WQT v WQU [2024] SGHCF 3 – A Case Summary

The case signifies the complexities and considerations involved in determining access arrangements for a child of divorced parents. It highlights the importance of balancing the needs and rights of both parents while prioritizing the well-being and best interests of the child. The case also emphasizes the significance of access as a means of fostering a healthy and positive relationship between the child and both parents, even after divorce. Additionally, it underscores the need for careful consideration of evidence and the potential impact of travel time on the access arrangements.

• The appellant father and respondent mother were divorced in August 2022. They have one child, a 4-year old daughter.

• The appellant was appealing the access orders made by the District Judge, which granted him supervised access for 3 hours every weekend.

• The appellant wanted unsupervised access and argued that the 3 hours didn’t account for the travel time, leaving him only 2 hours with the child. He asked for the access time to be increased to 5 hours.

• The respondent objected to increasing the access time. She alleged that the reason for their marriage breakdown was that she discovered the appellant molesting their daughter as an infant by touching her genitalia. She said she witnessed suspicious behavior by the appellant towards the child on multiple occasions. However the District Judge had found there was insufficient evidence to support the respondent’s allegations.

• The District Judge had ordered an initial period of supervised access at a support agency, followed by the 3 hours unsupervised access order which is being appealed.

• On appeal, the High Court judge accepted that travel time reduced the appellant’s access time. However, he could not determine the veracity of the allegations without a trial as both parties gave conflicting accounts.

• The High Court judge held the following: “in the current case, the period of supervised access has ended. The supervised access appears to have gone well. However, the travel time cuts into the parent’s access time, leaving just two hours for bonding. While bonding can occur during travel, it is not ideal. In general, the longer the access time, the better it serves its purpose. Access is not a privilege for the parent but important for the child’s healthy development. Divorced parents should accept that a child with access to both parents will likely become happier and healthier than one with a single parent.“

• New evidence in the form of CCTV video recordings were presented. The matter was remitted to the District Judge to consider this new evidence and determine if the access order needs revision.

• In the interim, the appellant’s access time was increased to 5 hours but will continue to be supervised for another 12 months, after which the parties can apply to vary the orders.

Our lawyers are well-versed in parent-child access issues, call us at 8780-2499 to find out more.