YAO v YAP

Facts

The father (YAO) and the mother (YAP) married on 31 December 2023 after a relationship in which their daughter, L, was born on 10 September 2020. The marriage broke down around the middle of 2024 and the father moved out. L lived with the mother and the father had regular access. Because the marriage had lasted less than three years, neither could yet file for divorce.

The father filed FC/OAG 161/2025 to formalise the agreed access and deal with overseas travel. His counsel said the parties were likely to divorce within a year or two and argued that contentious questions such as care and control should wait for those proceedings. The mother filed FC/OAG 181/2025 seeking clear interim care and access orders, citing co-parenting difficulties and the uncertainty over when any divorce would happen, and pointing out that L would start primary school in 2027. The parties agreed on joint custody and many access details, which District Judge Kevin Ho embodied in orders sent by Registrar's Notice in early March 2026. These grounds deal with the contested points.

Issues

1. Whether a care and control order should be deferred until future divorce proceedings
2. Whether the mother should have sole care and control or the parents shared care and control
3. Whether the father's weekday overnight access should continue after L starts primary school
4. What limits should apply to overseas travel, school holiday, public holiday and special occasion access

Holding

The court made interim orders, all under OAG 161 and none under OAG 181: sole care and control to the mother; continued weekly overnight access for the father, including after primary school starts; overseas trips limited to 7 days for the father in 2026 and up to 14 days for each parent from 2027; and detailed school holiday, public holiday, birthday and Father's Day arrangements. The orders last until the end of any divorce proceedings or further order. Each party bore its own costs.

Reasoning

The child's welfare is paramount under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934. With the parents living apart, access already in place and the timing of any divorce uncertain, an interim care order was needed to give L certainty, particularly as she begins school.

Shared care was not suitable because the parents could not cooperate well enough, and it would likely cause more conflict once L is in school. The father's own proposed arrangement, two full days a week with L living with the mother otherwise, was in substance sole care; following VJM v VJL [2021] 5 SLR 1233, shared care is not granted as a label. Each side's allegations about the other's conduct were largely hyperbole and not relevant to their ability to care for L, and the court declined to dwell on them in keeping with therapeutic justice.

The mother's concern that weekday overnight access would disrupt schooling was speculative; unlike the father in VXM v VXN [2021] SGHCF 42, this father had flexible work and already took L to school. On travel, a limit was justified in the first year for acclimatisation, but nothing showed why it should last until L turned nine. No special restriction was needed for the 2027 June holidays given the father's experience of overnight care. The court warned against a mechanical focus on hours of access and against treating a child's time as a commodity. Since neither side was more successful, no costs order was made.

From the judgment