TEN v TEO: Child Custody, Care and Control, Access, and Maintenance Dispute
In cross-appeals before the High Court (Family Division), TEN (the Mother) and TEO (the Father) contested a District Judge's decision on custody, care and control, access, and maintenance concerning their two daughters. The court, presided over by Debbie Ong J, affirmed joint custody, granting care and control to the Father, and ordered facilitated access for the Mother. The court also addressed maintenance, ordering the Mother to pay $1,500 monthly. The appeals were dismissed, with the court emphasizing the parents' responsibility to cooperate for the children's welfare.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed with specific orders made regarding access and maintenance.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Cross-appeals by parents regarding custody, care and control, access, and maintenance of their two daughters. The court affirmed joint custody, care and control to the father, and facilitated access for the mother.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEN | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed in Part | Partial | |
| TEO | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed in Part | Partial | Hing Wei Yuen Angelina, Ng Yu Hui Michelle |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hing Wei Yuen Angelina | Integro Law Chambers LLC |
| Ng Yu Hui Michelle | Integro Law Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- The parents were in a long-drawn and acrimonious parental dispute that began in the courts in 2012.
- The Mother and the Children have not had any meaningful contact since August 2014.
- In May 2013, an order was made granting joint custody of the Children to both parents, with care and control to the Mother and access to the Father.
- In August 2014, both parents filed separate applications for sole custody, and care and control of the Children.
- On 2 February 2016, the Family Court made an interim order that the parents were to have joint custody of the Children, while the Father had care and control of them.
- On 27 December 2016, CPS filed child protection proceedings seeking care and protection orders pursuant to the CYPA.
- The Father repeatedly defied orders for supervised visitation or access by claiming that the Children were resistant.
5. Formal Citations
- TEN v TEO, District Court Appeal No 98 of 2018, [2020] SGHCF 20
- TEN v TEO, District Court Appeal No 99 of 2018, [2020] SGHCF 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Divorce Suit filed | |
| Order made granting joint custody to both parents, with care and control to the Mother and access to the Father | |
| Consent order reached in the divorce proceedings | |
| Both parents filed separate applications for sole custody, and care and control of the Children | |
| Family Court made an interim order that the parents were to have joint custody of the Children, while the Father had care and control of them | |
| Review hearing fixed by the Family Court | |
| Parents were to have joint care and control of the Children, with the Mother having overnight access, school holiday access and public holiday access to the Children | |
| CPS filed child protection proceedings seeking care and protection orders pursuant to the CYPA | |
| Mother filed FC/SUM 117/2017 seeking orders for sole custody and care and control | |
| Youth Court made final interim orders | |
| DJ determined that it was not appropriate to vary the August 2016 order or to make further orders on care and control and access while YA 2 was pending, and declined to make any orders | |
| Court allowed the Mother’s appeal in YA 2 against the care and protection orders | |
| The family was referred to the DSSA | |
| Father filed FC/SUM 1440/2018 in the Family Court seeking orders for sole custody and care and control | |
| DCA 156 was fixed to be heard in the High Court (Family Division) | |
| DJ heard SUM 117 and SUM 1440 together and made orders | |
| Court heard and dismissed the Mother's appeal against the decision to refuse the application to stay the execution of the orders | |
| Court directed the parents and the Children to attend “family conferences” to be fixed and managed by CAPS | |
| Court recorded an interim consent order | |
| Final hearing for the present appeals was fixed | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Custody
- Outcome: The court affirmed joint custody, rejecting arguments for sole custody from either parent.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690
- Care and Control
- Outcome: The court affirmed care and control to the Father, finding it not appropriate to reverse care and control to the Mother.
- Category: Substantive
- Access
- Outcome: The court ordered the Mother to cease direct contact with the Children until they are ready and willing to meet her, with therapeutic support.
- Category: Substantive
- Maintenance
- Outcome: The court ordered the Mother to pay $1,500 monthly as maintenance for both Children, effective from the date of the decision.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 4 SLR 921
- [2011] 3 SLR 955
8. Remedies Sought
- Sole Custody
- Care and Control
- Access
- Maintenance
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Child Custody
- Child Access
- Child Maintenance
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNB v Child Protector | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for setting aside care and protection orders and reminding parents of their duty to cooperate in safeguarding the interests of the children. |
| VDZ v VEA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 858 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the family justice system is intended to aid parties in achieving healing and moving forward positively. |
| TEN v TEO | Family Court | Yes | [2018] SGFC 17 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge's decision not to make any further orders on care and control and access while YA 2 was pending. |
| TEN v TEO | Family Court | Yes | [2018] SGFC 112 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge's orders on custody, care and control, access, and maintenance. |
| CX v CY (minor: custody and access) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an order for sole custody of a child is only made in exceptional circumstances. |
| VDZ v VEA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 921 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the obligation to maintain a child does not vary according to whether the parent has access or the quality of the personal relationship the parent has with the child. |
| AMW v AMZ | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 955 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a decision to backdate maintenance was within the discretion of the Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Custody
- Care and Control
- Access
- Maintenance
- Parental Alienation
- Child Protection
- Therapeutic Support
- Joint Custody
- Supervised Access
15.2 Keywords
- family law
- child custody
- child access
- child maintenance
- divorce
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Child Access
- Child Maintenance
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Custody
- Care and Control
- Access
- Maintenance