TAU v TAT: Child Custody, Care and Control, and Access Dispute
In TAU v TAT, the Family Justice Courts of Singapore heard an appeal by the Father, TAU, against the District Judge's decision regarding care and control and access orders for their child, Emma. The Mother, TAT, commenced divorce proceedings in the UK, and subsequent litigation concerned Emma's care arrangements. The High Court, presided over by Debbie Ong J, varied some aspects of the District Judge's orders related to access but otherwise dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding care and control and access orders for a child. The court varied access orders but dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the child's welfare.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAU | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | TAU |
| TAT | Respondent | Individual | Orders upheld in part | Partial | TAT |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| TAU | Independent Practitioner |
| TAT | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- The parties are British and Moroccan citizens who married in the UK in 2005.
- The parties have been living in Singapore since September 2011.
- The Mother commenced divorce proceedings in the UK in July 2014, and a Decree Absolute was granted on 25 May 2016.
- The parties have one child, Emma, born in September 2012.
- The Father sought shared care and control of Emma, along with other specific orders related to access and information.
- The District Judge declined to grant shared care and control but allowed the Father's application in part regarding access terms.
- The parties have joint custody of Emma.
5. Formal Citations
- TAU v TAT, HCF/District Court Appeal No 44 of 2017, [2018] SGHCF 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married in the UK. | |
| Parties moved to Singapore. | |
| Emma was born. | |
| Litigation over Emma’s care arrangements began. | |
| Mother commenced divorce proceedings in the UK. | |
| Appeal to the High Court regarding Emma's care. | |
| Decree Absolute granted. | |
| Father applied to vary orders, seeking shared care and control. | |
| District Judge made a decision regarding care and control and access orders. | |
| High Court heard the appeal. | |
| High Court issued grounds of decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Care and Control
- Outcome: The court upheld the order for sole care and control to the Mother, finding it supported Emma's welfare.
- Category: Substantive
- Access
- Outcome: The court varied some aspects of the District Judge's orders related to access, including school holiday access and Father's Day access.
- Category: Substantive
- Joint Parenting
- Outcome: The court emphasized the importance of co-parenting between the parties, regardless of which party is granted care and control.
- Category: Substantive
- Shared Care and Control
- Outcome: The court declined to grant shared care and control, citing the acrimonious relationship between the parties and their different parenting styles.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Shared care and control of Emma
- Specific access arrangements
- Information regarding Emma's medical and dental consultations
- Responsibility over Emma's immigration matters
- Access to Emma's school meal portal
- Disclosure of the Mother's residential address
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Divorce
- Child Access
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CX v CY (minor: custody and access) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Explained the concepts of custody and care and control, distinguishing between day-to-day decision-making and long-term decision-making for the welfare of the child. |
| AQL v AQM | N/A | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 840 | Singapore | Clarified that shared care and control is different from joint custody; the former relates to the child living with both parents, while the latter is about joint decision-making over major decisions affecting the child. |
| AUA v ATZ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 674 | Singapore | Declined to grant shared care and control, noting that joint custody already means important decisions require consent of both parties and liberal access allows the father to play an active role. |
| TAT v TAU | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2017] SGFC 48 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision in the proceedings below, where it was held that shared care and control of Emma would not be workable because of the acrimonious relationship between the parties as well as their very different parenting styles. |
| ATZ v AUA | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 161 | Singapore | Remarked that a shared care and control arrangement may not be practical when a child commences formal education. |
| TAA v TAB | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 879 | Singapore | Parents must recognise that they must place the needs of their children before their own. |
| Tay Ah Hoe (m w) v Kwek Lye Seng | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 120 | Singapore | Children should never be used as pawns. |
| TRY v TRZ | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2016] SGFC 112 | Singapore | Decision to grant care and control of the child to the wife and access to the husband, instead of shared care and control to both parents, was affirmed. |
| UEK v UEJ | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2017] SGFC 103 | Singapore | While the parties take issue with each other’s parenting style, they must know that it is their divorce that has ultimately taken the greatest toll on the children. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 46 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 124 of the Charter | Singapore |
| Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 3 of the GIA | Singapore |
| Section 125(2) of the Charter | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Care and control
- Access
- Joint custody
- Shared care and control
- Parental responsibility
- Child's welfare
- School holidays
- Parenting styles
- Parental conflict
15.2 Keywords
- child custody
- care and control
- access
- family law
- divorce
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Divorce
- Child Access
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Custody
- Care and Control
- Access