WYQ v Child Protector [2024] SGHCF 31

Outcome: Appeal Dismissed.

Facts

1            The mother appealed against the DJ’s order for her two daughters (aged 14 and 11) to be sent to a place of safety for 12 months, with a review in six months. The DJ found that both daughters faced moral danger due to exposure to pornography and were likely to harm themselves and others.

Court’s Decision:

2            Section 53(2) CYPA provides that an affidavit sworn for the purpose of an application for care and protection orders “may contain statements of information or belief with the sources and grounds of the information or belief”, i.e., hearsay evidence. Further, nothing supported the mother’s bare assertion that the school counsellor was unreliable or had ulterior motives.: at [7].

3          The mother’s use of only two data points did not show that the daughters were worse off academically, physically and mentally, following CPS intervention. The daughters may have simply been adjusting to their new environment.: at [8].

4            There is no legal requirement to engage the mother before removing the daughters. The court only needed to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the daughters needed care or protection: see s 11(1) CYPA.: at [11].

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.