WIQ v WIP

[2023] SGHCF 16 High Court (Family Division) 27 March 2023 HCF/DCA 104/2022

4 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

“…the appeal is dismissed.”

Source: [2023] SGHCF 16, High Court (Family Division), decided 27 March 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (Family Division)
Decided	27 March 2023
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Family Law
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Alain A Johns Partnership, Remya A Law Practice, Yeo & Associates LLC, Alain Abraham Johns, Emira Razak, Loh Ya Xin, Remya Aravamuthan

Source: [2023] SGHCF 16, High Court (Family Division), decided 27 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Family Law — Custody — Access Family Law — Custody — Care and control

Practice Areas

Family Law

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (7)

Alain A Johns Partnership Firm

Remya A Law Practice Firm

Yeo & Associates LLC Firm Alain Abraham Johns Counsel for the respondent

Emira Razak Counsel for the respondent

Loh Ya Xin Counsel for the appellant

Remya Aravamuthan Counsel for the appellant

Parties (2)

WIP Respondent

WIQ Appellant

Case Significance

WIQ v WIP [2023] SGHCF 16 was heard in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) by Choo Han Teck J, with judgment reserved on 27 March 2023, in District Court Appeal No 104 of 2022. The parties married on 7 July 2007, have two children [K] (aged 14) and [N] (aged 11), and divorced in 2018. The appeal concerned the District Judge's order in FC/SUM 963/2022 varying care and control so the Mother had care and control of [K] and the Father had care and control of [N], together with additional weekend and weekday access orders. The judgment addressed the appeal against those care, control and access arrangements.

Summary

This appeal in the High Court (Family Division) concerned a father's challenge to a District Judge's order varying the care and control of the parties' two children, under which the mother was given care and control of the elder child and the father of the younger child, together with additional access orders. After interviewing the children, the court found no reason to disturb the split care and control arrangement. It varied the additional access orders to give the siblings more time together during the week, and otherwise dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

What did the care and control order under appeal in WIQ v WIP [2023] SGHCF 16 provide?

The District Judge in FC/SUM 963/2022 ordered that the Mother (Respondent) have care and control of the elder child [K], aged 14, and the Father (Appellant) have care and control of the younger child [N], aged 11, with additional access orders.

What access arrangements were ordered in WIQ v WIP ([2023] SGHCF 16)?

The order gave the Mother overnight access to [N] on odd weekends and Tuesday evenings in other weeks, and the Father overnight access to [K] on even weekends and Wednesday evenings in other weeks, weekend access running Friday 7.30pm to Sunday 9pm.