TTZ v TTY: Child Access Dispute & Committal Order Appeal
In TTZ v TTY [2024] SGHCF 46, the High Court (Family Division) heard the Father’s appeal against the District Judge's decision dismissing his application to lift the suspension of a committal order against the Mother for failing to facilitate his access to their child, C. The Father alleged the Mother engaged in gatekeeping and alienating conduct. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Father had not proven the Mother breached the access orders or failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure access. The court emphasized the need for both parents to foster a healthy relationship with C.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding access to a teenage boy. The court dismissed the father's application to lift the suspension of a committal order against the mother.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Teh Hwee Hwee | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Patrick Fernandez | Fernandez LLC |
4. Facts
- The Father and Mother divorced in 2011, with interim judgment granted in 2012.
- The parties have a son, C, born in 2010, who is now 14 years old.
- A Committal Order was made against the Mother on 9 February 2023 for failing to facilitate the Father’s access to C on 38 occasions.
- The Father applied to lift the suspension of the Committal Order, alleging the Mother failed to comply with access terms.
- The Father alleged the Mother engaged in excessive gatekeeping and alienating conduct since 2012.
- The District Judge dismissed the Father’s application, finding no breach of access orders by the Mother.
- C attended access on seven occasions but refused to leave with the Father.
5. Formal Citations
- TTZ v TTY, , [2024] SGHCF 46
- TTY v TTZ, , [2024] SGFC 57
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married | |
| Child C born | |
| Divorce filed | |
| Interim judgment granted | |
| Start date of Mother's failure to facilitate Father's access to C | |
| End date of Mother's failure to facilitate Father's access to C | |
| Committal Order made against the Mother | |
| Date of access arrangement | |
| Hearing of the appeal | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Access Order
- Outcome: The court found that the Father had not proven that the Mother was in breach of the Committal Order.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to facilitate access
- Alienating conduct
- Excessive gatekeeping
- Lifting of Suspension of Committal Order
- Outcome: The court upheld the DJ's decision not to lift the suspension of the Committal Order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Lifting of Suspension of Committal Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
- Breach of Access Order
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTY v TTZ | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2024] SGFC 57 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed from, where the District Judge dismissed the Father’s application to lift the suspension of a committal order against the Mother. |
| Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 870 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the usual grounds for appellate intervention apply when reversing findings of contempt or setting aside or varying committal orders. |
| Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the criminal standard of proof is applicable in contempt cases, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was intentional and with knowledge of the facts constituting a breach. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof required in contempt of court cases. |
| UNE v UNF | High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2019] SGHCF 9 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step approach to determine whether conduct amounts to contempt of court. |
| PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 828 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step approach to determine whether conduct amounts to contempt of court. |
| WKM v WKN | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 158 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legal obligation of parents to cooperate continues even after the termination of their marriage. |
| TAU v TAT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1089 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legal obligation of parents to cooperate continues even after the termination of their marriage. |
| AZB v AZC | High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2016] SGHCF 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legal obligation of parents to cooperate continues even after the termination of their marriage. |
| VDZ v VEA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 858 | Singapore | Cited for the objective test applied in determining whether a parent is in breach of a court order to exercise all reasonable efforts to facilitate access, taking into account the best interests of the child. |
| KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 905 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court order to exercise all reasonable efforts is not a stipulation for a guarantee that the court ordered outcome would indeed materialise. |
| Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court order to exercise all reasonable efforts is not a stipulation for a guarantee that the court ordered outcome would indeed materialise. |
| CSW v CSX | High Court (Appellate Division) | Yes | [2023] SGHC(A) 23 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can and will step in forcefully where a parent is acting in breach of access orders and seeking to rely on a child’s refusal as a veil for that parent’s own disruption of access. |
| WOZ v WOY | High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2024] SGHCF 11 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that building a meaningful relationship between the parties is not amenable to judicial commands, but requires time, effort and patience on both sides. |
| TEN v TEO and another appeal | High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2020] SGHCF 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the responsibility of the parent with care and control to facilitate the reunion between the children and the access parent, but the law does not “force” children to love a parent. |
| ABW v ABV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 769 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the child is the unseen and unheard victim of a marital breakdown. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 763 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter 1961 | Singapore |
| s 46(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Committal Order
- Access Order
- Gatekeeping
- Alienating Conduct
- Reasonable Efforts
- Parental Alienation
- Care and Control
- Best Interests of the Child
15.2 Keywords
- Family Law
- Child Access
- Contempt of Court
- Singapore
- Divorce
- Parental Alienation
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Access
- Contempt of Court