Â鶹

SINGAPORE: A man who was accused by his daughter of "sexual touch" turned to a family court claiming that his ex-wife had disobeyed court orders allowing him access and joint custody of the girl.

He sought to have her committed for contempt of court and asked that she be jailed for one week for her alleged breaches of the court orders.

In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Nov 26), District Judge Kow Keng Siong found that the man had failed to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed his application.

THE CASE

The divorced couple have two children - a daughter born in 2014, who is now 11, and a son born in September 2011.

Parties were not named in the judgment, as is usual for family court judgments.

In 2019, the daughter alleged on two occasions that her father had touched her sexually.

Police reports were made and the Child Protective Service was involved, with the girl being examined at a hospital.

The police ultimately "decided to take no further action regarding the allegations", the judge noted.

After the divorce, the Syariah Court made orders in October 2020 for joint custody to both parents, care and control to the mother and reasonable access to the father.

This was varied in November 2024 when the father was granted care and control of the son, while the mother retained care and control of the daughter.

The father's access to the daughter was amended to unsupervised access every other weekend.

The father alleged that his ex-wife breached the custody order by arranging psychological assessment and counselling for the daughter at KK Women's and Children's Hospital in 2024 and changing the girl's religious class venue without his consent.

He also claimed that his ex-wife breached the access order by denying him access to his daughter on five occasions between December 2024 and February 2025.

The ex-wife accepted that she had arranged the KKH consultations and changed her daughter's religious classes without her ex-husband's consent.

However, she contended that she was entitled to make those decisions in her capacity as the care-parent, and said her actions did not infringe the father's joint custody rights over the child.

She said her daughter "did not attend access" with her father on the five occasions, but said this was because she was fearful of her father and did not wish to see him.

The court noted that the KKH consultations arose after the daughter's 2019 allegations of sexual touching, when she displayed distress and fear towards her father.

From 2020 to 2023, she received counselling from a psychologist at a Family Service Centre, which her father knew about.

In 2023, the daughter began speaking about the alleged sexual abuse again, and the psychologist advised her mother that it would be best for the girl to obtain more structured professional help to deal with her feelings.

The mother then took her daughter to KKH in February 2024, where she was assessed by KKH's Psychological Trauma Support Service (PTSS) and found to display distress reactions as well as fear and avoidance toward her father.

However, she did not meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The girl attended four PTSS sessions aimed at teaching her coping strategies and helping to manage emotions as of March 2025.

The father argued that any decision for the daughter to see a psychologist was a major decision which must be made jointly, adding that the psychological intervention involved an intrusion into the child's mind and could potentially have long-term adverse effects on her.

Judge Kow disagreed, noting that no authority was cited for this "sweeping contention", which was also inconsistent with case law.

He found that the mother's decision to arrange the KKH consultations was one she was entitled to make unilaterally as the daughter's care-parent.

THE CHANGE OF RELIGIOUS CLASSES

As for the change of venue of the girl's religious classes, the judge said this was not particularised in the father's supporting affidavit as a ground for committal of contempt of court.

The power to punish for contempt of court is quasi-criminal, and the judge said it would be unfair to consider the decision in these proceedings as no permission or leave had been granted to use this as a ground for committal.

On top of this, the circumstances leading to the change of the religious classes form part of the mother's separate personal protection order application.

She alleged that her ex-husband had turned up at the daughter's religious class unannounced, asking to see her and frightening the child.

The woman testified that she changed the venue because she felt it was no longer safe for her daughter to continue having classes there.

This account is hotly contested by the father, said Judge Kow, and it would be "undesirable" for the family court to make definitive findings that might later be perceived as constraining or preempting by the court hearing the personal protection order proceeding.

Therefore, the judge declined to consider the change of religious classes as a ground for committal.

As for the alleged breaches of the access order, Judge Kow said the care-parent bears the burden to show that they have taken all reasonable efforts to comply with an access order, even when it is alleged that the child is unable to see the access-parent or does not wish to do so.

Ultimately, if the care-parent can show that the child genuinely does not wish to see the access-parent, and that he or she has taken reasonable efforts to comply with the access order, it is unlikely that the court will force access against the child's wishes, said the judge.

THE DAUGHTER'S FEAR

In this case, the mother said her daughter was "terrified" at the mere mention of meeting her dad and "resolutely refused" to see him.

The daughter corroborated this account. She said she knew about the access order and understood that she was to see him, but was scared of him, even during supervised access. She said she did not want to meet him.

Other than the alleged sexual touching, the daughter described multiple instances in 2022 where her father draped his arm around her shoulder, hugged her from behind and pulled her closer without her permission in public places.

She found this experience "uncomfortable".

She also recounted an incident during supervised access in 2022 where her father carried her and tried to take her away in a car, causing a commotion that required the intervention of mall security.

The girl also understood that her father had taken her brother for the June holidays in 2022 and did not return him to her mother's care thereafter, and she feared that he would do the same to her.

The judge found that there was a factual foundation for the child's fear of her father.

While he did not make a finding whether the sexual touching incidents in 2019 actually occurred, he noted that the girl's account was not a "recent fabrication".

It was unsurprising that the girl felt uncomfortable at her father's physical contact in public places given the 2019 allegations, said Judge Kow.

A video of the alleged attempt to drive away showed that despite the daughter wanting to remain with her mother, her father had carried her away, forced her into his car and intended to drive off.

The video showed the girl crying.

Although the father claimed that he merely wanted to take the girl to a mosque and did not harbour any ulterior motive, the judge said that the child was clearly distressed by his actions.

It was also undisputed that the father had breached an order by refusing to return his son to the mother after the June 2022 holidays, and the girl's concern that he might do the same to her was "not inherently incredible", said the judge.

He said he was "not persuaded" by the father's submission that his ex-wife had coached his daughter to testify that she did not wish to see him and caused her to fear him.

Judge Kow noted that the girl testified that her mother did not say anything bad about the father to her.

Instead, the mother appeared to have shielded the daughter from her own views about the father, said the judge.

He agreed that in a typical case, it would not suffice for a care-parent to simply say that the child refuses to go for access and that they cannot force the child to do so.

However, this was not a typical case.

Judge Kow said the mother was placed in a difficult position, and that her daughter was "genuinely terrified".

It would not be reasonable to expect the mother to disregard her daughter's emotional state, compel access at all costs and risk retraumatising the child, said Judge Kow.

In conclusion, he told the mother that it was good practice to keep her former spouse informed of developments in her daughter's life, even if not legally obliged to do so.

"A lack of information can breed suspicion. If he comes to discover these developments, he may wonder – 'Am I being cut out of my child's life? What else am I not being told?'" said the judge.

To the father, he said the access order was not a certificate of entitlement to be enforced in disregard of his daughter's emotional state.

"The law cannot compel a child to love a parent. It is difficult to see how imprisoning your daughter's primary care-giver will be in her best interests," said Judge Kow.

"It will not make her less afraid. It will certainly make matters worse."

He told the father to listen to his daughter more, acknowledge her fear of him, even if he believed it to be unjustified, and accept professional guidance on how to move forward.

"The path will not be easy – especially as your daughter is now entering the teenage years. Winning your daughter's affections back will require persuasion, patience, and perseverance," he said.