XBV v XBU

The father and the mother married in May 2011 and have two young daughters. In June 2022 the mother moved out with the children to her parents' home and started divorce proceedings. On 29 November 2023 the District Judge ordered joint custody and shared care and control: the mother would have the children from Thursday after school to Sunday evening, and the father from Sunday evening to Thursday. The father did not appeal those orders.

In March 2024 the parents said they could not agree on the Sunday handover time. On 20 May 2024 the District Judge clarified that, since evening conventionally began at 6pm, the handover was to be at 6pm on Sunday, while noting it would not be unreasonable for the mother to hand over at 4pm or 5pm. The father appealed against that part of the decision in District Court Appeal No 62 of 2024 (HCF/DCA 62/2024), asking for a 9am Sunday handover, which the child representative had recommended.

1. Whether the father's appeal against the 20 May 2024 Orders was in substance an out-of-time appeal against the 29 November 2023 Orders.
2. Whether there was any basis to change the Sunday handover time to 9am in the children's best interests.
3. Whether the cases relied on by the father supported a longer weekend with him.

The court accepted that under r 831(3) and (4) of the Family Justice Rules 2014, which still governed because the divorce began in June 2022, it had power to vary orders that had not been appealed. But it declined to do so. The November 2023 orders plainly gave the father the children from Sunday evening, which meant 6pm at the earliest; the May 2024 orders changed nothing. By seeking a clarification months later and appealing from it, the father was trying to reopen the earlier orders after the 14-day appeal period under r 825(b) had passed. Parties must follow the procedural rules to exercise a right of appeal, citing AD v AE [2004] 2 SLR(R) 505. He had not applied to vary under s 128 of the Women's Charter either.

On the merits, the children's welfare was paramount, as restated in WKM v WKN [2024] 1 SLR 158, and shared care and control meant roughly equal time with each parent. A 6pm handover still let the father have dinner with the children and prepare them for school, and he had half of the June and year-end school holidays. A 9am handover would have tilted time disproportionately against the mother. The court was not bound to follow the child representative's recommendation, as s 130 of the Women's Charter makes clear.

The cases the father cited, including AD v AE (minors: custody, care, control and access) [2005] 2 SLR(R) 180 and WXA v WXB [2024] SGHCF 22, involved one parent with sole care and control and so turned on different considerations.

The High Court (Family Division) dismissed the father's appeal as procedurally defective and without merit, leaving the 6pm Sunday handover in place, and awarded the mother $3,000 in costs, including disbursements.