ABW v ABV [2014] SGHC 29

Outcome: Appeal dismissed. 

Facts

1  The Husband appealed to the High Court for care and control of the two children of the marriage.

Court’s Decision

2  The High Court held that continuity of arrangements or stability was an important factor for the emotional well-being of a child. However, the fundamental question that a court asks itself when making a decision affecting a child is whether that decision will promote the welfare of the child. The concept of “welfare” was not a narrow one and had to be considered in the widest sense, not just in terms of money or physical comfort. The child’s moral and religious well-being had to be considered together with his other familial relationships, which should be maintained: at [20] and [22].

3  The best interests of a child would depend on the circumstances of the individual case and the individual child. However, that decision is not a subjective one for the judge hearing the case. A number of relevant circumstances should be taken into account when arriving at a decision. The stability factor was just one of such circumstance. Other factors included the need for both parents to be involved in a child’s life, which parent showed greater concern for the child, the maternal bond, the child’s wishes and the desirability of keeping siblings together. No factor was pre-eminent, and everything depended on the facts of the case: at [23] and [24].

4  The courts have observed that a child who understands that both his parents have custody of him and continue to be involved in his life is likely to feel more secure and that the same applied to access orders as well. As far as possible, a child should be allowed to interact with both parents, so that despite the breakdown in relations between the parents, he is assured, to the greatest extent possible, of a normal family life with two parents: at [25].

5  With respect to familial relationships, alienation might not be deliberate and could be multi-causal, involving contributions from both parents and vulnerabilities within the child. If a judge finds that the parent having care and control had been either deliberately or unconsciously interfering with the bond between the child and the other parent, switching the care and control was a potential remedy. A situation where a child who had previous uneventful and loving interactions with the non-custodial parent but now evinced and reluctance to be in contact with that parent may call for this remedy. It may also be that this approach is most helpful when the animosity has recently manifested itself and has not had a chance to become ingrained: at [27] and [29]. 

The full text of the decision can be found here. 


This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.