1"><sup>[note: 49]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20     For all these reasons, the Father sought to vary the care and access orders.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Mother’s Case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     The Mother disagreed to the variations sought by the Father, contending that he had failed to establish a material change in circumstances<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_50" id="Ftn_50_1"><sup>[note: 50]</sup></a></span> and abused the court’s process by relitigating matters that had already been adjudicated<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_51" id="Ftn_51_1"><sup>[note: 51]</sup></a></span>. In support of her position, she raised the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Father’s personal desires did not satisfy the threshold of material change in circumstances<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_52" id="Ftn_52_1"><sup>[note: 52]</sup></a></span>. The focus of the Father’s applications had been, and continues to be, his desire for increased access with A while curtailing the Mother’s access and treating access arrangements as a competition<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_53" id="Ftn_53_1"><sup>[note: 53]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Father accepted that the current arrangement had allowed him to play a greater role and be more involved in A’s life<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_54" id="Ftn_54_1"><sup>[note: 54]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_c"></a>(c)     The present access arrangement provided the Father with much more uninterrupted access with A compared to the Mother, and to allow additional overnight access would be detrimental and much too soon for A who was heavily dependent on the Mother for emotional and physical support<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_55" id="Ftn_55_1"><sup>[note: 55]</sup></a></span>; any changes to the access arrangement should be gradual and considered only when there is a material change in circumstances<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_56" id="Ftn_56_1"><sup>[note: 56]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_d"></a>(d)     The Father’s prayers for overnight access were similar to the prayers sought in the 2nd Variation Application<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_57" id="Ftn_57_1"><sup>[note: 57]</sup></a></span>. This was the third application filed by the Father, and the Mother has essentially had to return to court every year<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_58" id="Ftn_58_1"><sup>[note: 58]</sup></a></span>, preventing the Parties from being able to move on and resulting in a waste of time and resources for the court<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_59" id="Ftn_59_1"><sup>[note: 59]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_e"></a>(e)     The Father’s insistence on filing unmeritorious variation applications every other year have subjected the Mother to overwhelming legal costs<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_60" id="Ftn_60_1"><sup>[note: 60]</sup></a></span>. Just because a bit of time has passed since the dismissal of the earlier application did not amount to a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the access orders<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_61" id="Ftn_61_1"><sup>[note: 61]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_f"></a>(f)     The prayers for video access were essentially the same as in the 2nd Variation Application, save that it was reduced from 20 minutes to 15 minutes<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_62" id="Ftn_62_1"><sup>[note: 62]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_g"></a>(g)     The court should be cautious in varying access orders as there had to be finality to this case<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_63" id="Ftn_63_1"><sup>[note: 63]</sup></a></span>; the Father’s want for more access would keep resulting in an application to court each year, with the history of this case showing that every year, there had been an application filed by the Father<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_64" id="Ftn_64_1"><sup>[note: 64]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     The Mother disagreed with additional overnight access, maintaining that A was only now getting fully accustomed to the current access arrangements and, coupled with the demands of school and CCA, any changes would result in A having too much on her plate<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_65" id="Ftn_65_1"><sup>[note: 65]</sup></a></span>. Additionally:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_a"></a>(a)     The court has already increased the Father’s access in the previous application; any further changes would be unfair to the Mother and not in A’s best interests<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_66" id="Ftn_66_1"><sup>[note: 66]</sup></a></span> as it would affect her emotional stability and sense of security given that the Mother had been A’s primary caregiver since her birth<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_67" id="Ftn_67_1"><sup>[note: 67]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_b"></a>(b)     A cries every time she has to go for access and it is difficult for her; the Mother has invested time and effort to positively reinforce to A that she should view her current living arrangements as an advantage<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_68" id="Ftn_68_1"><sup>[note: 68]</sup></a></span>. However, A is still struggling to cope with spending less time with the Mother and voiced on several occasions to the Mother that she was reluctant to spend more time with the Father at the expense of her time with the Mother<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_69" id="Ftn_69_1"><sup>[note: 69]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_c"></a>(c)     The Mother has tried to alleviate the rush on Tuesdays, but this has fallen on deaf ears; any rush on Tuesdays is therefore self-induced and the Father should not be allowed to benefit from his lack of cooperation and adamance<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_70" id="Ftn_70_1"><sup>[note: 70]</sup></a></span>. If there are any changes to be made, it should be to eliminate access on Tuesdays<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_71" id="Ftn_71_1"><sup>[note: 71]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     The Mother also disagreed to orders being made for shared care and control, raising the following.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Father had launched a slew of accusations and personal attacks against the Mother and her family members<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_72" id="Ftn_72_1"><sup>[note: 72]</sup></a></span> to convince the court that shared care and control should be granted.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_b"></a>(b)     It was painfully obvious that A has been coached by the Father<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_73" id="Ftn_73_1"><sup>[note: 73]</sup></a></span>, who had employed unscrupulous means to obtain this ‘evidence’ and solicited answers from her<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_74" id="Ftn_74_1"><sup>[note: 74]</sup></a></span>, which he claims were by mere coincidence<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_75" id="Ftn_75_1"><sup>[note: 75]</sup></a></span>. The Father’s questions to A were structured in a way to elicit his desired responses from her and the Father continued to press A for responses that fit his narrative<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_76" id="Ftn_76_1"><sup>[note: 76]</sup></a></span>. There were also times when A disengaged from the topic and spoke about unrelated matters, but the Father continued to reel her back into the conversation, clearly evincing his intention to have the conversation on tape<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_77" id="Ftn_77_1"><sup>[note: 77]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_c"></a>(c)     The Father’s penchant for disseminating falsehoods was, in itself, a reason why care and control should not be varied as it was clear that the Father wished to disparage the Mother and the Mother’s family members<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_78" id="Ftn_78_1"><sup>[note: 78]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_d"></a>(d)     Contrary to Father’s statements that the Mother was not a good role model to A, it was the Father who has failed to provide a safe environment for A that does not affect her perception of the Mother and her family<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_79" id="Ftn_79_1"><sup>[note: 79]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_e"></a>(e)     The Father has encouraged A to address the Mother, grandmother and grandfather by their names instead of using the proper terms of respect<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_80" id="Ftn_80_1"><sup>[note: 80]</sup></a></span>, and has done nothing to correct her behaviour<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_81" id="Ftn_81_1"><sup>[note: 81]</sup></a></span> in this regard – this was evidenced by their interaction in the audio recordings.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_f"></a>(f)     The Father’s actions have forced A to be in the centre of tension between the Parties and the Father has failed to be able to separate his prejudice against the Mother and/or her family members from what is important for A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_82" id="Ftn_82_1"><sup>[note: 82]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24     In defending the orders on video / Deepavali access and orders prohibiting her from certain acts, the Mother maintained that these prayers should be dismissed with costs<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_83" id="Ftn_83_1"><sup>[note: 83]</sup></a></span> and raised the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_a"></a>(a)     There had been no material change in circumstances in respect of video call and Deepavali access<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_84" id="Ftn_84_1"><sup>[note: 84]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_b"></a>(b)     The prayers seeking prohibitory orders were not within the ambit of a variation application; there were also no reasonable grounds to do so<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_85" id="Ftn_85_1"><sup>[note: 85]</sup></a></span>; the Mother was cognizant of the laws of Singapore and none of her family members or her vape, let alone possess a vaping device<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_86" id="Ftn_86_1"><sup>[note: 86]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_c"></a>(c)     The Father was seeking to prohibit the actions of the Mother and her family members without any reasonable grounds and in the absence of compelling evidence<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_87" id="Ftn_87_1"><sup>[note: 87]</sup></a></span>. There exists a procedural irregularity<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_88" id="Ftn_88_1"><sup>[note: 88]</sup></a></span> in this regard and the kind of injunction the Father seeks was also unclear<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_89" id="Ftn_89_1"><sup>[note: 89]</sup></a></span>. These prayers were also sought against persons who were not parties to these proceedings and the court had no right to make orders in this regard<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_90" id="Ftn_90_1"><sup>[note: 90]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_d"></a>(d)     The Mother filed a Notice of Objection<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_91" id="Ftn_91_1"><sup>[note: 91]</sup></a></span> setting out her reasons for objecting to the various audio recordings. She challenged the authenticity, validity, legality and admissibility of the transcriptions; A was never aware of herself being recorded and the Father transcribed these audios on his own<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_92" id="Ftn_92_1"><sup>[note: 92]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_e"></a>(e)     The Father brazenly recorded A’s schoolteachers during the Meet-the-Parents session on 26 May 2023; it was unclear if A’s teachers were aware they were being recorded or that this was going to be adduced as evidence in court proceedings<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_93" id="Ftn_93_1"><sup>[note: 93]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_f"></a>(f)     The Father was looking for ways to portray the Mother and her living environment for A as dangerous and undesirable for A without any evidence<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_94" id="Ftn_94_1"><sup>[note: 94]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_24-p2_g"></a>(g)     The term ‘sugar daddy’ was used inadvertently in A’s presence on a single isolated occasion<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_95" id="Ftn_95_1"><sup>[note: 95]</sup></a></span>; the Father was always fishing for information from A and embellishing the truth in doing so, demonstrating how low he would go in portraying the Mother in negative light and/or as an unfit parent<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_96" id="Ftn_96_1"><sup>[note: 96]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     For all these reasons, the Mother contended there were no reasons to vary access orders again; there needed to be finality to this case<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_97" id="Ftn_97_1"><sup>[note: 97]</sup></a></span> and the Father had not established a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the current orders. As the Father simply treated such variation applications as a ‘backdoor’ appeal to relitigate<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_98" id="Ftn_98_1"><sup>[note: 98]</sup></a></span>, the Mother sought a dismissal of the Father’s application with costs<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_99" id="Ftn_99_1"><sup>[note: 99]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issues to be determined and the applicable law</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     The starting point in determining variations to care orders made under the Women’s Charter is s. 128<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_100" id="Ftn_100_1"><sup>[note: 100]</sup></a></span> which reads:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Power of court to vary order for custody, etc.</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">128.  The court may at any time vary or rescind any order for the custody, or the care and control, of a child on the application of any interested person, where it is satisfied that the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact or where there has been any material change in the circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     On the issue of shared care and control, <em>VJM v VJL</em> and another appeal <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26170-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGHCF 16</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_101" id="Ftn_101_1"><sup>[note: 101]</sup></a></span> (<em>VJM v VJL</em>) noted:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Whether shared care and control was suitable for a particular family depended on the precise facts and circumstances of each case. There was neither any legal principle against shared care and control, nor a legal presumption that such arrangement was always in a child’s welfare<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_102" id="Ftn_102_1"><sup>[note: 102]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     The issues for determination were:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_a"></a>(a)     The admissibility of the Father’s audio evidence which the Mother disputed; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_b"></a>(b)     Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting –</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_28-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i)       the variation of the Ancillary Order and the 2nd Variation Order on care and control; and</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_28-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       additional orders to be made, including access orders for Deepavali and video calls.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29     I will deal with each issue in turn.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The admissibility of the Father’s audio evidence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30     In support of his case, the Father adduced various transcripts of audio recordings, which he recorded on his own, of conversations between:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_a"></a>(a)     A and himself; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_b"></a>(b)     A’s teachers and himself.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31     The Mother challenged the admissibility of the transcriptions, contending that this evidence was hearsay<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_103" id="Ftn_103_1"><sup>[note: 103]</sup></a></span>. I was unable to agree. This was the Father’s <em>own</em> evidence; he participated in these conversations and recorded them, on his own, using his own device. He also transcribed these recordings. The transcriptions were therefore, in my view, not hearsay.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32     I now move on to the <em>accuracy</em> of the transcriptions. Apart from contending that the transcriptions did not capture the full conversations in question, the Mother did not challenge the <em>accuracy</em> of the transcriptions. This means that whatever was <em>said and heard</em> on the audio clips was scripted<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_104" id="Ftn_104_1"><sup>[note: 104]</sup></a></span> appropriately for the portions that were transcribed. During the hearing, the Father’s counsel also played this audio evidence for me to hear; I did not note any material discrepancies between what I had heard and what was transcribed. In my decision, however, I have relied on none of this evidence for several reasons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33     Firstly, the Father’s evidence was vague as to whether A was aware that her conversation was being recorded. The Father provided this context to the recording:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">A has informed me on several occasions that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother, and the Plaintiff’s father vape or smoke in front of her while she is at the Plaintiff’s home. A revealed this to me for the first time on <b>1 April 2023</b>. This was brought to my attention during a casual conversation in the car with A. I did not solicit this from A. As there is a recording device in my car, it captured what A had told me and I have transcribed the conversation<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_105" id="Ftn_105_1"><sup>[note: 105]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in original]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34     I had great discomfort relying on such evidence; in my view, it was tantamount to overhearing a private conversation between A and her father that was only meant for her father’s ears, and then using the information in these proceedings. I also took this view when dealing with the Father’s recorded conversation with A’s teachers. Again, it was unclear if the teachers were aware that they were being recorded. The Father provided this context to the recording:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">In relation to the Mother’s claim that parties cannot co-operate and there is danger to A’s well-being, my communication with A’s form teachers during the recently concluded mid-term meet the parent session on 26 May 2023 will clearly show that the <b>Mother is making things up</b>. During the session, I had asked A’s form teachers … the following: (a) knowing A’s parents are divorced, is there something to be concerned about in terms of A’s behaviour; (b) to identify whether A is lacking in certain areas; (c) whether A is coping well with school. Her teacher commented with confidence that both me and the Mother are doing a very good job in raising A, we are coparenting well, and there are no areas A is lacking emotionally. She also added A is doing well socially. When I asked if there is any advice on how else I can support A, her teacher mentioned I am doing a good job thus far and just for A to continue reading more books<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_106" id="Ftn_106_1"><sup>[note: 106]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in original]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35     Following my concerns about this approach to obtaining evidence, I was not prepared to give weight to such evidence. In truth, if the Father was concerned about contents of a private conversation he had with A about vaping or smoking, the first port of call should have been to engage the Mother directly over these concerns, not write about it in affidavits that were filed in court. Further, if the Father’s relationship with the Mother was as cordial as he claimed, this would have happened organically. However, the evidence did not show any attempts to engage the Mother in meaningful discussion on his concerns, making it at odds with the Father’s submissions that –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_a"></a>(a)     the Parties could cooperate and were not acrimonious<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_107" id="Ftn_107_1"><sup>[note: 107]</sup></a></span>; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_b"></a>(b)     A would be able to witness more co-operation and respect between her parents<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_108" id="Ftn_108_1"><sup>[note: 108]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36     Finally, if the Father considered it necessary to obtain evidence from A’s teachers stating their views on A’s progress in school for use in these proceedings, he could have requested a note from the teachers in this regard. The Father has not explained the necessity of recording his conversation with the teachers to achieve this objective. For all these reasons, I was unable to place any weight on the Father’s audio evidence and the corresponding transcripts.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Care and control / access orders ought not to be varied</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37     I was unable to find that the orders on access or care and control should be varied. Firstly, the last round of orders made for this case envisaged A entering Primary One. In arriving at my decision in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Application, I was cognizant of the Parties’ parenting journey in the years prior, and what was to follow in the coming year. I was therefore unable to place much weight on A being older and in primary school<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_109" id="Ftn_109_1"><sup>[note: 109]</sup></a></span> as a factor constituting material change, as this event was a foreseeable one when granting the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38     Secondly, the Father’s assertions that Parties could cooperate and were not acrimonious<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_110" id="Ftn_110_1"><sup>[note: 110]</sup></a></span>, or that this application was not a result of acrimony<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_111" id="Ftn_111_1"><sup>[note: 111]</sup></a></span>, was not born out in evidence. The affidavits were riddled with allegations by one parent against the other over their speech and conduct, including what was said and/or done in front of A. Each accused the other of behaving unreasonably while maintaining that they themselves had been reasonable. I therefore remained unpersuaded by the Father’s submission that the Mother was using acrimony for self-serving purposes<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_112" id="Ftn_112_1"><sup>[note: 112]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39     Thirdly, I noted the Father’s submission that this application had become necessary because A was growing fast and required an adjustment in terms of care orders<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_113" id="Ftn_113_1"><sup>[note: 113]</sup></a></span>. However, these were not circumstances under which the court’s powers ought to be invoked. Indeed, if every order needed to be varied simply by virtue of children growing older, there would be an endless stream of applications in every case before the court. This submission was also not consonant with empowering parties to coparent post-divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40     Fourthly, I was of the view that there was no need for an order of shared care and control for A to view both parents as equal stakeholders, or to appreciate the fact that both parents played an equal role in her life<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_114" id="Ftn_114_1"><sup>[note: 114]</sup></a></span>. Such views could, and should, be cultivated through functional coparenting and the Parties’ attitudes towards each other; <em>how</em> they gave effect to the court order was important. In this regard, I noted the court’s observations in <em>VJM v VJL</em>:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">I had made it clear in <em>TAU v TAT</em> that shared care and control is different from joint custody; the former relates to the child living with both parents, while the latter is about joint decision-making over major decisions affecting the child” (<em>TAU v TAT</em> at [11]). <b>The legal concept that upholds the equal parental responsibility and importance of both parents to the child is “joint custody”. Joint custody requires both parents to recognise and respect each other’s joint and equal role in supporting, guiding and making major decisions for their child. Joint custody assures the child that both her parents continue to be equally present and important in her life.</b></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41     In this case, the Parties agreed on joint custody from the outset<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_115" id="Ftn_115_1"><sup>[note: 115]</sup></a></span>. Their joint and equal roles in supporting, guiding and making major decisions for A have therefore never been in doubt, and the Father had not demonstrated the necessity of a shared care and control order to achieve this objective. There was also nothing in evidence to suggest that A’s welfare was no longer well served by the current care orders. In fact, according to the Father’s own evidence:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_a"></a>(a)     His access from Thursday to Saturday had not disrupted A’s development and there were no adverse reports from the school; on the contrary, A was growing steadily at school<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_116" id="Ftn_116_1"><sup>[note: 116]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_b"></a>(b)     A was thriving at every level under the latest arrangements and is growing up nicely<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_117" id="Ftn_117_1"><sup>[note: 117]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_c"></a>(c)     There were no issues relating to logistics, schoolbooks, clothes, meals, or meetings with the teachers<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_118" id="Ftn_118_1"><sup>[note: 118]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42     In the circumstances, the Father had not demonstrated how his proposed changes were in A’s welfare and best interests. I was also unable to find evidence which supported the following submissions by the Father –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_42-p2_a"></a>(a)     His access was treated as a burden that the Mother had to tolerate;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_42-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Mother did not value his contributions in relation to picking up and dropping off A; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_42-p2_c"></a>(c)     the Mother acted unilaterally to curtail his access<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_119" id="Ftn_119_1"><sup>[note: 119]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43     Next, much fuss was made over Tuesday access, which was designed to be a simple mid-week meet up between father and daughter to share a meal until they met on Thursday for overnight access. Sadly, even this two-hour window caused much spilled ink in the Parties’ affidavits. My view is this: the Father may use the two hours as he sees fit; this is a matter of time management and not a reason to lengthen access, grant overnight access or vary care and control. These are fairly typical mid-week dinner access orders, and the Father had raised nothing in evidence that would justify a variation of these orders.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44     Finally, the Father had not demonstrated how his employment changes gave rise to the necessity to vary the orders. In short, the Father’s evidence and submissions did not support his contentions that A’s welfare was no longer well served by the current orders<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_120" id="Ftn_120_1"><sup>[note: 120]</sup></a></span>, and I remained unpersuaded that it was in A’s welfare to vary the orders on care and control and access.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Difficulties with the Father’s case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45     I also had several difficulties with the Father’s case. Firstly, the Father relied on several general statements in support of his case. These included the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_45-p2_a"></a>(a)     Shared care and control will prevent the Mother from using the excuse that she can dictate matters, just because she has sole care and control<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_121" id="Ftn_121_1"><sup>[note: 121]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_45-p2_b"></a>(b)     An imbalance in equal status between parents may reflect onto the child in a negative manner and can possibly have lasting consequences. Arising from this, it is entirely possible for the child not to give any weight to the views of a non-care and control parent at a time of serious discussion, simply because it has been in-built in the child of divorce that the non-care and control parent is inferior to the other who has sole care and control<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_122" id="Ftn_122_1"><sup>[note: 122]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_45-p2_c"></a>(c)     The party with care and control often uses acrimony to thwart meaningful cooperation and retain sole care and control<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_123" id="Ftn_123_1"><sup>[note: 123]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46     My view is that challenges over meaningful cooperation and the perceived inferiority of the non-care parent arise only from Parties’ conduct, not the language of a court order. These are not reasons to vary care and control. Secondly, I noted the Father’s submission that he had gone out of his way to be civil and respectful by sending the Mother a condolence message when she lost her family member, describing himself as having engaged in a “selfless action by a concerned individual at the passing of a close relative of his ex-wife”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_124" id="Ftn_124_1"><sup>[note: 124]</sup></a></span>. While I appreciate the efforts of the Father, my view is that such communication should have occurred in any event – after all, the person who had passed away was his own daughter’s great-grandmother. The fact that he had to “go out of his way” to communicate with the Mother under such circumstances only serves to demonstrate the challenges still present in the Parties’ relationship.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47     I had the same difficulties with the Father’s description of A’s first day at school as an example of Parties’ cooperation, which he described as “…cooperation exhibited when A was presented on her first day at (her new school). Both Mother and Father were beaming with pride<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_125" id="Ftn_125_1"><sup>[note: 125]</sup></a></span>”. I was heartened to learn that the Parties enjoyed this special day with A. However, for divorced parents to put their differences aside for a few hours on the first day of their child’s new school, or to agree on video call timings in lieu of access because their child had Covid<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_126" id="Ftn_126_1"><sup>[note: 126]</sup></a></span> - another example of cooperation cited by the Father - represents, in my view, the <em>bare minimum</em> of coparenting; in short, the court would expect nothing less from parents and these are not sufficient reasons, individually or cumulatively, that would constitute a material change in circumstances that would warrant a variation of the care and control order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48     Thirdly, the language used by the Father in his criticisms of the Mother and her conduct did not inspire confidence in his assertions that Parties were not acrimonious<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_127" id="Ftn_127_1"><sup>[note: 127]</sup></a></span>:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_a"></a>(a)     “…the Mother’s arguments … are shrouded in obtuse logic and shallow concerns for A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_128" id="Ftn_128_1"><sup>[note: 128]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_b"></a>(b)     “… there are lax rules at the Mother’s home and … order and common sense is waning<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_129" id="Ftn_129_1"><sup>[note: 129]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_c"></a>(c)     The Mother’s “constant desire in wanting to limit Father’s access<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_130" id="Ftn_130_1"><sup>[note: 130]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_d"></a>(d)     “..risk facing the wrath of Mother during drop off<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_131" id="Ftn_131_1"><sup>[note: 131]</sup></a></span>…”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_e"></a>(e)     “… Mother uses the delays in handover to intimidate Father with sanctions and threats of reducing access<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_132" id="Ftn_132_1"><sup>[note: 132]</sup></a></span>…”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_f"></a>(f)     “..Mother does not know what suitable care arrangements for A are and is just trying to unnecessarily resist Father’s summons. This unfortunately is the sad reality of the parent with sole care and control – the inability to realise that or to understand that parenting is not a zero-sum game<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_133" id="Ftn_133_1"><sup>[note: 133]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_g"></a>(g)     “…absence of such a holding would embolden Mother to continue pulling wool over the Court’s eyes and to damage A’s upbringing with a misaligned compass<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_134" id="Ftn_134_1"><sup>[note: 134]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_h"></a>(h)     “She has attempted to trigger Father to respond in anger as part of a deliberate tactic to increase acrimony<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_135" id="Ftn_135_1"><sup>[note: 135]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_i"></a>(i)     “She has abused her position as care and control parent…<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_136" id="Ftn_136_1"><sup>[note: 136]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_48-p2_j"></a>(j)     “…gives me the impression that there is no bond between A and her family in the maternal household, and parties there are just going through a mundane motion in raising a child<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_137" id="Ftn_137_1"><sup>[note: 137]</sup></a></span>”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49     Next, the Father sought to highlight concerns over the Mother’s credibility –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">We highlight the inconsistencies within M1A both internally and with reference to her previous affidavits. It gives the Court the impression that she is not sure of her position and is resisting this summons for the sake of resisting it. In the process, she is trying very hard to confuse the court by speaking from both sides of the isle. More importantly, it showcases that Mother has serious credibility issues and confirms the Honourable Court’s findings where DJ Michelle Elias had mentioned in her brief grounds dated 21 Feb 2022, in Father’s previous summons for variation...<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_138" id="Ftn_138_1"><sup>[note: 138]</sup></a></span>”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50     In support of this position, the Father relied<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_139" id="Ftn_139_1"><sup>[note: 139]</sup></a></span> on the following observations from my earlier decision in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order which increased the Father’s weekly overnight access –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The evidence tells disparate stories; according to the Father, overnight access is extremely successful and meaningful for both A and him. According to the Mother, overnight access (indeed, access in general) is a miserable experience for A who does not want to go.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>I am unable to agree that the evidence as a whole supports the Mother’s contentions.</b> Similar to my findings in March 2019, I continue to find that both parties (and their families) crave and value their time with A. Everyone involved in her care is genuinely invested in promoting her well-being and success. There is nothing in evidence that suggests that either parent is falling short of their responsibilities or duties towards A: both provide a loving and supporting environment for her in their respective homes.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">I maintain the view that A should have the benefit of overnight access to support the development of a meaningful relationship with her father, save that now, it need not be limited to one night a week. <b>The Father clearly wants to be involved in A’s day-to-day and schooling arrangements, and A should have this benefit as well. There is nothing in evidence to suggest why overnight access should not be increased<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_140" id="Ftn_140_1"><sup>[note: 140]</sup></a></span>.</b></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis as reproduced in the Father’s written submissions]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51     The 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Application was filed with separate affidavits, submissions and considerations. Just because I had previously found the Mother’s contentions to be unsupported by evidence <em>on a specific issue</em> had no bearing on her credibility in general, nor did it amount to “serious credibility issues” as argued by the Father. For these additional reasons, I remained unpersuaded that the Ancillary Order and 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order ought to be varied.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Prohibitionary orders</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52     The Mother denied smoking in front of A<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_141" id="Ftn_141_1"><sup>[note: 141]</sup></a></span>, and I did not consider it appropriate to make orders on this. Whether to smoke, including whether this should be done in front of A, are issues that should correctly be addressed as part of functional coparenting. As for vaping, this is an act governed by other laws applicable in Singapore; it was therefore unnecessary to provide for them in my orders.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53     The Father also sought a specific order prohibiting the Mother from referring to her male counterparts<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_142" id="Ftn_142_1"><sup>[note: 142]</sup></a></span> or her relationships with men<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_143" id="Ftn_143_1"><sup>[note: 143]</sup></a></span> as “sugar daddies” when speaking to A. The Mother explained<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_144" id="Ftn_144_1"><sup>[note: 144]</sup></a></span> the context in which this comment was made, namely, that it was a joke referencing the acquisition of luxury cars, inadvertently shared in A’s presence, and intended as light-hearted banter<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_145" id="Ftn_145_1"><sup>[note: 145]</sup></a></span>. I agreed with the Mother that the one-off use of the term did not mean she was an unfit parent<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_146" id="Ftn_146_1"><sup>[note: 146]</sup></a></span>, nor was it a reason to vary care and control or grant an order preventing her from uttering these words again.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54     Finally, the Father sought an order that bound persons who are not party to these proceedings without providing a basis for the court to make such orders. I therefore dismissed all prayers seeking orders of this nature.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Deepavali access</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55     While the Father did not appeal against the orders on Deepavali access, I considered it appropriate to make mention of this, as it was part of the orders made in the current application that gave rise to this appeal. Essentially, separate Deepavali access was not previously ordered in the Ancillary Order on the premise that each parent would see A in alternating years arising from the reckoning of Public Holiday access. This arrangement did not develop as anticipated after A started Primary School due to the longer stretch of primary school holidays, as compared with preschool holidays, which resulted in the Father missing out on Deepavali access for two years<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_147" id="Ftn_147_1"><sup>[note: 147]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56     Having been satisfied of the material change in circumstances, and that there remained a dispute over this issue, I made the following Deepavali orders to ensure both parents see A on Deepavali, irrespective of whether it was their ‘turn’ to spend the Deepavali Public Holiday with A.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_56-p2_"></a>-     <em>For Deepavali, the parent who does not have Public Holiday access with A on Deepavali is to have dinner access with A instead from 6:30pm to 8:30pm.</em> </p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Video access</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57     I was unable to agree with the Father’s submission that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting the inclusion of a video call access order. I maintained the views expressed in my earlier decision in granting the 2<sup>nd</sup> Variation Order, namely, that I did not consider such orders necessary for the following reasons:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_57-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Parties should have the ability to spend uninterrupted blocks of time each week with A.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_57-p2_b"></a>(b)     Orders mandating video calls could, in my view, form the basis for further misunderstanding and disagreements between the Parties.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_57-p2_c"></a>(c)     Video calls were not necessary in this case. This was not a case where one parent does not see A for an extended period of time.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58     Finally, just as with any other type of access, Parties are at liberty to discuss and agree on any additional terms, including video access.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59     The Parties’ coparenting relationship requires improvement, including positive affirmation <em>by</em> the parent <em>of</em> the other parent in the roles that they play in A’s life. Efforts should also be made take over ownership over the coparenting process and put differences aside for A’s benefit. After considering Parties’ submissions on costs, I ordered costs of the Father’s application fixed at $3,800, all in, payable by the Father to the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>_________________________________</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Annex 1: The Ancillary Order</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1_1"></a>1.     By consent, the Husband and Wife shall have joint custody of the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2_2"></a>2.     The Wife shall have care and control of the Child with reasonable access to the Husband as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_a"></a>a)     every Monday from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (including dinner for the Child);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_b"></a>b)     every Wednesday from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (including dinner for the Child);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_c"></a>c)     every Friday from 6:30 p.m. to Saturday 6:30 p.m. (overnight access);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_d"></a>d)     every Father’s Day from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_e"></a>e)     every birthday of the Husband, from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_f"></a>f)     every alternate Public Holiday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (commencing Good Friday 2019).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3_3"></a>3.     The Husband shall pick up and drop off the Child at the Wife’s residence before/ after access.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4_4"></a>4.     The Wife and Husband shall each have an unbroken block of time with the Child for half of each of her school holidays. The parties shall be at liberty to discuss and agree on the split of the school holidays, but in default of any agreement the Husband shall have the first half of each such holiday in odd years (i.e. with effect from 2019) and the second half in even years (i.e. with effect from 2020).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5_5"></a>5.     The Wife and Husband shall be allowed, subject to the consent of the other parent and such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, to bring the child overseas during her school holidays. The party intending to travel shall furnish the other party with the travel itinerary and relevant contact details at least 3 weeks before the commencement of the travel.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6_6"></a>6.     Where there is a clash in the provisions above, the order of priority, in descending order, shall be as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_a"></a>a)     School holiday arrangements;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_b"></a>b)     Public holiday arrangements. Where the public holiday falls within a school holiday, the affected public holiday shall not be counted in the reckoning of alternate public holidays; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_c"></a>c)     Regular weekly arrangements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7_7"></a>7.     The Wife shall update the Husband on events / appointments at the Child’s school, including Parent-Teacher Meetings, school concerts and other meetings / events which would normally require the attendance of at least one parent. Notwithstanding that the Wife is the parent having care and control of the Child, the Husband should always have the option of attending these appointments / events in the spirit of joint parenting. The Husband may also approach the Child’s school directly for particulars in respect of such meetings/ events.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8_8"></a>8.     In the event that the Child is unwell during the Husband’s access times, the Husband is allowed to visit the Child at the Wife’s residence for up to 30 minutes.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9_9"></a>9.     The Parties shall be at liberty to:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_a"></a>a)     vary the care arrangements under this order by mutual agreement;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_b"></a>b)     agree to any other additional or make-up access as they see fit.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10_10"></a>10.    The Wife and Husband shall attend counselling at DSSA.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11_11"></a>11.    The Husband shall pay the monthly sum of $770 to the Wife as maintenance for the Child with effect from 1 April 2019 and thereafter on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of each subsequent month.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12_12"></a>12.    In addition, the Husband shall also be responsible for:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a_13"></a>a)     67% of the Child’s school fees;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b_14"></a>b)     67% of enrichment classes and/or extra-curricular activities. Such enrichment classes and/or extra-curricular activities shall be discussed and agreed between the Parties;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_c_15"></a>c)     100% of all insurance premiums for the Child;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_d_16"></a>d)     100% of all medical expenses for the Child, with the use of his civil service card. The Husband shall pay the cash portion of the difference, after the necessary discounts are applied using his card.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13_17"></a>13.    There shall be no maintenance for the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14_18"></a>14.    All maintenance payments shall be deposited directly into the Wife’s POSB Account No. xxx.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15_19"></a>15.    In respect of the matrimonial home, the following orders are made:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_a_20"></a>a)     Within 3 months of the Final Judgment, the matrimonial flat/property shall be transferred (other than by way of sale) to the Wife with no CPF refunds to be made to the Husband’s CPF account and no cash consideration to the Husband. The Wife shall bear the costs of the transfer and take over the outstanding mortgage.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_b_21"></a>b)     If, for whatever reason, the Wife is unable to take over ownership of the matrimonial property in the terms above, then within 6 months of the Final Judgment, the matrimonial flat/property shall be transferred (other than by way of sale) to the Husband upon the Husband making the full required CPF refunds to the Wife’s CPF account. The Husband shall:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_15-p2_b-p3_i"></a>i.       bear the costs of the transfer</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_15-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>ii.       take over the outstanding mortgage; and</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_15-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>iii.       pay the Wife a cash portion equivalent to the difference between $127,754 and her full CPF refunds.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_c_22"></a>c)     If, for whatever reason, neither party is able or willing to take over ownership of the flat, then within 9 months of the Final Judgment, the matrimonial home shall be surrendered to the HDB. Any losses shall be apportioned between the Parties in accordance with the prevailing HDB/CPF rules and regulations.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16_23"></a>16.    The Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the Family Justice Courts under section 31 of the Family Justice Act 2014 is empowered to execute, sign, or indorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either party fail to do so within seven days of written request being made to the party.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17_24"></a>17.    Each party shall retain all other assets in their respective names.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18_25"></a>18.    No order as to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19_26"></a>19.    Liberty to apply.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>See Annex 1 for the full terms of the Ancillary Order.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>HCF/DCA 38/2019 and HCF/DCA 39/2019.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>FC/SUM 4267/2019.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>FC/SUM 1643/2021.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Dated 25 March 2019.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>F2, para 2, S/No. 1.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Dated 21 February 2022.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>F2, para 2, S/No. 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>F2, para 2, S/No. 3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>F2, para 2, S/No. 4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Written decision rendered pursuant to Rule 670 of the Family Justice Rules via Registrar’s Notice dated 6 February 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Per the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 February 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 10.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 21.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(c).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(a).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(b).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 22.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(d).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(f).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(e).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_26_1" id="Ftn_26">[note: 26]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_27_1" id="Ftn_27">[note: 27]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_28_1" id="Ftn_28">[note: 28]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_29_1" id="Ftn_29">[note: 29]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 29.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_30_1" id="Ftn_30">[note: 30]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 21.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_31_1" id="Ftn_31">[note: 31]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 31.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_32_1" id="Ftn_32">[note: 32]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 33(a).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_33_1" id="Ftn_33">[note: 33]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 33(b).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_34_1" id="Ftn_34">[note: 34]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 34.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_35_1" id="Ftn_35">[note: 35]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 36.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_36_1" id="Ftn_36">[note: 36]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 36.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_37_1" id="Ftn_37">[note: 37]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 37.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_38_1" id="Ftn_38">[note: 38]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 38.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_39_1" id="Ftn_39">[note: 39]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 39.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_40_1" id="Ftn_40">[note: 40]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 40.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_41_1" id="Ftn_41">[note: 41]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 40.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_42_1" id="Ftn_42">[note: 42]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 48.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_43_1" id="Ftn_43">[note: 43]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 45 – 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_44_1" id="Ftn_44">[note: 44]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 49.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_45_1" id="Ftn_45">[note: 45]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 50.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_46_1" id="Ftn_46">[note: 46]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 51.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_47_1" id="Ftn_47">[note: 47]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 54.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_48_1" id="Ftn_48">[note: 48]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 62.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_49_1" id="Ftn_49">[note: 49]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 77.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_50_1" id="Ftn_50">[note: 50]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_51_1" id="Ftn_51">[note: 51]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_52_1" id="Ftn_52">[note: 52]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 80.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_53_1" id="Ftn_53">[note: 53]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_54_1" id="Ftn_54">[note: 54]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 26.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_55_1" id="Ftn_55">[note: 55]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_56_1" id="Ftn_56">[note: 56]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_57_1" id="Ftn_57">[note: 57]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 15.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_58_1" id="Ftn_58">[note: 58]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_59_1" id="Ftn_59">[note: 59]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 6.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_60_1" id="Ftn_60">[note: 60]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_61_1" id="Ftn_61">[note: 61]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 82.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_62_1" id="Ftn_62">[note: 62]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 16.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_63_1" id="Ftn_63">[note: 63]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 81.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_64_1" id="Ftn_64">[note: 64]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 81.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_65_1" id="Ftn_65">[note: 65]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 38.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_66_1" id="Ftn_66">[note: 66]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 95.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_67_1" id="Ftn_67">[note: 67]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 29.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_68_1" id="Ftn_68">[note: 68]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 31.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_69_1" id="Ftn_69">[note: 69]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 32.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_70_1" id="Ftn_70">[note: 70]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 34.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_71_1" id="Ftn_71">[note: 71]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 35.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_72_1" id="Ftn_72">[note: 72]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 39.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_73_1" id="Ftn_73">[note: 73]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 40.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_74_1" id="Ftn_74">[note: 74]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 69.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_75_1" id="Ftn_75">[note: 75]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 65.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_76_1" id="Ftn_76">[note: 76]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 40.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_77_1" id="Ftn_77">[note: 77]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 41.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_78_1" id="Ftn_78">[note: 78]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 46.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_79_1" id="Ftn_79">[note: 79]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 47.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_80_1" id="Ftn_80">[note: 80]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 48.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_81_1" id="Ftn_81">[note: 81]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 50.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_82_1" id="Ftn_82">[note: 82]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 46.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_83_1" id="Ftn_83">[note: 83]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 45.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_84_1" id="Ftn_84">[note: 84]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 60.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_85_1" id="Ftn_85">[note: 85]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 62.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_86_1" id="Ftn_86">[note: 86]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 42.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_87_1" id="Ftn_87">[note: 87]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 106.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_88_1" id="Ftn_88">[note: 88]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 109.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_89_1" id="Ftn_89">[note: 89]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 108.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_90_1" id="Ftn_90">[note: 90]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 64.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_91_1" id="Ftn_91">[note: 91]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 112.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_92_1" id="Ftn_92">[note: 92]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 70.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_93_1" id="Ftn_93">[note: 93]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 71.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_94_1" id="Ftn_94">[note: 94]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_95_1" id="Ftn_95">[note: 95]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 52.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_96_1" id="Ftn_96">[note: 96]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 52.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_97_1" id="Ftn_97">[note: 97]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 81.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_98_1" id="Ftn_98">[note: 98]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 114.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_99_1" id="Ftn_99">[note: 99]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 114.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_100_1" id="Ftn_100">[note: 100]</a></sup>The applicability of s.128 was not disputed; see Father’s written submissions, para 7 and Mother’s written submissions, para 73.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_101_1" id="Ftn_101">[note: 101]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 14.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_102_1" id="Ftn_102">[note: 102]</a></sup>at [15], [16], [21] and [23].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_103_1" id="Ftn_103">[note: 103]</a></sup>Mother’s Notice of Objection.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_104_1" id="Ftn_104">[note: 104]</a></sup>F1, page 90 – 98; F3, page 40.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_105_1" id="Ftn_105">[note: 105]</a></sup>F1, para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_106_1" id="Ftn_106">[note: 106]</a></sup>F3, para 21.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_107_1" id="Ftn_107">[note: 107]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(b).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_108_1" id="Ftn_108">[note: 108]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_109_1" id="Ftn_109">[note: 109]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(a).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_110_1" id="Ftn_110">[note: 110]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(b).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_111_1" id="Ftn_111">[note: 111]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_112_1" id="Ftn_112">[note: 112]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 41.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_113_1" id="Ftn_113">[note: 113]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_114_1" id="Ftn_114">[note: 114]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_115_1" id="Ftn_115">[note: 115]</a></sup>As reflected in the Ancillary Order.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_116_1" id="Ftn_116">[note: 116]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 24.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_117_1" id="Ftn_117">[note: 117]</a></sup>F1, para 10.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_118_1" id="Ftn_118">[note: 118]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 24.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_119_1" id="Ftn_119">[note: 119]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_120_1" id="Ftn_120">[note: 120]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 21.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_121_1" id="Ftn_121">[note: 121]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_122_1" id="Ftn_122">[note: 122]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 29.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_123_1" id="Ftn_123">[note: 123]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_124_1" id="Ftn_124">[note: 124]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 50.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_125_1" id="Ftn_125">[note: 125]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 51.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_126_1" id="Ftn_126">[note: 126]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 46.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_127_1" id="Ftn_127">[note: 127]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 26(b).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_128_1" id="Ftn_128">[note: 128]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 102.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_129_1" id="Ftn_129">[note: 129]</a></sup>F1, para 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_130_1" id="Ftn_130">[note: 130]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 36.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_131_1" id="Ftn_131">[note: 131]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 36.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_132_1" id="Ftn_132">[note: 132]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 37.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_133_1" id="Ftn_133">[note: 133]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 104.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_134_1" id="Ftn_134">[note: 134]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 108.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_135_1" id="Ftn_135">[note: 135]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 109.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_136_1" id="Ftn_136">[note: 136]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 110.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_137_1" id="Ftn_137">[note: 137]</a></sup>F1, para 37.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_138_1" id="Ftn_138">[note: 138]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 84.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_139_1" id="Ftn_139">[note: 139]</a></sup>As reproduced in the Father’s written submissions, para 84.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_140_1" id="Ftn_140">[note: 140]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 84.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_141_1" id="Ftn_141">[note: 141]</a></sup>M1, para 68 – 69.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_142_1" id="Ftn_142">[note: 142]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 77.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_143_1" id="Ftn_143">[note: 143]</a></sup>Prayer 3, FC/SUM 1702/2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_144_1" id="Ftn_144">[note: 144]</a></sup>Mother’s written submissions, para 52.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_145_1" id="Ftn_145">[note: 145]</a></sup>M1, para 74.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_146_1" id="Ftn_146">[note: 146]</a></sup>M1, para 75.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_147_1" id="Ftn_147">[note: 147]</a></sup>Father’s written submissions, para 69.</p></div></content></root> 1311

Links from other tables