XXQ v XXR
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kenneth Yap |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | Bih Li & Lee LLP, Ong Ying Ping Esq, Ong Ying Ping, Wang Liansheng |
Source: [2026] SGFC 101, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
XXQ v XXR [2026] SGFC 101 was decided by District Judge Kenneth Yap in the Family Court on 27 July 2026, in respect of orders made on 12 June 2026. The parents, both 36, were married on 20 June 2016 and have a seven-year-old son. The Father sought interim overnight and overseas access, which the Mother resisted on the basis that the child was allegedly on the autistic spectrum. The Mother appealed against the order to hand over the child's passport by 18 June 2026. The court applied the welfare principle in s 125 of the Women's Charter 1961 and the factors in TSF v TSE [2018] SGCA 49, noted no formal autism diagnosis, and found overnight sessions since 17 April 2026 largely uneventful. It granted the Father overseas access from 14 to 27 June 2026.
Summary
The Family Court gave its reasons for interim access orders in a divorce between parents of a seven-year-old boy. The Mother had appealed an order of 12 June 2026 requiring her to hand over the child's passport to the Father for overseas access in the June 2026 holidays. The court held that the child's welfare favoured a step-up to overnight and overseas access, noting the Mother had herself travelled overseas with the child, and that no formal autism diagnosis had been made. The orders allowed the Father overseas access from 14 to 27 June 2026.
What was XXQ v XXR [2026] SGFC 101 about?
It concerned a Father's request for interim overnight and overseas access to his seven-year-old son, and the Mother's appeal against an order to hand over the child's passport so that the Father could travel overseas in the June 2026 holidays.
Why did the court allow overseas access in [2026] SGFC 101?
The court found the Father's access had been smooth, overnight sessions largely uneventful, and no formal autism diagnosis existed. The Mother had travelled overseas with the child herself, so overseas travel was not the real issue, and equal overseas access was appropriate.
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 101)