fc_judgments: 70
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70 | 27f0c859383a7d5890720150eda5e05873e4a69b | [
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence",
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence \u2013 Self-Defence Exception",
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence \u2013 Correction Exception"
] |
2024-08-13 | Family Court | Summons No SS 635 of 2024 | XBC v XBD | [2024] SGFC 63 | 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%2F32020-SSP.xml | [
"The applicant in person and unrepresented",
"The respondent in person and unrepresented"
] |
2024-08-24T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XBC v XBD</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XBC <em>v</em> XBD </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32020-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 63</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">Summons No SS 635 of 2024</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">13 August 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"> Soh Kian Peng </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"> The applicant in person and unrepresented; The respondent in person and unrepresented </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"> XBC — XBD </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family Violence</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family Violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Self-Defence Exception</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family Violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Correction Exception</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">13 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved">Judgment reserved</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Magistrate Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This was the Father’s application for a personal protection order (“PPO”) for himself and his two young sons, [A] and [B] who were aged two and four respectively. The respondent to this application is the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The basis of the Father’s application was that in a heated argument on 10 December 2023, the Mother had gone to the kitchen, taken a 15 cm long vegetable knife and threatened to stab him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 As for the Father’s application for a PPO for his two young sons, his basis for doing so was that the Mother had beaten his sons and also threatened them. The Father cited several instances of the Mother hitting both the children and threatening them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 I heard the trial on 30 July 2024. Both the Father, and the Mother, were self-represented. They both gave evidence. In addition, I heard evidence from two other witnesses:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_a"></a>(a) A domestic helper (“Ms S”). She worked as the family’s domestic helper. The Father had called her as a witness.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_b"></a>(b) The Mother called her aunt (“Ms G”) as a witness.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Upon conclusion of the trial, I reserved my judgment. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Law</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The following two requirements must be fulfilled before a court will grant a PPO:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_a"></a>(a) Family violence must have been committed, or there is a likelihood that family violence will be committed.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_b"></a>(b) The PPO must be necessary for the protection of the family member.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 As to what constitutes family violence, that is set out in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“family violence” means the commission of any of the following acts:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) causing hurt to a family member by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his or her will;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member,</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">but does not include any force lawfully used in self-defence, or by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age;</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 It is clear from the manner that family violence has been defined in the Women’s Charter 1961, that there are two exceptions: <b>a)</b> force used in self-defence (the “Self-Defence Exception”) and <b>b)</b> force used by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age (the “Correction Exception”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Insofar as evidential matters are concerned, an applicant seeking a PPO need only establish the two requirements set out above (at [6]) on a balance of probabilities and not the more stringent criminal standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”: <em>UNQ v UNR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25291-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 21</a> at [22]–[28]; <em>VYW v VYV</em> [2023] SLR(FC) 1 at [25] (see <em>Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/15355-SSP-M.xml')">[2013] 4 SLR 308</a> at [160] citing Lord Hoffmann in <em>Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman (Consolidated Appeals)</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/English/70538-E-M.xml')">[2003] 1 AC 153</a> where he described the civil standard of proof as meaning “more likely than not”; see also <em>Public Prosecutor v GCK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/24365-SSP.xml')">[2020] 1 SLR 486</a> at [134] – [135] where the Court of Appeal conceptualised the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 There are two ways in which a respondent to an application for a PPO can convince the court that a PPO should not be granted (see <em>TEK v TEJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17829-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 89</a> at [13]). The first is to either show that no family violence that had been committed, or that it is not necessary for the court to grant a PPO. Alternatively, the second option available to a respondent is to invoke either the Self-Defence or the Correction Exception as set out in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 In this vein, insofar as the Self-Defence Exception is concerned, the Women’s Chater 1961 does not define what constitutes “force lawfully used in self-defence”. That being said, the court in <em>TEK v TEJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17829-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 89</a> appeared to take the view (at [14] – [15]), that s 96 of the Penal Code concerning the right of private defence was instructive:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">14 “Force lawfully used in self-defence” is not defined in the Women’s Charter, <b>but as submitted by the Respondent Counsel[note: 3], section 96 of the Penal Code regarding the right of private defence, is instructive</b>. In the case of <em>Tan Chor Jin v PP</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/59433-M.xml')">[2008] 4 SLR 306</a>, the Court of Appeal used the explanation given in Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes: A Commentary on the Indian Penal Code 1860 vol 1 (CJ Thakker & M C Thakker eds) (Bharat Law House, 26th Ed, 2007), to explain private defence:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">[…] The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger not of self-creation. That being so, the necessary corollary is that the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or which is reasonable apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose. […] The right of private defence is purely preventive and not punitive or retributive. The right of self-defence is not a right to take revenge nor is it a right of reprisal. It does not permit retaliation.” [note: 4]</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">15 Whether it is “force lawfully used in self-defence” therefore <b>depends on whether the force that was used was proportionate to the threat made and/or harm caused</b>; and <b>whether that force was appropriately used to meet the said threat and/or harm</b> (ie. the force was not an act of retaliation).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I would add that in assessing whether the force used was proportionate and whether that force was appropriately used, one must also bear in mind the fact that PPO applications taken out under the Women’s Charter 1961 involve incidents arising in the domestic context (see s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 which sets out the persons who may apply for a PPO). The close relationship between the applicant and respondent in applications for a PPO under the Women’s Charter would accordingly colour the court’s assessment of whether the force used was proportionate, and whether that force was appropriately used.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 As for the Correction Exception, its history and rationale was usefully set out in <em>VYB v VYA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26823-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 121</a> at [10] – [15]:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>The Correction Exception as a “Thick Grey Line”</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">10 The Correction Exception has its roots in the common law, which has long supported the authority of a parent to inflict reasonable discipline to correct misbehaviour by a child. This includes some degree of physical or corporal punishment. The limit on this authority to discipline is located in the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (the “CYPA”), which prohibits an adult from ill-treating a child (<em>TCV (On behalf of Child, A) v TCU</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/16808-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 3</a> (“<em>TCV</em>”) at [13] citing Leong Wai Kum, <em>Elements of Family Law in Singapore</em> (LexisNexis, 2018, 3rd Ed) (“<em>Elements of Family Law</em>”) at paragraph 5.029).</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">11 Despite growing suggestion internationally that physical punishment produces detrimental consequences in children, as the Family Court noted in <em>TCV</em> at [16], the Correction Exception remains a part of the law in Singapore. It operates as a “thick grey line” that accommodates different parenting approaches affected by culture, personality, or personal experience. Parenting behaviour that falls within this “grey” area “may not be the best parenting practices but neither does such behaviour necessarily justify state intervention”. But beyond these limits, the behaviour even if consistent with variations in culture, personality, or personal experience will be abuse or ill-treatment and attract state intervention (Debbie Ong Siew Ling, “The Quest for Optimal State Intervention in Parenting Children: Navigating within the Thick Grey Line” (2011) SJLS 61 at 80).</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>The boundaries of the “Thick Grey Line”</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">12 Any lawful correction of a child “must be to teach discipline with a measure of good sense and must always be exercised for the benefit of the child.” If it had been prompted by a need of the parent to impose his power over the child rather than for the benefit of the child, the Correction Exception may not hold. The conduct would then be family violence (TCV at [13] citing Elements of Family Law at paragraph 5.030). The correction must also have been performed in a “responsible and loving” manner and have not descended into abuse that caused “unnecessary pain and suffering” (<em>TCV</em> at [14]). It must further have been “delivered in a judicious and responsible manner for the child’s benefit” (<em>TCV</em> at [70]).</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">13 In <em>R v Hopeley</em> [1860] EW Misc J73 (“<em>Hopeley</em>”), Cockburn CJ examined the contents of the “moderate and reasonable” physical punishment of a child as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">By the law of England, a parent … may for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, always, however, with this condition, that it is moderate and reasonable. If it be administered for the gratification of passion or of rage, or if it be immoderate and excessive in its nature or degree, or if it be protracted beyond the child's powers of endurance, or with an instrument unfitted for the purpose and calculated to produce danger to life or limb; in all such cases the punishment is excessive, the violence is unlawful, and if evil consequences to life or limb ensue, then the person inflicting it is answerable to the law, and if death ensues it will be manslaughter.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">14 By reference to <em>Hopeley</em>, Professor Chan Wing Cheong helpfully identified several related factors that shed light on the reasonableness of the physical punishment by a parent of a child (Chan Wing Cheong, “Corporal Punishment of Children by Parents: Is it Discipline or Violence and Abuse?” <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Journal/101471.xml')">(2018) 30 SAcLJ 545</a> (“Corporal Punishment of Children”).</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) <b>First, the reasons for the punishment.</b> To fall within the Correction Exception, the force must have been used for the correction of misbehaviour for the benefit of the child. Force used for the “gratification of passion or rage”, in the words of <em>Hopeley</em>, will not qualify. Such was the case in TCV, where the respondent-mother had, following her dispute with her own father, lashed out at the child. That force was used other than for the correction of misbehaviour. It was therefore family violence.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) <b>Second, the nature of the punishment.</b> As Professor Chan suggests, types of force like punching may be unacceptable per se, presumably because they are beyond what any reasonable person would consider to be suitable correction. Other types of force like caning fall to be assessed against the other circumstances of the case. The decision in <em>BHR v Child Protector</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18370-SSP.xml')">[2013] SGJC 2</a>, which involved the punching and caning of a child, is instructive. The Juvenile Court distinguished the punching from the caning, and found that the punching was, without more, “beyond the act of disciplining”. But it assessed the caning based on the “number and extent” of the bruises caused. Similarly, in <em>BJJ v Child Protector</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18371-SSP.xml')">[2013] SGJC 3</a>, the Juvenile Court held that the acts of kicking the head and body, hitting the head with a bunch of keys, and hitting the face and causing a nosebleed automatically went “beyond reasonable disciplining”.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) <b>Third, the age and personal characteristics of the child.</b> These factors take on especial significance in <b>the case of young children, given their limited maturity and ability to endure physical punishment</b>. As Professor Chan observes in Corporal Punishment of Children, <b>for any correction to benefit a child, it must be “commensurate with the age and extent of understanding of the child”</b> (citing <em>Public Prosecutor v AFR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2011] 3 SLR 0833.xml')">[2011] 3 SLR 833</a> at [33]).A harsh regime especially inappropriate for young children, “who should be treated with more love and tender care” (citing <em>Public Prosecutor v AQF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0075.xml')">[2011] SGDC 75</a> at [29]) and whose correction, in the words of <em>Hopeley</em>, should not be “protracted beyond the child’s power of endurance”. These statements accord with the observations in TCV at [14] that any punishment must not cause “unnecessary pain and suffering” to the child.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 In summary, the inclusion of the Correction Exception reflects parliamentary intent to give parents a wide degree of discretion when it comes to disciplining their children. That parliament had intended to do so was recently emphasised during the Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment Bill) (<em>Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report</em> (3 Sept 2019) vol 94) (“Second Reading”). During the Second Reading, Member of Parliament (“MP”) Mr Christopher de Souza had asked:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">…With regard to the amended section 4(2) which sets out specific examples of emotional or psychological abuse, I do have a few clarifications for the Minister.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Paragraph (a) mentions well-being and a sense of self-worth. How will this provision operate?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Paragraph (b) mentions that threatening to physically hurt the child or young person is child abuse. Will the Minister clarify how this provision is to be understood in the context of section 64 of the Women's Charter where correction is an exception to "family violence"?...</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Mr Desmond Lee, the Minister for Social and Family Development had this to say in response:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">First, I note that several Members of Parliament were concerned that the power to protect abused or neglected children could overly interfere with how parents legitimately discipline and raise their children. Mr Christopher de Souza touched on the definition of "emotional harm". While the concepts of emotional harm, emotional abuse or psychological abuse may seem broad or subjective, what we have sought to do in the Bill is to give as much clarity as we can on what constitutes such harm or abuse, by providing some specific circumstances and then, examples.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">For example, Mr de Souza asked what infantilisation is, in one of the examples. This occurs when a parent or guardian deliberately treats a child as being much younger than a child's actual age and in a way that is not developmentally appropriate for the child. For example, say, a child in upper Primary school being made to wear diapers every day.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">He also asked about the example of being confined in a small space. By that, we refer to a space that is not conducive for the child's development and is beyond socially-accepted boundaries for punishment. For example, locking a child in a cage, the toilet, the store room as a form of punishment.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">I wish to assure Members that <b>we do not intend to diminish parental authority. We do not intend to unduly intervene with parents' rights to discipline their children. And we do not intend to overly intrude into the private lives of families. The vast majority of parents are responsible and do their best to care for and raise their children. Within the private lives of families, within the bounds of parental authority, there is a wide berth or space for parents to nurture, raise and discipline their children. The common adage goes: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."</b></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">But unfortunately, a small number struggle to parent responsibly, for whatever reason. <b>And when parenting or so called discipline crosses the line and becomes excessively harsh or abusive, whether physically or emotionally, we may have to intervene to protect the children.</b> I gave a couple of examples yesterday.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 That being said, it also bears noting that the law does not intervene through the issuance of a PPO in <em>every</em> instance of parenting that exceeds the Correction Exception. Even if the parenting behaviour complained of discloses family violence, pursuant to s 65 of the Charter, a PPO will not be granted unless it is necessary for the protection of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Whether the Father should be granted a PPO</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 Having set out the law, I turn now to deal with the Father’s application for a PPO. As mentioned (above at [2]), the basis for his application is founded on the incident where the Mother had, in the midst of their argument, gone to the kitchen, taken a 15 cm long vegetable knife and threatened to stab him with it.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 At trial, the Father testified that while he could not recall the exact date this incident took place, he remembered that on the day of that incident, he was going out to drink with some friends. He had gotten into a huge argument with the Mother. He admitted to beating her, but also stated that she had retaliated. In the midst of their fight, the Mother ran to the kitchen, grabbed a vegetable knife that was about 15 cm long and said “you want to see me stab you now?”. He retorted: “go ahead and stab me”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Subsequently, the police were called. They confiscated the knife and spoke to the couple. The Father explained that, for the sake of his two young sons, he did not want to escalate things by pursuing the matter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Mother was able to, in her testimony, recount the incident in more detail than the Father had. She explained that the incident had taken place on 10 December 2023. The night before, on 9 December, she had attended, together with the Father, a party to celebrate her friend’s brother getting married.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 On the morning of 10 December, the Mother recounted that she had woken up at about 9 am in the morning. After checking in on the children, she went to buy some meat as they were supposed to do some prayers for her late mother-in-law. She returned home with the groceries as well as lunch. The helper took the food to feed the children and she settled down to have her lunch. The Mother recounts that the Father had woken up at about 12.50 pm. He asked her where she had gone. She told him that she had gone out to buy groceries. The Father asked her again where she had gone. He knew that doing so would annoy her as she did not like being asked the same question repeatedly. The spark that ignited the entire fight came when the Mother raised her voice and gave the same answer to the Father’s repeated questioning as to where she had gone. This, according to the Mother, triggered him: he began to hurl vulgarities and attacked her by punching her face and slapping her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 The Mother had, by this time, lost her appetite. She went to the sofa. The Father did not relent. He continued to hurl vulgarities at her and began to beat her up. The Mother told the helper to bring the two young sons into the room to prevent them from being affected by witnessing the violence being inflicted on her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Unable to put up with the Father’s continued physical assault, the Mother stood up, went to the kitchen, and took a kitchen knife. She says that this was done purely with the intention of defending herself. The Mother explained that the Father would not listen to her and that threatening him with a knife was the only way to stop him from continuing to hit her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Upon being threatened with the knife, the Father backed off – this gave the Mother the opportunity to escape to the room where her children were taking shelter. Unfortunately, it appears that the Father’s temper did not abate because, according to the Mother, he followed her into the room and continued the argument. She ran out of the room to the kitchen again – the Father followed her and continued to physically assault her by pulling her hair and punching her. Both children witnessed this – they were screaming and crying as they watched their parents fighting. The Mother eventually ended up calling the police who arrived a short while later and took statements from her as well as the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 While the police were taking the Mother’s statement, her aunt arrived. As it turned out, the helper had called the Mother’s aunt to tell her that there was a big incident happening and that she should come quickly. The aunt scolded the Father for what he had done.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Mother candidly stated that she had admitted to the police that she had taken the knife, but that she had done so because there was no other way for her to stop the violence. The Mother also explained that the police had, in the wake of that incident, advised the both of them to stay apart for the time being. The Father left the house in the afternoon and only returned at about 11.30pm at night. After that incident, the Mother did not speak to the Father for about a month until the Father, sometime on the 28<sup>th</sup> or 29<sup>th</sup> of December, tried to make amends, explaining that he wished to resolve matters before the new year.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">My decision</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 It was clear to me, from the evidence that both the Father and the Mother had given, that there was indeed a fight that had taken place, and that in the course of that fight, the Mother had taken a vegetable knife and threatened to stab the Father. Indeed, the Mother does not deny that she had done so, but, as she had explained, that was the only way to stop the Father from continuing to violently assault her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 This act of threatening to stab the Father with the vegetable knife does, in my judgment, fall within the definition of family violence as set out in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 – specifically, that it constitutes an act which wilfully or knowingly places, or attempts to place, a family member in fear of hurt.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 That said, I also find that the Mother is entitled to invoke the Self-Defence Exception in this case. She had testified that she would get into fights with the Father, and that in those fights, the Father would “turn into a beast”. The Mother’s evidence was that she would walk away from those fights with multiple injuries and that it took her a few weeks to recover from such cases.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 I do not doubt that the Father had indeed beaten the Mother, not only on the incident on 10 December 2023, but also on other occasions. The Father had admitted to this. For instance, he said that on the 17<sup>th</sup> of March 2024, the both of them had gotten into an argument and that he had also beaten her on that occasion.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 The picture that emerged from the testimony I heard was that whenever there was a fight between the couple (which appears to have taken place with startling frequency), it was the Mother who would walk away thoroughly battered and bruised. From what I could tell, she endured these beatings – indeed, as she testified, she was shocked when her aunt turned up on the scene on the 10<sup>th</sup> of December. Her reaction is telling. It suggested that while she did tell her aunt about the physical abuse she suffered, she had attempted to conceal the true extent of the physical abuse she had suffered.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 Given this, and taking into account the violence and brutality of the fight that took place on 10 December, one can understand why the Mother had acted in the way she did. As I have mentioned above, the proportionality of the force used as well as its suitability must be assessed bearing in mind that these incidents took place in the domestic context. In such situations, where the frequency and intensity of the violence has reached its apex, the victim who has been trapped in repeated cycles of abuse may simply have no choice but to respond in kind. The threat which the Mother levelled at the Father during the fight was therefore, in my judgment, proportionate and suitable when weighed against the violence she faced. I accept her explanation that all she wanted to do was to disengage from the fight and that this was the only way she could do so given that the Father, in the heat of his anger, would not respond to reason.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 The Father’s application for a PPO for himself is therefore dismissed. I am satisfied that the Mother is entitled to rely on the Self-Defence exception – this means that there was no family violence on her part. In any event, given that both the Father and Mother are now living apart, it would not have been necessary to grant a PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Whether [A] and [B] should be granted a PPO</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 I turn now to consider whether the two young sons, [A] and [B] should be granted a PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The gist of the Father’s complaint was that the Mother would discipline both the sons by hitting and threatening them. He recounted the following incidents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 The first incident allegedly took place on 18 February 2024 – the Father says that the Mother had beaten the youngest son, [A], so hard that he could make out hand marks on his face and chest. According to the Father, he had only discovered this when the Mother had left the house and the helper had shown him pictures of the hand marks on [A]’s face and chest.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 The second incident, according to the Father, took place on 19 March 2024. The Mother had slapped the eldest son because he did not want to go to school and was crying. The helper, Ms S, witnessed this incident. In her testimony, Ms S said that the Mother was walking from the bus stop to drop both the sons off at school. [B] was holding on to the Mother’s hand and crying. Because [B] was crying, the Mother slapped him on the cheek. [B] continued to sob and the Mother tried to console him. The Mother left the two children with Ms S and left for work. Ms S said there was a playground near the bus stop – she brought both the boys there and fed them food before sending them off to school.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 The Mother had a different account of this incident. She claims that she did not hit [B]. According to the Mother, [B] was crying because he did not want to go to school. She also said that it was not true that she had left both children with Ms S and went off to work. The Mother’s version was that she brought both children to the playground where the Ms S had fed them. Thereafter, Ms S had brought [A] to his school, while the Mother brought [B] to his school.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 The third incident occurred on 23 April 2024. The Father explained that the Mother had, ever since she moved out, denied him access to his two sons. He finally managed to persuade her to let him spend some time with them on 23 April 2024, on the account that it was his eldest son’s birthday. She agreed to let him spend an hour with them, and brought both the boys over to his flat at 3pm.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 The Father was delighted that he could finally spend some time with his two sons. He brought out the cake and birthday present. It was at this time that the helper noticed that there was a mark on [A]’s cheek. He asked [B] if the Mother had beaten [A]. [B] did not respond. The Father took [B] to the kitchen and recorded a video where he asked [B] if the Mother had hit him – in the video, [B] said that she had. The Father explained that because of the limited time he had with both of his sons, he decided against bringing [A] to the hospital for a checkup – instead, he went to make a police report after he had returned [A] and [B] to the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 In relation to this incident on 23 April 2024, the helper, Ms S, had given evidence that she had seen the marks on [A]’s face and that she knew that it had been inflicted by the Mother because she had seen the Mother mete out beatings where the blows would land near the children’s eyes.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 In response, the Mother’s evidence was that her dog, a chihuahua, was responsible for the mark on [A]’s face. According to her, the dog had scratched [A]’s face under the eyes. The Mother also explained that while she knew that the Father would use this against her, she did not see the need to keep evidence to prove her actions to others.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 Apart from these incidents, the Father also produced a video dated 13 January 2024 along with a transcription of the audio. The video showed the Mother yelling at [B]. This was what she had said:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="18.82%"><col width="81.18%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Should you also do it if he does something? Hmm? I ask you, should you also do it?</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Who asked you to spit saliva? Who asked you to spit saliva? <b>You will get slapped if you lie. Why did you spit saliva?</b></p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[B]:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Inaudible</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[inaudible]…told you right? Why didn’t you listen to?</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Why are you following him?</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">That day only I told you right, not to beat people older than you. Did I tell you or not? Why do you beat older people?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[B]:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[inaudible]</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">What will be heard? Why do you beat older people? That day only I told you right, not to beat older people. Hey…Did I tell you or not? Why do you beat older people? Is your arm extending a lot? <b>May I break your arm? If I see you beating him/her one more time again, I will hit you hard, [B].</b></p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">You also stop beating. <b>I’m going to break both the elder and younger’s arms. You are beating everyone.</b></p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Go and eat. </p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">You come here, sit. Climb over and sit. I’m telling you to sit over. Sit, sit properly. I’m going to bathe now. You both must remain like this until I come and see after bathing. Understand?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Do you understand or not?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" colspan="2" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[emphasis added]</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 Ms S had recorded this clip. She explained that she had done so to show the Mother that the children would tremble when she was scolding them. That [B] was in fear was clearly apparent to me from reviewing this clip – [B]’s leg was trembling as he stood in front of the Mother whilst being scolded.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 The Mother attempted to cast a different light on the clip by providing a different explanation as to why Ms S had recorded it. She said that it can clearly be heard, in the video, that Ms S was asking her to ask [A] a question. If it were true that this video had shown her abusing her two children, then there was no need for Ms S to “sit there and instigate [her] to ask [A] questions”. In addition, the Mother also explained that the video was recorded to capture [A]’s cute facial expressions – according to the Mother, [A] would pout whenever she was using a firm tone. The Mother does not deny saying that she would “break both the elder and younger’s arms” – however, as she explained, when said in Tamil, the meaning of what she had said was “not as severe”, and in any event, she had no intention of breaking their arms.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">My decision</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 The crux of the dispute, insofar as the Father’s application for a PPO for [A] and [B] was concerned, was whether the Mother could rely on the Correction Exception. In other words, was the Mother’s methods of discipline towards her two young sons overly excessive such that they crossed the boundaries set by the Correction Exception and strayed into the realm of family violence as defined in the Women’s Charter 1961?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 Having considered the evidence, namely, the testimony of the witnesses at trial, the Mother cannot, in my judgment, rely on the Correction Exception. I find it more likely than not (to use the definition of proof on a balance of probabilities) that the Mother’s attempts to discipline the children, had gone too far and strayed into the realm of family violence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 For one, the Mother was a strict disciplinarian. That much was evident from the video clip dated 13 January 2024 in which she can be seen scolding [B]. Apart from that video clip, I had also asked the Mother some questions on her parenting style. The Mother shared that she wanted to raise her sons properly – this was because she had come from a broken family and had, in her work, seen children from different walks of life. To that end, she believed in disciplining the children to ensure that they would stay on the straight and narrow. She said that she needed to be the “bad cop” otherwise the children would not take her seriously.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 I had also asked the Mother if she had hit her children to discipline them. The Mother candidly admitted that she did – but she explained that she would only “tap” them on the cheek, on the back, and on their legs. She explained that she did not “tap” them with much force.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 I asked the Mother to explain how the children would take her seriously if it was true that she did not “tap” them with much force. I did so because this appeared to contradict the picture she had painted of herself as a strict disciplinarian. As the Mother herself had explained, she had to be a strict parent otherwise the children would not take her seriously. Yet in the same breath, she professed to only gently “tapping” them, and that she did not hit them forcefully.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 In response to my question, the Mother explained that the children understood her disciplinary style. Both her sons would know when she was angry and when she would “tap” them, and that she did not need to hit them in a way that would cause marks or bruises. The Mother’s explanation, however, skirts round the issue and does not squarely address how “tapping” the children was consistent with the picture of herself as a strict disciplinarian. I find it more likely to be the case that the Mother was trying to downplay the force she had used to hit [A] and [B] with the use of the word “tap”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 Second, there was evidence from both the helper, Ms S, as well as the Mother’s aunt, Ms G, that the Mother had indeed hit both her sons forcefully.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 Ms S had given evidence that the Mother would slap the elder son, [B] on the cheek – as for the younger son, [A], she would beat him on the hands and legs. Whenever the Mother beat the children, Ms S would intervene and tell her not to hit the child like this, especially on the face and eyes. However, according to Ms S, her words would fall on deaf ears – the Mother would tell her to mind her own business.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 I note, at this juncture, that Ms S’s account about telling the Mother not to hit the children on their face or legs was corroborated by the Mother’s own evidence. I had asked the Mother if Ms S had ever spoken to her about the manner in which she had disciplined her children. The Mother said that Ms S had told her not to “tap” the children on the face or the leg.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 In addition, Ms S also stated that she would cry whenever she saw the children being beaten. She explained that, in an effort to convince the Mother to change her ways, she would take pictures to show the Mother after she had calmed down.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 Finally, although the Mother claimed that the Father had pressured Ms S into giving evidence, she did not ask Ms S this when afforded the opportunity to cross-examine her, nor did she put forward any evidence to show that she had indeed been pressured by the Father into doing so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 In any event, I would add that having watched Ms S’s demeanour on the stand, I did not get the impression that she had been pressured into testifying, or that she could be pressurised to do such a thing. Ms S had given evidence that she left her first employer after working for them for 1 year and 4 months. She explained that they had ended up mistreating her and blaming her when things went wrong. The inference I draw from this was that Ms S was not someone that could be bullied – she knew how to stand up for herself, and how to walk away. In this vein, I would also add that Ms S struck me as an honest witness who cared deeply for [A] and [B] even though they were not her own flesh and blood. That was apparent, not only from her testimony, but by her reaction to the video dated 13 January 2024 (see above at [43]) being played in court: she had broken down, sobbing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 Insofar as Ms G was concerned, her evidence was that she had never seen the Mother beat the children when they visited her house – she only saw the Mother “tap” them on the leg or thigh when they were running about. However, when I asked Ms G to demonstrate how hard the Mother had “tapped” the children, Ms G demonstrated the tapping action and then went on to explain that if the Mother had “done a very hard hit”, she would correct her and tell her that “this was not the way for her to hit the child”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 It was therefore clear to me as well, from what Ms G had said in her testimony, that the Mother did forcefully hit her children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 In summary, the picture painted by the evidence, as well as the inferences which I drew, was that the Mother had gone overboard and crossed the line when it came to disciplining [A] and [B]. It is after all, undisputed that she did hit them. What was in dispute was the <em>force</em> that she had used and whether her methods of discipline were appropriate given that [A] and [B] were but mere toddlers. It goes without saying that any correction to benefit a child must be commensurate with the child’s age and understanding. In that regard, I find that the Mother had not only hit them forcefully, but in vulnerable places such as their faces – this was not, in my judgment, an appropriate form of discipline considering the tender age of [A] and [B] (see <em>VYB v VYA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26823-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 121</a> at [14(c)] citing Chan Wing Cheong, “Corporal Punishment of Children by Parents: Is it Discipline or Violence and Abuse?” <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Journal/101471.xml')">(2018) 30 SAcLJ 545</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 To be clear, I am not saying that the Mother had, in hitting her children, acted out of malice. Simply put, what I have found is that it is more likely than not that the Mother had hit both [A] and [B] in such a manner that disentitles her from relying on the Correction Exception – and accordingly, those acts constituted family violence as is defined in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 Indeed, from the Mother’s own testimony, it was clear to me that she wanted to raise her sons to be good and honest men. I believe that she does indeed have their best interests at heart. What I have said in this judgment should therefore not be taken as an indictment of the Mother as a parent. After all, parenting is only something that can be learnt through hard-won experience. Mistakes will be made. In some cases, the severity of that mistake demands that the parent be prosecuted. In other cases, the parent may be given a chance to learn and adjust their parenting style to ensure that it does not cross the lines laid down by the law.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 It is in this spirit that I am granting a PPO in favour of [A] and [B] for a fixed term of a year (till 13 August 2025). This is to afford the Mother the time to learn better ways of parenting and disciplining [A] and [B]. It is necessary to grant a PPO because the Mother is currently staying alone with [A] and [B], and the three of them only visit Ms G’s house twice a month. Given the present living arrangement, there is nobody else present on a daily basis that may, as Ms G has done (see above at [58]), moderate or balance the Mother’s disciplinary methods.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 Finally, and in addition to the PPO, I am also ordering that the Mother attend counselling. This will provide her with the necessary resources and support in her journey to improve on her parenting methods.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 It was not lost on me that both the Father and the Mother had an acrimonious relationship that was fuelled by resentment accumulated over their years together. During the trial, both the Father and the Mother had angrily accused each other of adultery. At times, the cross-examination became a heated and emotional exchange between the two.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 Despite the state of their relationship, it was apparent to me that both the Father, as well as the Mother, did have their sons’ interests at heart. In this vein, I emphasise that they must not drag the children into their own conflict (see also the remarks made in <em>WAG v WAH</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27153-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 17</a> at [95]). I understand that both the Father and Mother are contemplating divorce but the end of a marriage does not spell the end of their parenting obligations. [A] and [B] are still young and will require the love and support from both their parents. To that end, both the Father and the Mother must learn to work together and do the very best that they can for them.</p> </div></content></root> | 1793 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version