Magistrate Nathaniel Tan of the Family Court dismissed this personal protection order application on 23 April 2026, having heard the matter on 10 April 2026. The applicant, YBX, was the ex-husband who applied for a personal protection order (PPO) and stay away order (SAO) against his ex-wife's father, YBW, on behalf of the parties' son C1 (8 years old in 2026) and daughter C2 (6 years old in 2026). The single alleged incident of family violence had occurred in July 2024 — almost two years before the application — and was known to the applicant only through the account of his ex-wife (RW1), who was called as a witness by the respondent.

The court dismissed the application because the applicant could not prove on a balance of probabilities, as required under s 60A(1) of the Women's Charter 1961, either that family violence had been or was likely to be committed by YBW, or that a PPO was necessary for the protection of the children. The decision also engages the admissibility of hearsay evidence of a child under the Evidence Act. Patrick Fernandez of M/s Fernandez LLC appeared for the applicant; the respondent appeared to have been unrepresented based on the entities data.

[2026] SGFC 55 explained

YBX v YBW ([2026] SGFC 55) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 23 April 2026. It is categorised under Evidence and Family Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 55 about?

YBX v YBW ([2026] SGFC 55) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Evidence – Hearsay Evidence of Child”, “Family Law – Personal Protection Order – Necessity”, “Family Law – Personal Protection Order – Physical Abuse”, and “Family Law – Personal Protection Order – Emotional or Psychological Abuse”, 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 55 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 55 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGFC 49 and [2026] SGFC 31. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

An ex-husband applied under s 60A of the Women's Charter 1961 for a personal protection order and stay away order on behalf of his two young children against his ex-wife's father, based on an alleged incident of family violence in July 2024. The court found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities either that family violence had occurred or that a PPO was necessary, noting the isolated nature of the alleged incident, an unexplained filing delay of nearly two years, and the absence of a causal link between the children's emotional state and the incident. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Why was the personal protection order dismissed in YBX v YBW [2026] SGFC 55?

Magistrate Nathaniel Tan dismissed the PPO application because YBX failed to prove on a balance of probabilities either that family violence had been or was likely to be committed by YBW, or that a PPO was necessary for children aged 8 and 6. The sole alleged incident had occurred in July 2024, known to the applicant only through his ex-wife's account.