XZG v XZH

Facts

The father (XZG) and mother (XZH) registered their marriage in April 2023 and their daughter was born in July 2024. After a heated quarrel in October 2024 the mother moved out with the child, then about three months old, to her parents' condominium. Since then the father had supervised access there for one hour a week, mostly in the living room under CCTV.

In FC/OAG 114/2025, filed on 25 July 2025, the father sought weekly unsupervised access at the matrimonial home, alternating public holidays and special occasions, daily video calls and, in his written submissions, overnight access. He said his access was limited and set by the mother and her parents. The mother accepted he should have more time but wanted access to stay supervised at her parents' home, citing the child's unfamiliarity with him and his alleged inability to cope with her care, including an incident in September 2024 when she alleged he abandoned the child and chased them out. She also asked for an order keeping the child from the father's brother, whom she claimed was a violent drug abuser. The court made orders on 25 November 2025 with brief oral reasons; the father appealed in HCF/DCA 153/2025, and these are the full grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the mother's complaints about the father's conduct justified keeping access restricted.
2. Whether the father's expanded unsupervised and overnight access should start immediately.
3. Whether daily video calls, a fixed review schedule or an order barring contact with the father's brother should be made.

Holding

The court allowed the father's application in part. It ordered weekly supervised visitation at FAM@FSC for 8 sessions, with a review after a report. Pending that, the existing access at the child's residence continued but was extended to 2 hours on a weekday and 2 hours at the weekend, plus special day and public holiday access, make-up access and the help of a third party. It refused daily video calls and the mother's proposed review and contact orders, declined to hear further arguments, and made no order as to costs.

Reasoning

The court accepted the father's explanations. In the September incident he had asked the mother to leave in anger after hurtful words, and nothing else supported the claim that he abandoned the child. His care in the early months was shown by messages, and the complaint about video games was overstated, with no evidence the child was endangered.

Still, the child had not spent extended time with him since she was three months old, did not know the matrimonial home, and often cried during visits. There was no evidence of his plans, venue or readiness for overnight care. The court saw the unfamiliarity as a product of the restrictive arrangements and agreed he needed regular, structured contact, but a graduated approach suited her age, following WQT v WQU [2023] SGFC 30 and its appeal, and distinguishing WAG v WAH [2022] SGFC 17, where the child already knew the father well. The court stressed it was not finding him unsuitable.

Video calls would be unsuitable at her age and likely to worsen tensions. The mother's review and no-contact requests were not made by application, and the allegations about the brother rested on hearsay. Further arguments were not available for these final orders under the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024.

From the judgment