YAO v YAP

[2026] SGFC 40 Family Court 20 March 2026 FC/OAG 161/2025 · FC/OAG 181/2025 21 min read
7 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court Family Court
Decided
Judge Kevin Ho
Charges / claim Family law
Counsel Drew & Napier LLC, Josephine Chong LLC, Hoon Shu Mei, Josephine Chong, Joyce Rappa

Source: [2026] SGFC 40, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (5)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

In YAO v YAP [2026] SGFC 40, District Judge Kevin Ho of the Family Court on 20 March 2026 resolved cross-applications for guardianship, care and control, and access orders in respect of a daughter L, born 10 September 2020, whose parents married on 31 December 2023 after a prior relationship. Because the marriage had subsisted for less than three years at the time of the breakdown in mid-2024, the parties could not yet file for divorce, making interim guardianship applications under the Guardianship of Infants Act the only available avenue. The father (YAO) and mother (YAP) each filed separate originating applications — FC/OAG 161/2025 and FC/OAG 181/2025. L was living with the mother, with the father having regular access, and was due to begin primary school in 2027. Josephine Chong of Josephine Chong LLC represented the father; Hoon Shu Mei and Joyce Rappa of Drew & Napier LLC acted for the mother.

[2026] SGFC 40 explained

YAO v YAP ([2026] SGFC 40) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 20 March 2026. It is categorised under Family law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGFC 40 about?

YAO v YAP ([2026] SGFC 40) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family law — Guardianship – Access – Order for access pending future divorce proceedings” and “Family law — Guardianship – Care and control – Whether interim order for care and control required when parties intend to divorce in the future”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGFC 40 consider?

The judgment refers to Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 40 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHCF 22. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2026] SGFC 40?

Within this corpus, [2026] SGFC 40 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Why could the parents in YAO v YAP [2026] SGFC 40 not file for divorce when seeking custody orders?

The parties in YAO v YAP married on 31 December 2023 but their marriage broke down in mid-2024. Because Singapore divorce proceedings require the marriage to have subsisted for at least three years, they had to pursue guardianship applications under the Guardianship of Infants Act instead.

What interim family orders did District Judge Kevin Ho decide in YAO v YAP [2026] SGFC 40?

District Judge Kevin Ho determined cross-applications for custody, care and control, and access concerning daughter L (born 10 September 2020), balancing the father YAO's FC/OAG 181/2025 and the mother YAP's FC/OAG 161/2025 applications, with judgment delivered on 20 March 2026.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (7)

SG (4)
[2021] SGHCF 42 [2024] SGHCF 22 [2025] SGFC 43 [2025] SGFC 49
SLR (3)
[2014] 2 SLR 769 [2018] 5 SLR 1089 [2021] 5 SLR 1233

Cited By (1)

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Legal concepts & references

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 40)