YBX v YBW

In SSP 61/2026 the applicant, YBX, sought a personal protection order and a stay away order against YBW, the father of his ex-wife. He applied on behalf of his son, C1, and his daughter, C2, aged 8 and 6 in 2026. The application rested on a single incident in July 2024 at the respondent's home, which the applicant did not witness. He learned of it from voice notes his ex-wife sent him over WhatsApp. In them she said C2 had told her that the respondent hit her hand, and she described the respondent scolding C1. The respondent called the ex-wife as his witness.

The applicant was incarcerated from September 2024 to May 2025 and filed the application on 9 January 2026. He said he only learned that a protection order was an option from a counsellor in late 2025. The Family Court dismissed it on 23 April 2026.

1. Whether the applicant proved that the respondent had hit C2 and so committed physical abuse.
2. Whether the respondent's scolding of C1 amounted to emotional or psychological abuse under s 58B of the Women's Charter 1961.
3. Whether a protection order was necessary for the children's protection given the delay in applying.

The court first noted that the applicant's evidence was almost all hearsay. It could weigh it only because the ex-wife gave evidence, and the respondent did not object to C2's statements being considered. It also found the delay of about a year and a half hard to explain: the incarceration began two months after the incident and ended more than seven months before filing. The court did not accept the account about the counsellor, and the delay hurt the applicant's credibility.

On the alleged hitting, the court applied Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569 and WKM v WKN [2024] 1 SLR 158. A four-year-old's account calls for corroboration, and there was none, such as photographs, medical attention or another witness. The ex-wife's unchallenged evidence was that she checked C2's finger and saw no injury. Her view that C2 was always truthful spoke only to character. The applicant failed to prove the hitting, and any harm would have been de minimis.

On the scolding, the respondent admitted it and explained that C1 had dropped food on the floor and was not eating at the table. The court accepted that explanation as reasonable and found the scolding proportionate. Following XZU v XZV [2026] SGFC 31, there must be demonstrable mental harm beyond ordinary unhappiness, and there was no evidence of any. Viewed objectively, a grandparent disciplining a misbehaving child is an ordinary interaction. A June 2025 video of C2 crying showed no causal link to the incident.

On necessity, the court applied UNQ v UNR [2020] SGHCF 21. Continued contact matters only if violence was committed or likely. The July 2024 incident was isolated, the ex-wife had reported nothing since, and the delay had no reasonable explanation. A protection order is not lightly made because breaching one has penal consequences.

The Family Court dismissed SSP 61/2026 in its entirety. The applicant proved neither family violence nor the need for a protection order, so the application for a stay away order failed as well. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.