Chan Sek Keong JC

This is an application by the plaintiff for custody, care and control of his illegitimate son, viz Tan Kong Wei, who was born on 27 May 1986. The defendant is the mother of the child.

On 9 November 1987, I granted custody of the child to the plaintiff after reading the affidavits filed herein and hearing counsel for both parties. I did not consider it necessary nor did counsel ask for oral testimony to be given in open court notwithstanding the many issues of fact in dispute between the parties.

The undisputed facts are as follows. The plaintiff met the defendant in 1984 when she was married to but living separately from her husband, established a liaison with her and lived with her for three years, during which the child was born. Whether or not the husband of the defendant knew of the adulterous relationship of the defendant is not disclosed in the affidavit but on 7 August 1985, the defendant was granted a decree nisi in divorce no 482 of 1985 on the ground of unreasonable behaviour on the part of the husband. By consent of the parties, custody of the child of the marriage, a son born on 12 September 1981, was given to the husband with reasonable access to the defendant.

As a result of frequent quarrels between the plaintiff and the defendant, she left him on 16 January 1987 and took with her the child to her sister's home in Bedok. At that time, the plaintiff and the defendant had been living in a Housing Board flat in MacPherson Lane since May 1986. The flat was bought by him in the name of the defendant and his elderly aunt. At the date of this application, the plaintiff was still living with his son and his aunt in the flat.

After she left the plaintiff, the defendant did not or could not look after the son personally. The son was looked after by her sister from January to May 1987. The sister has filed an affidavit stating that she was paid about $400 per month by the defendant for taking care of the child whereas the plaintiff has deposed that he paid the sister $450 per month to look after the child on the understanding that the child would be brought back to him on Saturdays and Sundays.

The sister has alleged that the plaintiff took the child back in May 1987 (presumably without her permission) and refused to return him the defendant. There is, however, no evidence or allegation that the defendant did demand the return of the child. The plaintiff's version is that the sister brought the child home to him in a lean and sickly condition. Whatever the truth of this may be, the fact was that by June 1987, the sister was (on her own admission) no longer able to look after the child because she started work in a garment factory and was not even able to look after her own daughter (who had to be looked after by her sister-in-law).

The plaintiff says that he loves his son very much and that he is presently being looked after by his aunt when he is out of the house. He pays a sum of $450 a month to his aunt to look after his son. The aunt is elderly and unmarried and the plaintiff is confident that his son will grow up with good values under his care and that of his aunt.

The plaintiff says that the defendant is a gambler and addicted to mahjong and that since the birth of the son has neglected to look after the son by going out early in the morning and coming back at night. That was one of the reasons for their having frequent quarrels. Because of this, he had to employ a baby sitter to look after the son when the defendant went back to work as a hairdresser about a month after his birth. The defendant has, of course, denied that she is a gambler but has not denied that she plays the occasional game of mahjong. She was in October 1987 seen by a private investigator (employed by the plaintiff) entering a house in Aljunied Road, where the people inside were observed to be playing 'paikow' and mahjong. She was also been playing mahjong in the rear of her hairdressing shop. The defendant, however, has denied