WKM v WKN: Child Custody, Care and Control, and Judicial Interviews in Family Law

In WKM v WKN, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the care and control of their daughter, C. The Mother appealed against the decision of the Family Court to grant care and control to the Father. The Court of Appeal allowed the Father's appeal, reversing the order and granting care and control to the Father, considering the child's welfare, judicial interviews, and child welfare reports. The court emphasized parental responsibility and the need for a stable environment for the child.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding child custody, care, and control. The court considered judicial interviews and child welfare reports, ultimately granting care and control to the father.

1.7 Decision Date

6 February 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
WKM	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Anuradha d/o Krishan Chand Sharma
WKN	Respondent	Individual	Care and control reversed	Lost	Low Wan Kwong Michael, Gulab Sobhraj

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Debbie Ong Siew Ling	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Judith Prakash	Senior Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Anuradha d/o Krishan Chand Sharma	Winchester Law LLC
Low Wan Kwong Michael	Crossbows LLP
Gulab Sobhraj	Crossbows LLP

4. Facts

The parties were married in 2012 and have one daughter, C, born in 2012.
Divorce proceedings commenced in 2016, with initial orders granting joint custody to both parents and care and control to the Father.
The Mother filed police reports in 2021 alleging abuse and neglect of C by the Father and his mother's helper.
The Family Court initially granted the Father care and control, but the High Court reversed this decision based on a judicial interview with C.
The Court of Appeal directed updated child welfare reports to be submitted.
The reports revealed instability, conflict, and unreasonable gatekeeping by the Mother.
C was warded in the hospital following her attempt at self-harm.

5. Formal Citations

WKM v WKN, Civil Appeal No 29 of 2023, [2024] SGCA 1

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-02-12	Parties married
2012-07-12	Daughter C born
2016-09-26	Father commenced divorce proceedings
2016-12-13	Interim judgment of divorce granted
2017-03-17	Orders on ancillary matters granted; interim judgment made final
2019-05-25	Mother married her current husband
2020-02-01	Mother and her current husband moved into their present residence in Punggol
2021-10-29	Mother lodged a police report alleging abuse of C by the Father’s mother’s helper
2021-11-05	Father handed C over to the Mother for her overnight weekend access
2021-11-07	Mother filed another police report against both the Father and the helper, alleging emotional abuse and neglect of C
2021-11-09	Father made an appointment for C to see a counsellor
2021-11-11	Mother filed a supplementary police report alleging physical, emotional and sexual abuse of C by both the Father and the helper
2021-11-23	Father filed summonses FC/SUM 4128/2021 and FC/SUM 4138/2021
2021-11-29	Mother filed summonses FC/SUM 4193/2021 and FC/SUM 4194/2021
2022-01-28	Mother amended SUM 4193, seeking, in addition, sole custody of C
2022-03-09	District Judge made an interim order granting the Father supervised access to C at the DSSA every Saturday from 10.00am to 12.00pm, with effect from 19 March 2022
2022-04-27	District Judge varied the interim order, granting the Father access every Wednesday from 6.00pm to 8.00pm, with effect from 4 May 2022, with access to be supervised by his sister
2022-05-23	Child Protection Social Report dated
2022-06-07	Supervised Exchange and Visitation Programme Report by the DSSA dated
2022-06-15	District Judge further ordered that the Father should have supervised access to C on Sundays from 10.00am to 7.00pm, with effect from 19 June 2022
2022-08-24	Psychological Report from the Community Psychology Hub dated
2022-08-28	District Judge made a consent order that, pending the determination of SUM 4193 and SUM 4128, the Father was to pay the Mother a monthly sum of $500 for the maintenance of C, with effect from 31 August 2022
2023-01-06	District Judge made the final orders concerning the Father’s and the Mother’s applications
2023-01-09	Father was to have care and control of C with effect from Monday, after C’s dismissal from school
2023-01-10	Mother was to have dinner access from 5.30pm to 8.00pm on two weekdays (Tuesday and Thursday), with effect from
2023-01-13	Mother was to have weekly overnight access from Friday, after C’s dismissal from school to Saturday at 8.30pm, with effect from
2023-03-01	Between March and April 2023, the Father alleged that the Mother had attempted to disrupt his exercise of care and control
2023-04-10	Police officers attended at the Father’s residence, following the Mother’s report that raised concerns about C’s safety
2023-04-17	C was discharged from KKH
2023-05-03	Judge heard the parties’ submissions
2023-05-04	Judge conducted a judicial interview of C; Judge allowed the Mother’s appeal and reversed the order on care and control from the Father to the Mother
2023-05-10	Judge declined to make directions for any further updated reports and directed that his orders should stand; C was handed over to the Mother
2023-05-12	Father filed an application in HCF/SUM 136/2023 for a stay of execution of the Judge’s orders
2023-05-16	Father filed an application to the Appellate Division of the High Court for permission to appeal in AD/OA 30/2023 against the Judge’s decision in DCA 2
2023-06-23	Appellate Division allowed the Father’s application
2023-07-05	SUM 136 was subsequently heard and dismissed by the Judge
2023-08-31	Court directed that updated child welfare reports were to be submitted to the court and that an oral hearing be convened
2023-11-02	Court heard the parties
2024-02-07	Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD delivered the grounds of decision of the court

7. Legal Issues

Child Custody
- Outcome: The court granted care and control to the Father, emphasizing the child's welfare and the need for a stable environment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Welfare of the child
  - Parental responsibility
  - Impact of parental conflict
Judicial Interviews
- Outcome: The court provided guidance on the conduct of judicial interviews, emphasizing the need for sensitivity and caution.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reliability of child's views
  - Influence of parents
  - Confidentiality
Child Welfare Reports
- Outcome: The court emphasized the importance of child welfare reports as independent sources of information, while acknowledging their confidential nature.
- Category: Evidentiary
- Sub-Issues:
  - Confidentiality
  - Admissibility of hearsay
  - Reliance on expert opinions

8. Remedies Sought

Sole Care and Control
Supervised Access

9. Cause of Actions

Variation of Custody Orders
Variation of Access Orders

10. Practice Areas

Family Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
BNS v BNT	Singapore Law Reports	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 973	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the paramount consideration in all proceedings involving children is the welfare of the child.
ZO v ZP and another appeal	Singapore Law Reports	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 647	Singapore	Acknowledged that judicial interviews were an important avenue for the views of children to be taken into account.
AZB v AZC	Family Division of the High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHCF 1	Singapore	Echoed the utility of judicial interviews and observed that the issue of the desirability of judges speaking directly to children in parenting disputes has been debated in common law jurisdictions.
AMB v AMC	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 169	Singapore	Judicial interviews were also carried out in the cases of AMB v AMC
UFZ v UFY	Family Division of the High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHCF 8	Singapore	Judicial interviews were also carried out in the cases of UFZ v UFY
TOE v TOF	Family Division of the High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHCF 19	Singapore	Judicial interviews were also carried out in the cases of TOE v TOF
UBQ v UBR	Family Division of the High Court	No	[2022] SGHCF 13	Singapore	Cited as an example where judges have declined to conduct judicial interviews.
CLB v CLC	Family Division of the High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHCF 3	Singapore	Captured the essence of the need for confidentiality in judicial interviews.
Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality)	House of Lords	Yes	[1996] AC 593	United Kingdom	Explained the need for child welfare reports to be confidential.
ABW v ABV	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 769	Singapore	Recognized the utility of child welfare reports as independent sources of information.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 430	Singapore	Acknowledged the confidential nature of child welfare reports and stated that welfare reports contained hearsay, they should remain admissible as any constraints by the hearsay rule may result in the exclusion of relevant information.
TAU v TAT	Singapore Law Reports	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 1089	Singapore	Emphasized that parental responsibility is one of the most fundamental family obligations in family law.
VDX v VDY and another appeal	Family Division of the High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHCF 2	Singapore	Parental responsibility is a personal responsibility.
VJM v VJL and another appeal	Singapore Law Reports	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 1233	Singapore	Both parents share joint custody of C. This requires them to recognise and respect each other’s joint and equal role in supporting, guiding and making major decisions for their child.
WKN v WKM	High Court	No	[2023] SGHCF 25	Singapore	The Judge’s grounds of decision in the court below.
Thompson v Thompson	N/A	Yes	[1986] 1 FLR 212	United Kingdom	In the United Kingdom, the courts have held that a court welfare officer’s report is admissible, even though it contains hearsay
H v H (Minors) (Child Abuse Evidence); K v K (Minors) (Child Abuse Evidence)	N/A	Yes	[1990] Fam 86	United Kingdom	In the United Kingdom, the courts have held that a court welfare officer’s report is admissible, even though it contains hearsay

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014
Rule 36 of the Family Justice Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Women’s Charter 1961	Singapore
Section 125(2)(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961	Singapore
Family Justice Act 2014	Singapore
Section 46 of the Family Justice Act 2014	Singapore
Guardianship of Infants Act 1934	Singapore
Section 11A of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934	Singapore
Section 130 of the Women’s Charter	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Care and Control
Judicial Interview
Child Welfare Report
Parental Responsibility
Gatekeeping
Alienating Conduct
Therapeutic Justice
Paramount Consideration
Welfare of the Child

15.2 Keywords

child custody
care and control
judicial interview
child welfare
family law
Singapore

16. Subjects

Family Law
Child Custody
Judicial Review

17. Areas of Law

Family Law
Custody
Care and Control
Judicial Interviews
Child Welfare Reports