CXR v CXQ [2023] SGHCF 10

Outcome: Orders Made.

Facts

1           Parties were married for 9 years and 9 months and have one child, "C", who was 11 years old as at the hearing of the ancillary matters (“AM”). C was diagnosed with refractory frontal lobe epilepsy at age three and met the criteria for four comorbid neurodevelopment disorders. Among the matters to be decided by the court were the custody, care and control of the Child, and the division of matrimonial assets.

Court’s Decision:

2           Both parents were granted joint custody of C, with further orders that in the event of a deadlock pertaining to matters relating to C’s academic education arrangements for reading, writing and math, the Wife may make the final decision, while in the event of deadlock pertaining to matters relating to C’s extra-curricular arrangements and other therapy, the Husband may make the final decision. Parties were nevertheless cautioned not to approach the matter as if each had sole control over these respective areas stated, for this is at core a joint custody arrangement which may involve both parents discussing, considering each other’s views, compromising and deciding with C’s interests at the forefront. Parties were reminded that it is a legal responsibility to cooperate to co-parent C, and were directed to attend counselling at the Divorce Support Specialist Agencies to gain better insight into C’s needs and to strengthen their parenting abilities.: at [14] to [15].

3           While there were difficulties in cooperating on matters relating to C in the past few years, the parties were also able to sort out many care aspects including having C travel with his father. C has had the physical presence and care of both parents in his life even after the marriage had broken down. Parties were granted shared care and control of C, with a clear routine and structure in the terms ordered to enable C to have a stable and predictable arrangement.: at [18].

4            Stock options which were not yet vested and were subject to continued service with a company for a specified future period are a “chose in action” and were considered matrimonial assets. The “time rule” was applied to determine what portion of the stock options was earned before the IJ date, ie the portion that should be attributed as reflecting the gains of the marriage. The “if as and when” order was deemed to be the appropriate approach for the Wife’s stock options that have yet to be vested, such that the division of these assets were to be postponed until the stock options are exercised and the profits made.: at [54] to [67].

5            The Wife’s entitlement to her company’s pension was a chose in action, which fell within the definition of “matrimonial assets”. However, as the Husband’s ability to benefit from the company’s pension scheme was contingent on the death of the wife, a pro-rated amount of the pension scheme was included in the pool. The court therefore included only the pension that was earned during the marriage into the pool of matrimonial assets: at [71] to [77].

<6>           Applying the broad-brush approach, in determining the parties’ direct financial contributions, it is not appropriate for the court to consider every single item that parties can recall they had purchased for the house. There would have been many such items purchased but not tracked or in one’s memory and therefore not before the court. Furthermore, in the course of upkeeping a family home, it is expected that both working parties will participate in covering expenses for various items.: at [96].

 

7           A broad-brush approach in assigning direct contributions was taken especially as the asset pool included some stock options that have not yet been vested. The direct contribution ratio was reached in broad strokes and should not change even when more shares vest in the future.: at [102].

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.