XZE v XZF

Facts

The parties married in November 2011 and have one child, now 13 years old, who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The mother filed for divorce in August 2024 in Divorce No 3679 of 2024, and interim judgment was granted in February 2025. Every ancillary matter was settled by consent except maintenance for the child. The Ministry of Education had found that the child needs a special needs education. The real dispute was that the mother wanted a private special needs school while the father said a government special needs school would meet the child's needs.

The mother filed a report from a private psychiatrist dated 22 September 2025 with her Affidavit of Assets and Means without the court's leave. After the father objected, she was directed to apply properly and filed Sum No 2667 of 2025, attaching a second report dated 22 October 2025 from a National University Hospital consultant. The first report was expunged. The parties did not agree on a joint expert, as the court had hoped, because the mother did not follow directions to propose experts and issues. The application, under Rule 35 of the Family Justice Rules 2014, sought leave to rely on both reports and for the child to be assessed by an expert. It was heard by an Assistant Registrar in the Family Court, and the mother has appealed the decision.

Issues

1. Whether Rule 35 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 applied to the two medical reports at all.
2. Whether leave should be granted under Rule 35(4) to admit the two existing reports.
3. Whether leave should be granted under Rule 35(1) for the child to be examined by an expert for these proceedings.

Holding

The Family Court dismissed the mother's application, refusing leave to adduce the two medical reports and refusing leave for the child to be examined and assessed for expert evidence. Costs, if any, were reserved to the ancillary matters hearing.

Reasoning

The court rejected the argument that the reports were routine clinical notes outside Rule 35. They were plainly obtained for the litigation: the first was addressed to the mother's counsel and the second was obtained only after the father objected to the first. Allowing such reports in without leave would defeat the purpose of Rule 35(4).

On leave to admit the reports, the court found expert evidence unnecessary on the four areas the mother listed. It was not disputed that the child needed a special needs school, and neither report addressed the actual question of private against government special needs schooling; the first compared only a mainstream school with a private one. The court relied on XAB v XAC [2024] SGFC 53, which requires clarity on why expert evidence is needed and what it will answer. It also found the mother had mischaracterised the dispute as mainstream against special needs schooling. Following UUQ v UUR [2024] SGFC 106 and UVM v UVN [2019] SGFC 56, reports prepared without the other parent's involvement carried little weight.

On a fresh examination, the child's welfare was paramount and Rule 35 exists to spare children unnecessary psychological assessment. The information the mother wanted could be obtained less intrusively by asking the schools directly about their support, therapy and transition arrangements. Affordability was for the judge deciding maintenance, not for doctors, and an expert report would add time and cost and delay the only remaining issue.

From the judgment