VDT v VDU [2020] SGHCF 15

Outcome: Orders made

Facts

1.           The ancillary matters for determination before the High Court were the division of matrimonial assets, custody of and access to the Children, and maintenance for the Wife and Children. The Husband disagreed with the Wife’s submission that the terms of his access to the Children (who were 10 and 15 years old) had to “accord with the Children’s wishes”.

Court’s Decision:

2.           The court made orders on the ancillary matters, and in particular, the court granted the Husband video and physical access to the Children.

3.           It is in a child’s best interests to maintain links with both parents. As a young child may not recognise the importance of doing so, it would not be the child’s best interests to allow the access parent’s access only when the child feels like meeting that parent: at [82].

4.           A parent who moved out of the matrimonial home, away from the family, would to some extent be estranged from the children. This would likely lead to the children’s unwillingness to meet that parent. Subjecting that parent’s access to the children’s wishes would not improve the parent-child relationship. Instead, if there were concerns about the children’s fear of that parent, access could be supervised where necessary: at [82].

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.