YBQ v YBR

The parties married on 10 December 2006 and have three children. In August 2019 Personal Protection Orders were granted by consent to protect the children against the father, and the family came under the supervision of Child Protection Services; in 2021 a Domestic Exclusion Order was added for the son's bedroom. It was not disputed that in March 2019 the father beat one daughter so that she could not use her hand to write. The father moved out in March 2023. The mother began divorce proceedings, Divorce No 4777 of 2023, and interim judgment was granted on 16 April 2024 on the ground of the father's unreasonable behaviour.

The father, a teacher who also gives tuition, was the breadwinner; the mother became a full-time homemaker early in the 18-year marriage. The parties owned a matrimonial home in the father's name and a rented-out property in the mother's name. The father sought joint custody and claimed the mother had cut off his contact with the children; the mother sought sole custody, saying the children were still afraid of him. Each side sought an uplift in the division for the other's alleged non-disclosure or conduct, and the mother sought maintenance for herself and the children.

1. Whether sole custody should be ordered and whether supervised access should continue
2. Whether the marriage was single-income and what share of the matrimonial assets the mother should receive
3. Whether adverse inferences or conduct justified an uplift for either party
4. What maintenance should be paid for the mother and the children

Sole custody requires exceptional circumstances, citing CX v. CY [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690. The court found the father had been extremely violent to the children, beyond harsh corporal punishment, that he downplayed it and blamed the mother, and that the children's rejection of him was not unreasonable. Forcing access, even supervised, could re-traumatise them, so a psychological assessment was needed first.

Applying TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter [2017] 1 SLR 609, the marriage was single-income. At about 18 years it was moderately lengthy rather than long, and the father's income built the assets, so the mother was awarded 40%. No adverse inference was drawn: there was no prima facie case that the father hid assets, nor that the mother did. The mother changing the lock was not extreme conduct justifying an uplift. The mother's use of rental income for family expenses after the father stopped paying was accepted, so it was not added back.

The mother, aged 47 and able to work, received $2,800 a month for one year, matching her past allowance. The children's reasonable expenses were estimated at about $7,000 a month, and given the father's income and the mother's earning capacity, he was to bear most of that.

The court ordered sole custody, care and control to the mother, suspended supervised access pending a psychological assessment of the children (with video calls if they were willing), and ordered each party to keep the assets in their own names, with the father keeping the joint accounts and the mother handing over five watches. The father was ordered to pay a net $14,670 (spousal maintenance less what the mother owed on division), and $5,500 a month for the children from 1 March 2026. The mother was to vacate the home by 15 August 2026. Each party bore its own costs.