fc_judgments_version: 9

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
9	9	1	1276	[ "Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection" ]	2024-01-22	Family Court	SS No 652 of 2023 and SS No 669 of 2023	WSD v WSE and another matter	[2024] SGFC 1	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%2F30956-SSP.xml	[ "The wife in person", "Tan Wee Tim Cheryl (Kalco Law LLC) for the husband." ]	2020-12-31T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Patrick Tay Wei Sheng	<root><head><title>WSD v WSE and another matter</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WSD <em>v</em> WSE and another matter </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30956-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 1</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">SS No 652 of 2023 and SS No 669 of 2023</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">22 January 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"> Patrick Tay Wei Sheng </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 wife in person; Tan Wee Tim Cheryl (Kalco Law LLC) for the husband. </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"> WSD — WSE </td></tr></tbody></table> <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">Orders for protection</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">22 January 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 A personal protection order (“PPO”), as its name suggests, operates to protect from family violence and not to punish for family violence. It is forward-looking: its focus is future family violence and not past family violence. Hence, the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Charter”) allows a PPO to be made only where it is necessary to protect a victim from family violence going forward. That family violence has been committed or has been likely to be committed in the past is deplorable but will not justify a PPO where future family violence is unlikely. Even so, the law does not leave a victim of family violence without recourse: acts that constitute family violence may attract liability and be vindicated as civil or even criminal wrongs. Still, the fact that a victim has suffered family violence is not a license for the victim to retaliate with family violence of his or her own.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Before me were cross-applications by spouses for PPOs. Chief among the allegations of the wife was that the husband had harassed her by taking photographs and/or videos of her in her undergarments (the “Images”).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> Chief among the allegations of the husband was that the wife had, after discovering the Images, harassed him by threatening to get him in trouble with the authorities unless he agreed to a divorce on her terms. The husband had subsequently moved out of the matrimonial home and had never returned. Yet, the wife continued to send extortionate communications to the husband, intending or knowing that they would cause him anguish. These continued communications made a PPO necessary for the protection of the husband from family violence, even as the dearth of physical interactions between them rendered unnecessary a PPO for the wife. Ultimately, each PPO application turns on its facts. Despite my sympathies for the wife, who had been anguished by the Images, I was constrained to dismiss her application and grant that of the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The wife has filed an appeal against these decisions. I now provide my reasons for them.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The spouses married in October 2018 and had a child in March 2019. All three of them lived together in the matrimonial home. The spouses also worked together in a business that provided carpentry services. In that business, the wife handled sales and administration while the husband handled manufacturing and logistics.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 In the early hours of a morning towards the end of 2022, the husband found the wife in a carpark with another man.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> He confronted the wife, who denied having an extramarital affair. The wife also told the husband that she no longer wished to share a bed with him. The wife then prevented the husband from sleeping in their bedroom in the matrimonial home. The husband moved to sleep in the living room of the matrimonial home.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 On 20 March 2023, after another disagreement between the spouses, the wife suspected that the husband had been telling others about her having an extramarital affair. She decided to check the messages on his mobile phone by logging onto a digital cloud storage system that was connected to his mobile phone (the “iCloud System”). Having assisted the husband to set up the iCloud System, she knew the password to it.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> Using that password, she accessed the iCloud System without the knowledge of the husband. There, the wife discovered the Images, which the husband had taken while she had been,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> or near,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> asleep.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The wife confronted the husband about the Images. The husband responded that he had been checking for signs of whether she had been intimate with other men. The wife disrobed and invited the husband to check her body for such signs. The husband declined to do so.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> The wife called the police, who arrested the husband and seized his mobile phone.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The husband did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter and has not returned to the matrimonial home since.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Five days later, on 25 March 2023, the wife accessed the iCloud System again. There, she found indecent photographs of women whom she believed were clients of the carpentry business. She also found unclothed photographs of their child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 On or around 1 April 2023, the wife told the husband that she wanted a divorce and invited him to agree to her proposals on the ancillary matters. The husband protested those proposals and said that he would not accept them. The wife replied: “I can afford to play. Can you afford to play?” and “You’re really in no position to negotiate with me. Think about it carefully.”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 On 2 April 2023, the wife demanded that the husband attend at the office of her solicitors on the following day to sign the “divorce papers”. She added that she would “cancel the case” after he had done so, although she did not expressly clarify what she had meant by “case”. The husband replied that he “need[ed] to find someone to see first” and that her “terms of offer [were] ridiculous”. The wife responded: “If you don’t show up to sign tomorrow, I won’t leave any room for mercy for you or your family”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 On 3 April 2023, the husband did not attend at the office of the solicitors for the wife. The wife accessed a social media account of the husband and used it to send a text message to the sister of the husband: “Today, I had given one last chance, he did not come, your elder brother shall be prepared to go to jail”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 On 6 April 2023, the wife sent a letter to the husband on the letterhead of the carpentry business. In that letter, informed him that the business had terminated his employment thereto “with immediate effect”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 On 12 April 2023, the wife filed her application for PPOs for herself and the child against the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 On 17 April 2023, the husband filed his application for a PPO for himself against the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Allegations</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The cases of each spouse evolved over the course of the proceedings. Usually, the material facts on which an applicant premises an application for a PPO should be set out in the Complaint – the process by which a PPO application is originated. If material facts are omitted from the Complaint, a respondent may fairly contend that the applicant had chosen to forgo reliance on those facts (see <em>WNU v WNV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29868-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 18</a> at [5] and [9]), at least where the introduction of those facts at trial would take the other party by surprise (see <em>Teng Cheng Sin v Law Fay Yuen</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2003] 3 SLR(R) 0356.xml')">[2003] 3 SLR(R) 356</a> at [20]). Be that as it may, I found that each spouse had given the other ample notice of and opportunity to respond to all material facts raised by him or her, and that the case of each spouse that had emerged at trial did not surprise the other. I thus assessed their cases based on those that had emerged at trial.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The wife claimed that the husband had anguished her through continual harassment and had placed her in fear of hurt. She alleged that he had taken the Images without her consent. She added that he had raised his voice at her, “gaslight[ed]” her, and “badmouth[ed]” her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The wife claimed, on behalf of the child, that the husband had anguished the child through continual harassment, had placed the child in fear of hurt, and had caused hurt to the child. She alleged that he had photographed the child “naked and peeing”, hit the child, raised his voice at the child, and “constantly tell the child that mummy do not want daddy anymore, causing her to feel broken”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 The husband claimed that the wife had anguished him through continual harassment, had caused hurt to him, and had placed him in fear of hurt. He alleged that she had sent him messages demanding that he agree to a divorce on her terms and promising him harm if he did not do so. He added that she had hit him on the head and the back as well as plucked his hair.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Family violence and orders of protection</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 Two conditions must be proven on a balance of probabilities before a PPO may be granted. First, “family violence” must have been committed or must have been likely to be committed on a family member. Second, the PPO must be necessary for the protection of that family member. These conditions are set out in s 65(1) of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 The term, “family violence”, is expressly defined in the s 64 of the Charter, which reads:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Interpretation of this Part</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>64</b>. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires — …</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 will; or</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_22"></a>22 In <em>UNQ v UNR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25291-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 21</a> (“<em>UNQ</em>”), Debbie Ong Siew Ling J (as she then was) expounded upon these statutory definitions (at [26]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Based on the statutory definition, family violence may be found in a variety of circumstances. Physically abusing a family member will constitute family violence under limb (b) of the definition where hurt (defined in s 64 of the Charter as bodily pain, disease or infirmity) was caused by an act that was known or ought to have been known would result in hurt. Acts that fall short of physical hurt but are committed to place a family member in fear of hurt, or where the respondent attempts to place the family member in fear of hurt, may also constitute family violence under limb (a) if such acts are committed wilfully or knowingly. Similarly, causing continual harassment to a family member may amount to family violence under limb (d). <em>The requisite intention or knowledge in limb (d) is quite specific – it is causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member</em>.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The primary allegation of each spouse was that he or she had been harassed by the other spouse. That said, the term, “harassment”, is not defined in the Charter. Even so, guidance as to its definition may be had from the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “POHA”), which sets out several types of wrongdoings that constitute “harassment”. As observed at the Second Reading of the Protection from Harassment Bill, the essence of “harassment” is “anti-social” or otherwise hostile and disruptive behaviour, whether committed in the physical world or the digital world. I excerpt the speech of the Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, in introducing the Protection from Harassment Bill (see <em>Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report</em> (13 March 2014) vol 91).</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">First, the Bill makes clear that harassment and related anti-social behaviour are offences, whether committed in the physical world or online; and that must be so. It must be the consequence of the conduct, not where and how that conduct was carried out, that is important. Clauses 3 to 6 are medium-neutral. They extend to words, behaviour or communication used or made by "any means", which will, obviously, include electronic means.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… illustrations have been introduced in clauses 3 and 4. These illustrations reiterate and signal that the Bill will cover a wide range of anti-social behaviour, such as cyberbullying, bullying of children and sexual harassment. … Women who are sexually harassed at the workplace or outside will have a clear remedy. The difference from existing legislation under the MOA is that, now, it will be quite clear that online sexual harassment is also criminal conduct. Illustrations in the Bill give an idea of some of the types of behaviour which are covered. The illustrations are not intended to limit the situations which may amount to an offence under the Bill.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… the Bill introduces a new offence which is not found in the current legislation and, that is, unlawful stalking. Stalking can be highly disruptive to the lives of many people, often in devastating ways. …</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Four broad types of anti-social behaviour are fleshed out in the POHA: (a) intentionally causing harassment, alarm, or distress; (b) threatening, abusive, or insulting communications and behaviour; (c) causing fear, provocation, or facilitation of violence; and (d) unlawful stalking (see ss 3–7 of the POHA). Further, “sexual harassment”, wherever committed, falls squarely within the anti-social behaviours proscribed by the POHA.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 With these observations in mind, I examined the applications for PPOs for the wife, the child, and the husband. Of these, the application for a PPO for the wife was the most hotly contested. I began with it.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Protection of wife</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Two broad allegations of family violence on the wife were levelled against the husband. First, that he had taken the Images without her consent. Second, that he had threatened and/or abused her orally. According to the wife, these incidents involved continual harassment that caused anguish to her and/or placed her in fear of hurt within s 64 of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The husband admitted to taking the Images without the consent of the wife but denied the other allegations.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span> He claimed that the wife had applied for a PPO “to annoy [him] and to pressure [him] into signing divorce papers on terms that are only favourable to her.”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Family violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 It is undisputed that the husband had taken the Images, which showed the wife in her undergarments. It is also clear that she had not consented to his doing so.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span> Further, she had been anguished when she learnt of the Images. Immediately after discovering them, she confronted the husband. She also complained to her brother and filed a police report about them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 Acts that cause distress will fall within s 64 of the Charter if they constituted “continual harassment” and had been committed with the intention to cause or the knowledge that they would likely cause anguish (<em>UNQ</em> at [26]). Further, as the Family Division of the High Court observed in <em>UNQ</em> at [26], such intention or knowledge may be inferred “based on the state of the parties’ relationship at the time, or evidence of the communications between the parties at the relevant period”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 In my view, the taking of the Images, without the consent of the wife, could constitute “harassment” within s 64 of the Charter insofar as it was, as turned out to be the case, perceived by the wife. The Images were indecent. By any measure, the taking of indecent images of another person, without the consent of that other person, was “sexual harassment”, as contemplated by the Legislature (see [21]–[22] above). It was anti-social and disruptive behaviour that, when perceived by that other person, would likely anguish him or her. It could also be insulting behaviour that caused harassment, alarm, or distress (see s 4 of the POHA). It could even constitute criminal offences. Although the wife had not seen the husband taking the Images, that did not make those acts of the husband any less anti-social or disruptive as to constitute “harassment” for limb (d) to the definition of “family violence” in s 64 of the Charter. Whether the husband had at in performing those acts intended or known that the acts would cause the wife anguish may be relevant to his mental state for that statutory provision but does not derogate from the harassing nature of his acts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 Moreover, the husband had taken the Images on multiple occasions. The harassment was, in the words of the District Court in <em>Yue Tock Him @ Yee Chok Him v Yee Ee Lim</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0099.xml')">[2011] SGDC 99</a> at [33] “sufficiently repetitive” as to constitute “continual harassment” within s 64 of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 Even so, the causing of “continual harassment” to a family member would have been family violence only if it had been performed <em>with intent to cause or knowledge that it would likely cause anguish to that family member</em> (see limb (d) to the definition of “family violence” in s 64 of the Charter). Whether such intention or knowledge existed was to be inferred from all of the circumstances of the case (see <em>UNQ</em> at [26]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 Here, the husband had taken the Images without the knowledge of the wife. Although he had stored the Images on his mobile phone and in the iCloud System, he had never intended or known that she would learn of the Images. He had protected his mobile phone with a password and had declined to unlock it when she had, for reasons unrelated to the Images, demanded that he do so. Even if he had sought her assistance to set up the iCloud System that was linked to his mobile phone, any belief that she would access the iCloud System on her own was unlikely to have operated on his mind. Indeed, the wife confirmed that she had never accessed the iCloud System<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> until he had accused her of having an extramarital affair and had done so on 20 March 2023 purely for reasons unrelated to the Images. The evidence thus did not prove that the husband had possessed the necessary intention or knowledge that his taking and storing of the Images would cause anguish to the wife for the purpose of limb (d) to the definition of “family violence” in s 64 of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 Nevertheless, s 65(1) of the Charter provides that acts short of actual family violence may justify a protection order if they suggest that family violence is “likely to be committed”. It would be “untenable, both as a matter of logic or principle, for the court to only issue protection orders only when actual family violence has been committed.” This “ensures the utility of protection orders as a tool to anticipate a problem before it reaches an irreversible state” (<em>UTH v UTI (on behalf of child)</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22888-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGFC 27</a> at [29]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 Here, the Images comprised multiple photographs and/or videos of the wife in her undergarments and had been taken on multiple occasions. The husband had a startling dearth of insight into the wrongfulness of his taking of them. As he testified in cross-examination, “I did not know that as husband and wife, this could not be done.”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span> Hence, even if this dearth of insight left his acts short of actual family violence, it made likely, absent a material change of circumstances, that the indecent acts of the wife would continue. Hence, even if actual family violence was not made out, there could have been a likelihood of family violence in the form of continual harassment by way of indecent photography and videography that caused the wife anguish within s 65(1) of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 For completeness, I considered the allegations that the husband had threatened the wife and abused her orally: that he had raised his voice at her, “gaslight[ed]” her, and “badmouth[ed]” her. The only evidence on these allegations were the bare assertions of the wife and the bare denials of the husband. No objective evidence was offered in corroboration of these allegations. These allegations were thus rejected.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Necessity</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Even if the taking of the Images by the husband, coupled with his dearth of insight into the wrongfulness of his doing so, disclosed a likelihood of family violence on the wife, a PPO would be justified only if it was “necessary for the protection of” the wife from future family violence. This requirement for necessity is statutorily prescribed in s 65(1) of the Charter and “serves as a safeguard against unnecessary intervention by the court in family matters” (<em>UNQ</em> at [38] citing <em>UHA v UHB and another appeal</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/24410-SSP.xml')">[2020] 3 SLR 666</a> at [72]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 To that end, there had been a material change of circumstances since the wife discovered the Images that rendered improbable similar family violence: the near-complete cessation of physical interactions between the wife and the husband. Since that discovery, the husband had moved out of the matrimonial home, had never returned thereafter, and had never expressed any intention to return. In the six months that had passed since that day, the wife had no unsolicited interactions, physical or digital, with the husband. She had met him physically only once, purely at her invitation and for the primary purpose of serving the documents for her applications for PPOs on him.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> Almost immediately after servicing those documents, she went on her way.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span> She had communicated with him primarily through text messages, and he had been cordial in his messages to her. And he had maintained this cordiality even in the face of the threats made by her. In these circumstances, it was difficult to identify any opportunity for or risk of similar family violence by the husband on the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 Nevertheless, the wife could theoretically have been anguished not only by the taking of the Images but also by the continued storage and possession of them by the husband. However, this was unlikely. The mobile phone on which the Images had been stored had been seized by the police and was no longer in the possession of the husband. The iCloud System had never been and was unlikely to be accessed by the husband. There was also no evidence or even a suggestion that the husband had ever disseminated or would disseminate the Images, even as the wife alleged that the friends of the husband had shared indecent content amongst themselves. In any event, it was not the case of the wife that she had been anguished by the storage or possession or dissemination of the Images by the husband (as distinct from his taking of the Images).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 As the Family Court reiterated in <em>UMI v UMK and UMJ and another matter</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21871-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 53</a> at [51], “a protection order is not intended to be punitive in nature”. That it was wrong for the husband to have taken the Images was not, without more, justification for the grant of a PPO. Only if a PPO was necessary to protect the wife from future family violence could it be granted (see <em>WLP v WLQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29626-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 10</a> at [15]–[16]). And the minimal future physical interactions between the wife and the husband had put paid to that risk. There was thus no justification for a PPO in favour of the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 The wife claimed further that she feared for her safety because the husband had taken indecent photographs of not only her but also other women. But it was not evident, on the evidence before me, that the husband had in fact done so. Those women were non-parties to and did not give evidence in these proceedings. Nor were these proceedings, which concerned PPOs under the Charter, the appropriate forum to examine allegations about acts in respect of non-parties, especially non-parties who were not “family members” within the Charter. I thus placed little weight on this allegation.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Protection of child</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 The wife claimed that the husband had caused hurt to the child and/or placed the child in fear of hurt in three broad ways: photographing the child while the child had been unclothed, “hit[ting] my little girl when he gets frustrated” and “tell[ing] the child that mummy do not want daddy anymore, causing her to feel broken”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span> She added that a PPO was necessary to “protect [her] daughter as well from [the husband’s] pervasive [<em>sic</em>] actions”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 The husband admitted to photographing the child in the bathroom but maintained that he had done so purely innocently and to commemorate a playful moment with the child. He also admitted to hitting the child but explained that he had done so purely to discipline her and never out of frustration.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">I also wish to state that I have never hit [the child] out of frustration.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">If [the child] misbehaves, I will explain to her why she needs to be punished and give her a light pat on the buttocks as part of disciplining her. On the other hand, [the wife] loses her temper easily and hits [the child] if she gets frustrated at her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 Although the causing of physical hurt to a family member was quintessential “family violence”, s 64 of the Charter provides an exception for force “lawfully used … by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age”. This 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 exception is preserved today 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”. Beyond these limits, the behaviour even if consistent with variations in culture, personality, or personal experience would be abuse or ill-treatment and attract state intervention (see 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-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 Still, 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 the correction had been prompted by a desire to impose power over the child rather than for the benefit of the child, the exception would not hold, and the conduct would be family violence. 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”. It must further have been “delivered in a judicious and responsible manner for the child’s benefit” (<em>VYB v VYA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26823-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 121</a> (“<em>VYB</em>”) at [12]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 I found that the physical punishment administered by the husband on the child constituted lawful correction of the child. The husband testified that he had hit the child only to discipline her when she had misbehaved, and only after explaining to the child about how she had erred. This testimony was not challenged by the wife, who agreed that the husband had hit the child only when the child had been “naughty”. Nor did the wife dispute the evidence of the husband that he had never hit the child out of frustration. On a balance of probabilities, the correction had not been excessive.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 I also found that family violence was not established in the allegations that the husband had told the child about the matrimonial problems between him and the wife and had photographed the child in the bathroom. Beyond the bare assertions of the wife, there was little evidence that the husband had told the child about the matrimonial problems between him and the wife. And even if the husband had done so, it was unclear that he did so intending to cause or knowing that it would likely cause anguish to the child. Similarly, the photographs of the child depict a playful scene with the child smiling in the direction of the camera while in the bathroom. This was not inconsistent with the explanation of the husband that he had taken the photographs simply to commemorate a light-hearted moment in the life of the child. It was thus probable that the husband had taken these photographs innocuously. In these circumstances, there had been no family violence or likelihood of family violence by the husband on the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 Given these findings, a PPO for the child was not justified.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Protection of husband</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 The husband alleged that the wife had hit him, pulled his hair, and harassed him by threatening to get him in trouble with the authorities unless he agreed to a divorce on her terms. The wife denied the allegations of physical violence but admitted to sending him text messages demanding a divorce. Still, she maintained that she had demanded a divorce simply to protect the child from the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Family violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 I begin with the allegations of physical violence. The evidence on these allegations comprised bare assertions by the husband and bare denials by the wife. I did not think that these allegations had been proven on a balance of probabilities and rejected them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 I move to the allegation of harassment. This allegation was not stated by the husband in his Complaint. But the allegation was set out by the husband in detail in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief and addressed by the wife repeatedly in her evidence and in her closing submissions. There had thus been, for the wife, ample notice of and opportunities to address this allegation, which opportunities she had availed of extensively. I thus allowed the husband to maintain the allegation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 The documentary evidence showed that the wife had sent multiple text messages to the husband after he had left the matrimonial home on 20 March 2023. These text messages followed her discovery of the Images and the photographs of persons whom she believed to be other women on the iCloud System, and her filing of police reports about the Images and those photographs. In those text messages, the wife badgered the husband to agree to a divorce on her terms. When the husband expressed reluctance about doing so, the wife informed him that “I can afford to play”, that “You’re really in no position to negotiate with me”, and that “You will be even more dead if you drag this out”. The wife also implied that she would stop the criminal proceedings against the husband were he to agree to her demands in respect of their divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 This exchange of text messages began on or around 1 April 2023 with the wife demanding that the husband attend at the office of her solicitors on 3 April 2023 to sign the “divorce papers”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="20.44%"><col width="79.56%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I want a divorce</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I know you want a divorce</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">By then don’t beg me</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">…</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Even if you beg me for help, I may not be able to help you</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Think carefully. You still have one day to slowly think</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I can afford to play. Can you afford to play?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">You’re really in no position to negotiate with me. Think about it carefully.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">What am I playing with you</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Did I negotiate with you?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I’m just telling you I won’t accept your letter.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">You can choose not to accept it</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I can apply unilaterally anyway</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">…</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Monday [ie, 3 April 2023]</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">2.30pm</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Please go to this address and sign for the divorce</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">[Address of solicitors for the wife]</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Bring IC</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">After signing the divorce papers, I will go and cancel the case on Tuesday.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Please set up a company as soon as possible. I will split the name of the factory to you. I will not be taking extra factory money from you. You must use your own company for the name split.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I need to find someone to see first</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Your terms of offer are ridiculous. Really ridiculous.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">So are you going or not</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">If you don’t go I’ll just apply unilaterally. No need to waste time.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I know you don’t have time to wait.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I’m not going to drag this out with you.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">You will be even more dead if you drag this out.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">It’s up to you.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">The choice is yours.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I really miss you</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">I’m just asking you to sign the divorce now. I don’t care if you miss me or not.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">You can’t wait?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">If you want, I will take the time to play with you</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">At most is to play for 1 year. I can afford that.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Don’t beg me at that time.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">If not later you have to pay more legal fees.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Would I want to be with you after what you have done to me? You’ve been talking about it since the 24th, now it has been 9 days, what have you done? And what has your family done? No reply, block me</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Your sister cried so badly at my grandmother’s place. She sounded so caring. When I called her the next day, she denied everything. Which show does she want to put on?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Do you think I am after your money? Even if I have to eat all the bones, I won’t leave even the ashes for you. If you don’t show up to sign tomorrow, I won’t leave any room for mercy for you or your family.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 When the husband did not so attend to sign the “divorce papers” on 3 April 2023, the wife accessed his social media account and used it to inform his sister that the husband “shall be prepared to go to jail”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="16.5%"><col width="83.5%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Wife</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">Today, I had given one last chance, he did not come [to the office of the solicitors for the wife], your elder brother shall be prepared to go to jail.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1">There is no need to talk anymore. No need to ask me to give him a chance anymore.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 I find that the wife had sent these text messages to the husband to procure his agreement to a divorce on her terms. Moreover, these text messages were hostile if not threatening; they promised detriment by way of criminal sanctions unless the husband agreed to those terms. Indeed, these text messages were designed to cause anguish – it was precisely this anguish that would procure the agreement of the husband to those terms. The threats contained in these messages, particularly the one that the husband “shall be prepared to go to jail”, went well beyond any reasonable threat to exercise legal rights. In sending these text messages, which were extortionate, the wife perpetrated continual harassment with the intention to cause or the knowledge that it would likely cause anguish to the husband. This was family violence within limb (d) to the definition of “family violence” in s 64 of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Necessity</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 The parties were undergoing divorce proceedings and remained in communication with each other. The wife had limited insight into the harassment and anguish that her text messages had caused. Even as recently as in her closing submissions in these proceedings that she had made on 18 October 2023, she justified her extortionate behaviour and offered no appreciation of its adverse effects.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 Even if the wife had been anguished by the Images, her extortionate behaviour went well beyond any reasonable expression of that anguish. It persisted weeks after her discovery of the Images. It was also methodical and opportunistic: drawing up a list of demands in respect of a divorce then waving the spectre of imprisonment, shortly after the husband had been arrested, to procure his agreement to those demands. Given the likely continued communication between the parties in respect of their divorce, and even if if there had remained little room for physical interactions between them, a PPO was necessary for the protection of the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 I thus granted the application of the husband and declined to grant the applications of the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 The husband sought costs of $4,000, inclusive of disbursements, for these applications. These applications precipitated proceedings that spanned five mentions and two half-day hearings. The husband had succeeded fully in all the applications, and the sum that he sought was eminently reasonable. I fixed the costs of the proceedings accordingly.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 Ultimately, a PPO is designed to protect a victim from family violence and not to avenge wrongs that he or she may have suffered. My declining to grant the PPO sought by the wife does not derogate from my sympathies for her. Nor does it exonerate the husband, whose taking and storage of the Images without the consent of the wife was egregious. To that end, I was given to understand that the husband was under investigation for possible criminal offences in respect of at least some of the photographs on the iCloud System. Even so, the wrongs of the husband did not give the wife a licence to extort and anguish the husband. That she did so and continued to do so justified a PPO for his protection.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 Despite the breakdown of the relationship between the spouses, they both cared dearly about the child. To facilitate their continued co-parenting of the child, which co-parenting would be in the best interests of the child, I directed the spouses to attend counselling pursuant to s 65(5)(<em>b</em>) of the Charter.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>2NE at p 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>HAEIC at para 17.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>HAEIC at para 18.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>1WAEIC at para 13.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>1WAEIC at paras 14–15.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>1NE at p 74.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>1WAEIC at para 16.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>HAEIC at para 44.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>HAEIC at paras 47–52.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>HAEIC at paras 53–54.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>2WAEIC at p 32.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Complaint at p 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>1NE at p 74.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>HAEIC at p 13.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>1NE at p 74.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>1NE at p 23.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>1NE at p 74.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>3WAEIC at para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>HAEIC at para 25.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>W’s Subs at p 1.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>W’s Complaint Form at p 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>W’s Subs at p 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>HAEIC at paras 37–38.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>HAEIC at pp 43–52.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>HAEIC at paras 53–54.</p></div></content></root>	ec34437d042b3ac45c82311c56610c4c0cb9a069

Links from other tables

11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed