CXR v CXQ

The mother, a Singapore citizen, and the father, a British national, married on 12 February 2011 and moved to Singapore in September 2012. They divorced, and in 2022 the court made orders in HCF/ORC 26/2023 for joint custody and shared care and control of their son, born on 15 December 2011. Each parent had the final say on certain matters in an impasse. The son has refractory frontal lobe epilepsy and several developmental conditions, and his seizures have worsened over the past two years.

The father has since moved to the UK, while the son lives with the mother in Singapore. On 9 December 2024 the mother applied in HCF/OADTV 2/2024 to vary the orders, seeking sole custody and sole care and control. The father filed a cross-application in HCF/SUM 172/2025, but later said that documents filed by his former solicitor were wrong, and after several adjournments he did not file his intended cross-application. The court made interim orders in October 2025 giving the mother interim sole care and control. At the hearing the father said he wanted shared care and control in the UK, where he said he could care for the son full-time and services were free. He said he did not wish to return to Singapore, where a warrant of arrest had issued after he failed to attend maintenance enforcement proceedings.

In 2024 the son was not returned from the UK for the school term as arranged, and the mother obtained a return order from the UK court. Separately, the father withdrew consent for scheduled medical procedures at a UK hospital, and the UK court dispensed with his consent.

1. Whether there had been a material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody orders, and whether the mother should have sole custody.
2. Who should have care and control of the son, and what access the father should have.

The judge first explained why she would not delay further: the father had been given repeated extensions, and prolonged litigation and parental conflict harm children, so finality served the son's welfare.

On custody, the parents' relationship had deteriorated sharply since the 2022 orders, with several sets of proceedings between them, a breakdown in communication, and two episodes that needed the UK courts to resolve. Together with the father's move abroad, this was a material change in circumstances under s 128 of the Women's Charter. Sole custody is reserved for exceptional cases, and hostility alone does not make joint custody unworkable. Joint custody kept the father involved and required the mother to consult him. But the impasse provisions had to cover healthcare, so that urgent medical decisions were made in time, and the mother, who lived with the son, was better placed to have the final say. The judge stressed that such provisions are not made merely because there is some acrimony.

On care and control, shared care was unworkable with the parents in different countries. The son's medical care, specialised school support and long-established roots were in Singapore, and the father had not shown how these needs would be met in the UK. Because the son loves his father, generous video access was ordered, with the mother allowed to stay within earshot only for safety given the seizure risk.

Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD allowed the mother's application in part and varied the earlier orders. Joint custody continued, but the mother was given the final decision in any impasse over the son's healthcare, education, extra-curricular arrangements or other therapy; her request for sole custody was refused. The mother was granted sole care and control. The father was given video access five times a week for up to 60 minutes per session, with physical access to be agreed and liberty to apply. No orders were made on the father's summonses. The father was ordered to pay costs of $7,000 (all-in).