UDF v UDG: Child Access Dispute Over Teenage Daughter's Summer Vacation

In a family law case before the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Foo Tuat Yien addressed a request by UDF, the father, for interim access to his 14-year-old daughter, X, who resides in the United States with her mother, UDG. The court declined to order X's return to Singapore for the summer vacation or to grant the father access in the US, citing X's expressed wishes to remain in the US for educational reasons and the need to avoid pressuring her. The court emphasized X's ability to make her own decisions and the importance of respecting her choices regarding her education and living arrangements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Requests declined for daughter to return to Singapore or for father to have access in the US during summer vacation.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court denies father's request for interim access to his teenage daughter in the US, prioritizing her wishes and educational needs.

1.7 Decision Date

3 July 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
UDG	Defendant	Individual	Access request opposed	Won	Kronenburg Edmund Jerome of Braddell Brothers LLP Thng Yu Ting Angelia of Braddell Brothers LLP
UDF	Plaintiff	Individual	Access request declined	Lost	Khoo Boo Teck Randolph of Drew & Napier LLC Ho Wei Jing, Tricia of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Foo Tuat Yien	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kronenburg Edmund Jerome	Braddell Brothers LLP
Thng Yu Ting Angelia	Braddell Brothers LLP
Khoo Boo Teck Randolph	Drew & Napier LLC
Ho Wei Jing, Tricia	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The father requested interim access to his 14-year-old daughter, who lives in the US with her mother.
The parents share interim joint custody, with interim care and control given to the mother.
The daughter has been schooling in the US for the last four years.
The divorce ancillary matters proceedings are pending before the court.
The daughter expressed a desire to continue her schooling in a private school in the US.
The court interviewed the daughter to understand her situation, feelings, and views.
The court found the daughter capable of expressing her wishes and deciding she did not want to come to Singapore for the summer vacation.

5. Formal Citations

UDF v UDG, , [2017] SGHCF 17

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-01-01	Divorce proceedings begun by M in Singapore
2011-01-01	Two psychologist reports stated X was subjected to improper influence by F
2011-01-01	Personal Protection Order No 236 of 2011 granted by consent
2012-05-28	Family District Court granted Order of Court No 9310 of 2012, permitting M and X to relocate to the US
2012-06-04	Relocation order upheld by the High Court vide Registrar’s Appeal No 91 of 2012
2012-06-01	M and X relocated from Singapore
2013-03-01	Supreme Court of the State of New York made an order for the divorce ancillary matters and the issue of their pre-nuptial agreement to be heard in Singapore
2013-07-04	Lai Siu Chiu J dismissed F’s appeal against a Family District Court order refusing to rescind Personal Protection Order No 236 of 2011
2014-02-10	Orders for access were varied
2014-05-01	F’s appeal against the New York court’s decision was dismissed by the New York Appellate Division
2014-08-25	Orders made for parties to undergo joint family counselling and for separate counselling to be arranged for X
2015-02-12	Orders made for parties to undergo joint family counselling and for separate counselling to be arranged for X
2015-08-14	Orders for access were varied
2016-06-24	Dr A provided a counselling report
2016-07-01	F's access to X was to be temporarily suspended pending counselling
2017-02-13	Case conference directing X to come to Singapore for interview and F to have direct WhatsApp communication with X
2017-03-31	Interview with X in Singapore
2017-05-04	Counsel for F wrote to court to inform that X had written to court on her “access and/or communication” with F via post directly to the court on or about 15 April 2017
2017-05-18	Counsel for F wrote to the court stating that, on or about 14 May 2017, X had told F that she had wanted to return to Singapore for the summer break
2017-05-24	The court requested counsel to ask X to forward a copy of her letter to the court’s personal secretary
2017-05-29	Counsel for M wrote to inform the court that M had asked X about the letter that F claimed X had written to the court
2017-06-05	Judicial case conference where F's requests for access orders were rejected
2017-07-04	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Child Access
- Outcome: The court declined to order access for the father, prioritizing the child's wishes and best interests.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Access to child
Child to return to Singapore for vacation

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Family Law
Child Custody
Child Access

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Interim access
Joint custody
Relocation order
Pathogenic parenting
WhatsApp communication
Best interests of the child
Parenting practices

15.2 Keywords

divorce
child custody
access
Singapore
family law
relocation
best interests of the child

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	95
Divorce	90
Child Custody	90
Access to Children	90
Children's Welfare	80
Child Support	70
Parenting	60
Relocation	50

16. Subjects

Family Law
Child Custody
Child Access