AD v AE: Custody, Care, Control and Access Dispute Involving DNA Evidence and Paternity Presumption

In AD v AE, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the petitioner (husband) against orders regarding custody and access of the three children of the marriage, following a divorce granted on the grounds of the respondent's (wife) adultery. The primary legal issue concerned the admissibility and weight of DNA evidence suggesting the petitioner was not the father of the two daughters, conflicting with the presumption of paternity under Singaporean law. The court, while acknowledging the DNA evidence was improperly admitted, ultimately upheld the custody orders favoring the respondent for the daughters' well-being, but varied access orders to allow the petitioner access to the daughters and reduced the respondent's access to the son.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part. Custody orders for the daughters to the respondent were upheld, but access orders were varied to allow the petitioner access to the daughters once a month for a trial period. The respondent's access to the son was reduced.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding custody and access, focusing on the admissibility of DNA evidence challenging the presumption of paternity and its impact on children's welfare.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ADAppellant, PetitionerIndividualAppeal dismissed in partPartial
AERespondentIndividualCustody orders upheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nicholas Cheong Fook HingLim Soo Peng and Co
David RasifDavid Rasif and Partners
Michelle WoodworthDavid Rasif and Partners

4. Facts

  1. The petitioner and respondent were married on 25 September 1991.
  2. The daughters, X and Y, were born on 5 January 1995 and 14 November 1996 respectively.
  3. The son, C, was born on 6 May 1998.
  4. The petitioner was granted a divorce based on the respondent’s adultery.
  5. A DNA report indicated that the petitioner was probably not the father of the two daughters.
  6. The respondent disclosed that the daughters were fathered by an unidentified man through artificial insemination and natural sexual relations.
  7. The daughters' attitude towards the petitioner changed after the respondent disclosed that he was not their natural father.

5. Formal Citations

  1. AD v AE (minors: custody, care, control and access), D 3849/2000, RAS 720041/2003, [2005] SGHC 30

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Marriage of petitioner and respondent
Daughter X born
Daughter Y born
Son C born
Divorce proceedings initiated
Decree nisi granted
Wife took the children away
First FAMCARE report issued
Custody proceedings began in District Court; Respondent disclosed petitioner not the father of daughters
Second FAMCARE report issued
Alternate public holiday access to son to wife from 9.00am to 8.00pm
Custody, care and control of son handed to husband
Judge saw family members in chambers
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of DNA evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the DNA report was improperly admitted as evidence because it was not tendered by way of affidavit from the maker of the report.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proof of evidence
      • Conflicting evidence
  2. Presumption of paternity
    • Outcome: The court acknowledged the conflict between the DNA report and the presumption of paternity under s 114 of the Evidence Act but found that s 92 of the Women's Charter provided the court with jurisdiction and power to determine the question of custody.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Jurisdiction to determine custody
    • Outcome: The court held that it had jurisdiction and power to determine the question of custody under s 92 of the Women's Charter, regardless of the DNA evidence.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Custody of children
  2. Access to children

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
SGDC 176District CourtYes[2003] SGDC 176SingaporeRefers to the district court's initial orders regarding custody and control of the children, which were appealed in the present case.
Re A (an infant)High CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR 310SingaporeDistinguished from the present case due to differences in the child's age and the strength of the bond between the child and the non-biological parent.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 47(1) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 114 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 92 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • DNA report
  • Presumption of paternity
  • Custody
  • Access
  • Child of the marriage
  • Artificial insemination
  • Admissibility of evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • custody
  • access
  • DNA evidence
  • paternity
  • family law
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Child Custody90
Family Law90
Paternity70
Evidence70
DNA Evidence60
Succession Law30

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Evidence Law