UNB v Child Protector: Care and Protection Orders & State Intervention in Family Law
In UNB v Child Protector, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the Mother against care and protection orders issued by the District Judge for her two children. The Child Protective Service had applied for the orders, alleging emotional injury to the children due to conflict with the Mother. The High Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Debbie Ong, allowed the appeal, finding that the threshold for state intervention under the Children and Young Persons Act was not met, and emphasized the Family Court's role in managing parent-child relationships.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding care and protection orders for children. The court examined the threshold for state intervention and the balance between private family matters and public care.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNB | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Child Protector | Respondent | Government Agency | Orders Set Aside | Lost | Faith Boey |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Faith Boey | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Parents married on 8 April 2000 and divorced, with the Interim Judgment of Divorce granted on 8 July 2013.
- The Children were first referred to CPS in August 2014 after allegations of ill-treatment by the Mother, but the allegations were unsubstantiated.
- On 4 November 2016, the Children refused to have overnight access with their Mother and were admitted to KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital.
- The Children were noted to be displaying post-traumatic stress symptoms.
- On 27 December 2016, CPS applied to the Youth Court for care and protection orders.
- The District Judge agreed with CPS and made orders for the Children to be placed under the supervision of an approved welfare officer and reside with the Father.
5. Formal Citations
- UNB v Child Protector, HCF/Youth Court Appeal No 2 of 2017, [2018] SGHCF 10
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parents married | |
| Mother commenced divorce proceedings | |
| Interim Judgment of Divorce granted | |
| Parents granted joint custody of the Children | |
| Children referred to CPS | |
| Orders for ancillary matters of the divorce granted | |
| Parents granted joint custody of the Children, with interim care and control to the Father | |
| DJ Singh maintained the order for joint custody | |
| Children refused to leave the Father’s car | |
| Children referred to CPS | |
| CPS applied to the Youth Court for care and protection orders | |
| DJ heard CPS’ application for care and protection orders for the Children | |
| Hearing Date | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Threshold for State Intervention
- Outcome: The court held that the threshold for state intervention under the Children and Young Persons Act was not met in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Emotional Injury
- Outcome: The court determined that the emotional distress experienced by the children did not warrant state intervention.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against care and protection orders
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of legislative provisions, emphasizing the primacy of text and statutory context over extraneous material. |
| ABV and Another v Child Protector | Juvenile Court | Yes | [2009] SGJC 4 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court cautioned against using a blunt instrument in cases which do not necessitate it, even when the child could have suffered some injury to her long term development. |
| BNS v BNT | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 213 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that the focus in family proceedings where a child is involved is always on the child and not the parent. |
| AZB v AZC | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHCF 1 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the court's ability to obtain updated independent reports on children and appoint assessors to safeguard their welfare. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Family Justice Act 2017 (No 27 of 2014) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Care and protection orders
- Emotional injury
- State intervention
- Parental responsibility
- Child welfare
- Family Court
- Youth Court
15.2 Keywords
- family law
- child protection
- state intervention
- emotional injury
- care order
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Welfare
- State Intervention
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Care and Protection Orders