DDN v DDO [2024] SGHC(A) 2

Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Facts

1          The parties married in 2006 and have two children. Mother filed for divorce in June 2021. After undergoing mediation, the parties agreed on uncontested divorce and on the issues of custody, care and control of and access to the children. Two years later, the Mother applied to vary the access orders due to a material change of circumstances. Father then appealed against the High Court’s decision to reduce his generous access rights to the children.

Court's Decision:

2          In determining whether a material change in circumstances exists for the purposes of s 128 of the WC, the court is required to balance several interests. This includes on the one hand, the need for stability in carrying out orders and establishing the post-divorce routine for the child over a reasonable period of time, and on the other, the need to be responsive to new developments.: at [16].

3          Applications for custody, care and control and access should not be weaponised as tools to control or hurt the other spouse. While the court remains accessible to parties who require a resolution to disputes that they are unable to resolve despite their best efforts, this course of action should be the last resort.: at [18] to [19].

4          Where a party does not exercise access regularly and shows no intention to do so, there is little reason for the court to keep such access in the orders as a “paper” structure. It is not desirable that the children are placed in a position where there is uncertainty. Instead, it is in their welfare to know with certainty and regularity their own routines of which days the father or mother will be caring for them.: at [23]. 

5          Even if the Mother was aware of these conversations in 2021 when she agreed to the generous access rights, whether there is a material change of circumstances since then is not to be approached merely from examining the circumstances of the Father but of the children and of the family dynamics.: at [26].

6          The circumstances surrounding the Father’s failure to exercise access and the evidence of his promiscuous behaviour taken in totality give cause for the reduction of access. The reduced access arrangements are not unreasonable; they provide frequent contact between the Father and the children three times in a week and is a better of reflection of how much time the Father will spend meaningfully with the children.: at [28].

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.