XXK v XXL

Facts

XXK, the father, and XXL, the mother, are the divorced parents of fraternal twin boys born in 2014. An Order of Court dated 12 December 2018 in their divorce (FC/D 359/2017) gave them joint custody, with care and control to the mother and alternate-weekend overnight, weekly and Chinese New Year access to the father. In FC/ECAO 2/2025 the father applied under section 126B(2) of the Women's Charter 1961 to enforce those access orders. Because section 126B came into operation on 2 January 2025, only alleged breaches from that date counted.

The father alleged that the mother denied him overnight, weekly and Chinese New Year access to the older child on several occasions in early 2025, obstructed his access and alienated the boy from him. In cross-examination the mother admitted the father had not had access to the older child from 10 January 2025 onwards, but she denied any breach. She said that after weekend access in October 2023 the older child refused to see his father, that she had heard he had been punished severely, and that the boy hid, wrote a note saying he did not want to go to his father's house and threatened self-harm if forced. The District Judge and a Court Family Specialist met the children separately on 25 July 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the mother breached the access order by failing to facilitate the father's access to the older child
2. What interventions under section 126B of the Women's Charter 1961 were appropriate for the breach

Holding

The court found that the mother breached the Ancillary Matters Order by failing to facilitate the father's access to the older child. It ordered both parents to attend a family conference with a Court Family Specialist, ordered the father and the older child to attend counselling at FAM@FSC to repair their relationship and work towards resuming access, and ordered the mother to attend counselling there when FAM@FSC found it beneficial, with format and frequency left to FAM@FSC.

Reasoning

On breach, the court accepted that there were real relationship problems between the father and the older child; the father admitted the boy once ran away from him and described a screen-time episode the boy took literally. But the mother was not free from blame. When the boy said in October 2023 that he did not want to see his father, she told him to tell the father himself and did nothing to persuade him otherwise. Since then she had acquiesced in his resistance and even used a door to keep father and son from seeing each other, which the boy would read as tacit support. The court formed the impression that she did not want the father to meet the older child unless she was present, and found her evidence about a birthday cake and a durian showed she was willing to colour her evidence. Relying on ABW v ABV [2014] SGHC 29, the court said a parent with care and control has a duty to facilitate the other parent's access, and cannot abdicate it by giving in to a young child's wishes. Although the mother did not overtly stop the boy leaving, she failed to facilitate access and so breached the order.

On remedy, the court reviewed the Explanatory Statement and the Second Reading speech for the 2022 amendment, which showed Parliament saw punishment as a last resort and provided make-up access, compensation, counselling and bonds. Given the state of the father-son relationship and the parents' long-running conflict, counselling and a family conference were the appropriate interventions rather than punishment.

From the judgment