The court prioritizes the welfare of children in custody matters, determining the best custodial arrangement while addressing parental roles.

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") by the Plaintiff wife for an interim order for, inter alia, sole guardianship, and custody, as well as care and control of the two children of the marriage, who at the time of the hearing, were 20 months old and six months old respectively.

[2] In view of the privacy of the parties and sensitivity of the issues in these proceedings, the Plaintiff, Defendant and their two children have been anonymised in this judgment respectively as REE, VAN, HAK and NAK.

The Factual Background

[3] The Plaintiff, a medical student aged 24, and the Defendant, a dentist aged 36 (collectively, "the Parties"), at the time of the hearing, were married in December 2018, and were blessed with two sons ("the Children"), born respectively in June 2021 and August 2022.

[4] The matrimonial home was the Plaintiff's parents' house, as the couple had resided there after the marriage. However, due to numerous arguments and fights, the Defendant had left the Plaintiff's parents' house in February 2022.

[5] In September 2022, the Plaintiff filed this Application, which was allowed partially, with joint guardianship to both Parties, sole custody, care and control to the Plaintiff, and access to the Defendant. The following are my reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

[6] The starting point to any application concerning guardianship and custody of a child is his or her welfare, as prescribed by s 88 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act"), and s 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 ("Guardianship of Infants Act"), both of which read:

Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976

Section 88 - Power for to make order for custody

(1) The court may at any time by order place a child in the custody of his or her father or his or her mother or, where there are exceptional circumstances making it undesirable that the child be entrusted to either parent, of any other relative of the child or of any association the objects of which include child welfare or to any other suitable person.

...

*****

Guardianship of Infants Act 1961

Section 11 - Matters to be considered

The court or a Judge, in exercising the powers conferred by this Act, shall have regard primarily to the welfare of the infant and shall, where the infant has a parent or parents, consider the wishes of such parent or both of them, as the case may be.

[Emphasis Added]

[7] The nub of this Application was whether it would be in the interest of the welfare of the Children to remove them from the comfort of their current surroundings, especially since they currently had no interaction with the Defendant.

[8] At this juncture, it is important to have a comprehension of the meaning of the phrase 'welfare of the child', which was referenced in a plethora of cases including Teh Eng Kim v. Yew Peng Siong , 1977 MarsdenLR 330 , Mahabir Prasad v. Mahabir Prasad ; [1982] 1 MLJ 189 , Tan Sherry v. Soo Sheng Fatt, and Tan Erh Ling v. Ong Khong Wooi.

[9] I was also guided by the Federal court in Sean O'Casey Patterson v. Chan Hoong Poh & Ors, 2011 MarsdenLR 3719 , in its reference to the Singapore case of Tan Siew Kee v. Chua Ah Boey; [1988] 3 MLJ 20, wherein the expression 'welfare of the child' was explained in the following manner by Chan Sek Keong JC (as he then was), in the following passage:

The expression 'welfare'... is to be taken in its widest sense. It means the general well-being of the child and all aspects of his upbringing, religious, moral as well as physical. His happiness, comfort and security also go to make up his well-being. A loving parent with a stable home is conducive to the attainment of such well-being. It is