1 This was a dispute between a Father and his two elder daughters (“D1” and “D2”). This led to the cross-applications for protective orders under Part 7 of the Women’s Charter 1961 in the four applications before me:

(a) SSP 1262 of 2025 (“SSP 1262”) was D1’s application against the Father. She sought a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) as well as a Domestic Exclusion Order (“DEO”) for her own bedroom in the flat at [XXX].

(b) SSP 1263 of 2025 (“SSP 1263”) was D2’s application against the Father. She sought a PPO as well as a DEO for her own bedroom in the flat at [XXX]. She also sought a Mandatory Treatment Order (“MTO”) as well as a Counselling Order (“CGO”) against the Father.

(c) SSP 1881 of 2025 (“SSP 1881”) was the Father’s application against D1. He sought a PPO against D1.

(d) SSP 1882 of 2025 (“SSP 1882”) was the Father’s application against D2. He sought a PPO against D2.

2 These four applications were fixed for trial before me and first came up for hearing on 15 January 2026. I heard the trial of the matter over several days. At the hearing, D1 and D2 were represented by Mr Arthur Lim (“Mr Lim”) and Mr Rohan Dave Rao (“Mr Rao”). The Father was self-represented.

3 Upon conclusion of the trial, parties presented oral arguments. I reserved judgment and handed down my decision with brief grounds on 18 June 2026 where I dismissed the Father’s application against D1 and D2, and allowed D1 and D2’s respective applications against him.

4 The Father has filed an appeal against my decision to dismiss his application against D2 in SSP 1882. There is, as far as I know, no appeal filed in respect of my decision given for SSP 1262, 1263 and 1881.

5 Given that all four matters were heard together, and my oral grounds also dealt with all four applications, this judgment sets out the reasons for my decision in respect of all four applications.

6 I begin with the law. The regime relating to family violence is found in Part 7 of the Women’s Charter 1961. To succeed in an application for a PPO, the applicant must establish the following elements on a balance of probabilities: s 60A(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961.

7 First, that the respondent had committed family violence, or was likely to commit family violence, on the person sought to be protected under the order. Here, the statutory wording makes clear that it is not necessary for an applicant to prove that an act of family violence had been committed – it also suffices to demonstrate that family violence is likely to be committed: XFL v XFM [2024] SGFC 103 at [16].

8 Second, that the order is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the person sought to be protected under the order. Here, the central inquiry examines the future likelihood of the respondent committing family violence against the person sought to be protected under the order. Red flags indicating a real risk of future family violence being committed include, amongst other things, the fact that the underlying cause of family violence remains unresolved or that the respondent is deeply antagonistic towards the person sought to be protected: XFL v XFM [2024] SGFC 103 at [21].

9 Having briefly sketched out the broad applicable legal principles, I deal with one other preliminary point. I had noticed that there were several paragraphs in both D1 and D2’s affidavits which were textually similar to each other.

10 The Father had latched on to these similarities and claimed it supported his case that the Mother had instigated D1 and D2 to file these applications against him.

11 I thought that there was a simpler explanation for these similarities. For one, both D1 and D2 were both involved in several of these incidents complained of. Further to that, these affidavits were clearly drafted with the assistance of lawyers.

12 That said, it bears emphasising, once more, that an affidavit is a significant document as it contains the evidence which the witness intends to present to court: United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others [2018] 4 SLR 391 at [63]; Kupetz, Jonathan v Terraform Labs Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC(I) 9 at [30] – [31]. Textual similarities between affidavits presented by two different witnesses raises questions as to exactly what each witness had seen and heard, and whether their evidence had been contaminated through any conversations they may have had with each other.

13 In the circumstances, I would therefore accord less weight to what D1 and D2 had written in their respective affidavits.

14 In any event, the findings I have made, which are set out in the paragraphs below, were arrived at mainly based on the oral testimony I had heard, the demeanour of the witnesses, as well as the various videos and documentary evidence exhibited.

15 This section sets out, briefly, my findings in relation to the various material allegations of family violence that D1, D2 and the Father had set out in their respective complaint forms.

16 D1 cited an incident in May 2025. She said that she was drying her hair whilst her parents were talking. She claimed that the Father was “suddenly triggered” and that he tried to throw things towards her and the mother. She also alleged that the Father would occasionally start throwing things at her and threatened to dispose of her belongings. D1 stated, in her complaint form, that this amounted to physical abuse.

17 This was what D1 had said about the incident in her affidavit: ¹

18 I did not find that the Father had committed family violence on D1 in this incident. The definition of physical abuse as set out in s 58B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961 makes clear that it includes conduct or behaviour that “causes, or threatens to cause, personal injury or physical pain to a person; or threatens a person with the death or injury of the person”.

19 No details of what the Father had thrown at D1 were given, nor was this a point explored by Mr Lim with D1 during examination-in-chief. In any event, D1’s account as set out in her affidavit was that the Father had tried to throw things at her in this incident in May 2025. Therefore, even on her own account, it does not appear that the Father had actually thrown anything at her.

20 In addition to this incident, D1 also cited another incident that had occurred in November 2024. Both D2 and the Father had also cited this incident in support of their respective applications. My findings in respect of this incident are set out at [22] – [40] below.

21 Notwithstanding my findings in respect of the incidents D1 had set out in her complaint form, it was evident from her testimony as well as the contents of her affidavit the quarrel she had with the Father was actually with his pattern of behaviour towards her (which included, amongst other things, various acts of harassment) which caused her to feel tormented and distressed. As I explain in the paragraphs below (at [75] – [84]), I was satisfied that the Father was likely to inflict family violence on both D1 and D2, and that it was indeed necessary to grant the orders they sought.

22 The Father had also cited this incident in support of his application against D2 in SSP 1882.

23 This was D2’s account of events as was set out in her complaint form.

24 On that day, the Father was in the process of throwing the Mother’s belongings out of the flat. D1 intervened. D2 said she entered the master bedroom and saw D1 on the bed. D2 says that the Father had approached her and slapped her across the face.

25 An altercation between D2 and the Father took place. D2 says that as a result of the altercation, a blood vessel in the Father’s eye had burst. This led to the Father falsely accusing her of hitting him in an attempt to shift blame.

26 The Father then proceeded to lock the door and chased all of them out of the house. He also threatened to make the house inhabitable for the family. The police were called. D2 made a police report and was advised to seek medical assessment for any injuries she may had sustained.

27 The Father’s position was that D2 had struck him, causing a blood vessel in his eye to rupture.

28 A video of the incident was exhibited in D1’s affidavit. It was played in court. Having reviewed the video, I concluded that it corroborated D1 and D2’s account of events.

29 At the start of the video, the Father can be seen walking back to the room. He shifts out a cardboard box filled with various items. D1 was trying to stop him from doing so.

30 The Father went back into the room and D1 followed him in. D2 was moving to enter the room. The video shows that D1 was looking at something in the cupboard with her back to the camera. A black luggage was thrown, presumably by the Father who was the only other person present in the room.

31 The camera does not capture this, but it appears that D1 had turned around to confront the Father. D2 had, by this time, entered the room. D1 can also be heard asking the Father: “yours ah?”. I noted that the tone used was not, in any way aggressive.

32 What followed was a sudden escalation by the Father. A loud slapping sound can be heard followed by the Father shouting “get out!”. As the scuffle between the Father and D1 erupted, D2 can be seen moving forwards in an attempt to restrain the Father. The video shows D2 intervening in the scuffle and trying to fend off the Father. At this point, D1 had already fallen onto the bed and the Father’s attention turned to D2. The video quite clearly shows the Father swinging his arm at D2 and slapping her face.

33 In the wake of the scuffle, the Father can be seen blinking and rubbing his left eye. He subsequently produced a medical report from the hospital. That report, by the ophthalmologist, stated that the Father was treated for the following conditions: a) left eye conjunctival abrasion and b) left eye inflamed pinguecula. ²

34 Apart from showing that the Father had slapped D2, the same video also strongly suggested that the Father was the one which started the entire scuffle by slapping D1. The video, however, does not show that D2 had, contrary to the Father’s allegations, hit him. The video, however does show that D2 had her arms outstretched in a bid to ward off the Father’s blows. That had put her fingers in close proximity with the Father’s eyes. However, the video does not actually show her fingers making contact with his eyes.

35 I would therefore conclude that the eye injury which the Father had sustained was not a result of D2 striking him. Even if I was wrong on this point, I thought it quite clear that D2 had not deliberately struck him in the left eye. The video clearly showed that the Father was the aggressor in this incident. He was the one that had started the entire scuffle by escalating what was merely a minor disagreement into a physical altercation.

36  The Father’s actions towards D1 and D2, in this incident, in my judgment, fell within the definition of physical abuse as set out in s 58B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961. I was satisfied that his actions had either caused, or threatened to cause physical pain to D1 and D2.

37 For completeness, I was not satisfied that D2 had inflicted any family violence on the Father in this incident. Given that the Father was the aggressor in this incident, even if D2 was somehow responsible for his eye injury, D2 would be entitled to rely on the self-defence exception: s 58B(2)(c)(i) of the Women’s Charter 1961.

38 I would also add that it was not lost on me that the Father’s real quarrel with D2 was with the fact that she had dared to raise her hand against him. ³

39 The Father’s fixation on this point was worrying. It demonstrated that he had no insight as to why D2 had to react in the way she had. It also suggested that the Father thought he was perfectly justified in lashing out at both D1 and D2.

40 This only further fortified the conclusion I reached below – that the Father was indeed likely to inflict family violence on both D1 and D2, and that it was necessary to grant the orders for their protection or personal safety.

41 D2 had also cited the following incident in support of her application.

42 Sometime in January 2024, while D2 was abroad, she was told that her parents had quarrelled. On 12 January 2024, the Father had called D2. When D2 did not answer, he sent her the following text message: ⁴

43 D2 described the impact of her Father’s words in her affidavit. She said that his words had caused her “considerable emotional distress and was wholly inappropriate, particularly given the timing and nature of the communication”. ⁵

44 I was satisfied that the Father had, through these messages, committed an act of family violence on D2 – specifically, that he had inflicted emotional or psychological abuse on D2.

45 Our jurisprudence establishes that the court adopts an objective approach towards determining whether emotional or psychological abuse had been inflicted, taking into account the relevant context in which the acts had occurred as well as the circumstances of the case: XXW v XXX and 5 other matters [2026] SGFC 23. The cases also make clear that the threshold to finding emotional or psychological abuse is a high bar, and that mere unhappiness or disgruntled feelings that are par for course in any relationship will not suffice to meet that threshold: XWB v XWC [2025] SGFC 135 at [11].

46 Applying these legal principles to the facts before me, I was satisfied that D2 was tormented or distressed (to borrow the statutory expression of emotional or psychological abuse set out in s 58B(4) of the Women’s Charter 1961) by the Father’s text messages to her.

47 For one, it was apparent to me that D2 had found her career and calling. She loved her work. She had career ambitions. She wanted to fulfil her potential and had worked hard to prove herself at work. ⁶

48  D2 was also acutely aware of her parents’ unhappy relationship. I had heard from her how she was expected to, as the eldest daughter, step in to mediate. Her sojourn abroad in the pursuit of her studies afforded her a brief relief from those expectations. She had told me during her testimony, with no small tinge of regret, how she knew that D1 had to step in and shoulder that weight in her stead. ⁷

49 Despite the circumstances at home, it was also not lost on me that D2 loved and cared for both her parents. ⁸

50 It is against this backdrop that I have weighed the Father’s words in his text messages to D2 and concluded that those words had cut deep and caused her no small amount of torment or distress. His words struck at the very core of what was important to D2: the career which she had worked so hard to build, as well as her parents.

51 Further to that, the Father’s words to D2 also revealed how he expected his daughters (D1 and D2) to step in to try to salvage the marriage. As I set out below (at [76]), this, in my judgment, made it likely that he would inflict family violence on the both of them especially given the pending divorce proceedings and his inability to accept the reality before him, and his controlling nature towards his daughters.

52 Although D2 had complained of other incidents, given my findings in relation to the two main incidents set out above, I do not deal with the other alleged incidents of family violence.

53 The most recent incident which the Father complained of took place on 1 September 2025. He had also cited the same incidents in support of his application against D2 in SSP 1882. There were, according to him, three separate incidents which had taken place on that day.

54 The first incident had occurred between 10.30 pm to 11 pm. The Father claimed that D1 and D2 had, together with the youngest daughter (“D3”), deliberately removed and interfered with his personal belongings. He said that they had entered his room without consent and taken his handphone charger. He also claimed that they had, in the living room, turned a framed family photograph backwards and subsequently hid it from him. When confronted, the Father says that his daughters feigned ignorance, refused to provide any explanation and collectively withdrew from the family group chat. The Father also complained that his food had been thrown away and that this was coordinated conduct designed to cause him agitation, distress and humiliation.

55 I did not find that either D1 or D2 had inflicted family violence on the Father in this incident as alleged. For one, the Father knew that it was D3 who had hidden the family photograph and not D1 or D2. He had said as much in the family WhatsApp chat. ⁹

56 Further to that, when I considered the dynamics of the relationship between D1 and D2, and the Father, I considered it unlikely that they would have tried to disturb his belongings in the manner he had alleged. The videos which the Father had exhibited in support of his allegations in relation to the remote control (see below at [58]), as well as the videos exhibited by D1 in relation to the iPad incident (see below at [61]) showed that D1 and D2 were consistently trying to keep and maintain a boundary with the Father.

57 I turn now to deal with the second incident which had occurred at about 10.40 pm. The Father says D1, D2 and D3 had taken away the television remote control and refused to return it. When the Father attempted to retrieve it, the daughters had shouted and screamed aggressively. They had begun to chant accusations of physical abuse against him and alleged that he had caused them emotional and psychological harm. He claimed that he suffered emotional and psychological stress as well as severe disappointment as a father.

58 The Father had produced two videos of this incident. I had watched both videos (which were also played in court). The videos do not bear out the Father’s claim. The daughters had merely screamed, ran into their room, and closed the door behind them. They did not chant accusations of physical abuse.

59 The most that can be said was that the Father’s feelings might have been hurt by this rejection from his daughters. And while the Father may have been disappointed by their reaction, I did not think such disappointment would constitute emotional or psychological abuse.

60 The third incident occurred at about 11.50 pm to 12.05 am. According to the Father, D1 was using her iPad to record the Father while D3 was attempting to entrap the Father by recounting “old discipline matters”, specifically, relating to how the Father had caned her. The Father asked D1 to stop recording. D1 refused. The Father attempted to seize the iPad from her. D1 had “clamped up, began screaming” and knocked the Father’s phone from his hand.

61 A video of this incident was produced. That video was also played in court. It showed that the Father was very agitated by the fact that D1 was recording him. The Father walked over and angrily told D1 to stop recording. When D1 refused, he tried to snatch D1’s iPad from her hands.

62 Having watched the video, I was satisfied that neither D1 or D2 had committed family violence on the Father in this incident. The video shows that the situation had only escalated because of the Father’s actions. He had every opportunity to defuse the situation and to walk away. However, he chose to escalate matters by acting on his anger, taking out his phone to make a recording, and walking over to snatch D1’s iPad from her hands.

63 Apart from these incidents in September 2025, the Father also cited the following incident which had occurred on the 5th of January 2024.

64 It was D3’s prom night. The Father had gone to fetch both D3 and D1. There was an argument between D3 and D1. The Father intervened and told D1 to stop scolding D3. Matters reached a point where the Father had to discipline D1.

65 According to the Father, D1 was aggrieved by what she perceived as unfair treatment. The Father says as he was tyring to calm her down, she struck him with a punch to the face and rained blows on him. In an attempt to ward off her blows, the Father says he took a shoe to block her. ¹⁰

66 D1’s account was that there was indeed an argument between her and D3. The Father intervened and separated the two of them. D3 had gone back to her room. The Father lost his temper and slapped D1. When D1 retreated, the Father advanced, pinned D1 to the ground, and used his shoe to “whack” her continuously whilst holding her down. ¹¹

67 Both the Father and D1 exhibited medical reports detailing the injuries they had suffered in this scuffle. To be clear, there was no video or photographic evidence which captured the entire incident. The only evidence I had as to what transpired were the respective accounts of the Father and D1.

68 Having considered the evidence before me, I considered D1’s account to be the more plausible version of events. Specifically, I found that it was the Father who struck the first blow. D1’s attempts to shield herself, in my judgment, likely infuriated the Father further which led to him taking a shoe to hit D1. In the ensuing struggle, D1 had likely hit the Father in an attempt to defend herself.

69 I found this to be the more plausible account of events, especially when I considered the Father’s temperament and behaviour towards his daughters which were on full display in the video footage of the incident of 4 November 2024. That video clearly shows that the Father was not beyond using physical force on his daughters in a manner that only served to escalate matters. Further, it was also clear that the Father would be moved to anger if his daughters dared to raise their hands against him, even if it was in self-defence.

70 In addition, there was also the video footage of the incident on 1 September 2025 where the Father had attempted to snatch the iPad from D1’s hands. That video also makes clear that the Father was the one who escalated matters by acting on his anger at D1’s refusal to comply with his instructions (see above at [62]).

71 Having arrived at this conclusion, I was also satisfied that the Father’s actions towards D1 in this incident would amount to family violence, specifically, physical abuse. Insofar as D1 had inflicted any injuries on the Father in this incident, I was satisfied that she is entitled to rely on the self-defence exception.

72 The Father had complained of two incidents. The first was the incident of the 4th of November 2024. My findings in relation to this incident are set out above at [22] – [40]. The second was the incident that had taken place on 1 September 2025. My findings in respect of that incident are set out at [53] – [62].

73 Having set out my findings in respect of the various incidents of family violence as alleged by D1, D2 and the Father, I turn now to explain why I had granted D1 and D2’s applications against the Father, and dismissed his cross-applications against them. My reasons in the paragraphs below must be read together with my findings above where I had concluded that the Father had committed acts of family violence on D1 and D2, and that neither D1 nor D2 had committed any acts of family violence against the Father.

74 I begin with the reasons for allowing D1 and D2’s applications against the Father.

75 I found that the Father was likely to commit family violence (specifically, emotional or psychological abuse) against D1 and D2.

76 For one, it was clear that his relationship with the Mother was on the rocks as they are both headed towards divorce. I could tell that this had come as a hard blow to the Father. He did not seem able – or capable – of processing the fact that his marriage had failed.

77 The failure of the Father’s marriage was his burden to bear. He could not possibly expect his daughters to help save his relationship with the Mother. Although both D1 and D2 were now working adults, that was still an unrealistic expectation to foist on them for it would drag them into the fray between the very two adults who were their pillars of strength in their formative years.

78 In addition to this, there was also how the Father viewed both D1 and D2. In this regard, I gave particular weight to the Father’s behaviour in my courtroom which, in my view, cast light on the true dynamics between the Father, and D1 and D2. Judging from the manner and tone in which he had addressed them in court when he posed questions to them in cross-examination, I did not think he had come to the realization that both D1 and D2 have grown into strong individuals who are now, in their professional capacities, having to bear significant responsibilities. They had their own views, thoughts, hopes, aspirations, and more importantly, personal boundaries that they would wish to protect.

79 To be clear, I am not saying that the Father does not love his daughters. It may be said that one aspect of healthy parental love is that of altruism – in other words, a parent should love their child as the end in of itself. That said, to express such love, purely, without any hope of reciprocity may be beyond the reach of all but the best of us. While it is natural to hope, as a parent, that one’s love for their child is returned in some shape or form, and perhaps to even express disappointment when that reality does not come to pass, what is certainly not acceptable is to behave in a controlling manner, as the Father had done, in the hope of having one’s love repaid in kind.

80 Then there was also the Father’s attempts at controlling both D1 and D2. This was plainly apparent from his attempts at manipulating the both of them by making thinly veiled threats about how their failure to help resolve the family dispute at home and their attempts at seeking these protection orders would adversely impact their careers.

81 In relation to D2, there were the text messages which the Father had sent to her, which I had found amounted to emotional or psychological abuse (see above at [42] – [51]).

82 As for D1, she had testified that the Father had told her that their dispute would be made public, that it would destroy her reputation and that she would never get a management or high-level role. ¹² D1 further said that the Father had also told her that if she filed for a PPO, her “boss [would] know what [was] going on at home” and that what was “happening at home [was] very ugly”. ¹³

83 It was this controlling aspect of the Father’s personality which, in my judgment, made it likely that he would inflict emotional or psychological abuse on both D1 and D2. Until he realizes that D1 and D2 are now adults in their own right, and thus entitled to their own views – which he may not entirely agree with – I considered that he would continue to treat them as though they were little children, and in so doing, disregard and trample all over their personal boundaries.

84 Having found that the Father was likely to commit family violence on both D1 and D2, I turn to consider the necessity of ordering the PPO.

85 It is said that where the court finds that family violence is likely to be committed, a PPO is presumptively necessary. In the present case, I found nothing to rebut that presumption. There were, however, reasons as to why the PPO was indeed necessary for D1 and D2’s protection or personal safety.

86 As I had noted in an earlier decision, XNY v XNZ [2025] SGFC 69, the idea of “personal safety” has a broader scope than that of “protection”. This concept of “personal safety” would extend to, and encompass, “an individual’s environment and their living circumstances that has an impact on their well-being”.

87 It was not disputed that both D1 and D2 are working in high-pressure jobs. They have heavy responsibilities and cannot afford to make mistakes. They would need the time and space to unwind and decompress – especially given the long hours and the pressure of their work. Given my observations on the controlling aspect of the Father’s personality, and taking into account the ongoing divorce, I considered it likely that there will be no such refuge to be found.

88 I thus concluded that it was necessary that a PPO be granted for D1 and D2’s personal safety.

89 Given my observations as to the likelihood of the Father committing family violence on D1 and D2, and taking into account the nature of their work, I also considered it necessary to grant a DEO for their bedrooms in the flat at [XXX]. This was to ensure that the both of them would have their own safe space within the house. In addition to this, I also ordered that the Father, D1 and D2 attend counselling so that the underlying root causes behind their dispute could be adequately addressed in the hopes that their relationship may, with the passage of time, be reforged anew.

90 I turn now to explain why I had dismissed both of the Father’s applications in SSP 1881 and 1882.

91 It appeared to me that his applications against D1 and D2 may not have been brought out of a genuine need for protection. While the timing of his applications, having been filed after D1 and D2 had filed their applications, was at best a neutral factor, that must be viewed in light of what he had said during trial – specifically, that he had consulted lawyers and was told that in divorces, children were used as proxies. The lawyers he had consulted had told him that his case was no exception, and that the Mother was following a playbook and that the “only way” was that he respond in kind. ¹⁴

92 Although the Father later tried to explain that he was indeed seeking protection given how D1 and D2 were behaving towards him, I found that he had indeed followed the advice of those lawyers and brought these applications thinking that it would provide some measure of leverage in the divorce proceedings. As I have observed, it was clear to me that the divorce proceedings had come as a huge blow to the Father. He could not accept the impending divorce, and was doing all that he could in a last-ditch attempt to keep the family together.

93 I would add that the strong scepticism I had as to whether the Father’s need for protection was genuine was further reinforced by the Father’s behaviour in my courtroom which dented his credibility as a witness.

94 On the last day of trial on 29 April 2026, the Father had suddenly claimed, some 20 minutes into Mr Lim’s cross-examination, that he had an aneurysm which constricted his vision and thought process. He said that he was groggy due to the effects of the pain in his head and that he was “a little slow” that day. ¹⁵ He produced a bundle of medical documents which included a medical certificate that was valid from 8th to 19th April 2026.

95 That medical certificate was no longer valid and expressly stated that it was not valid for absence from court attendance. There was therefore no basis on which I could vacate the trial. I did, however, ask that the Father inform me if he was feeling unwell. ¹⁶ Separately, I had my court officer ensure that court security was ready to respond to any medical emergency in my courtroom.

96 The medical documents which the Father produced stated that he had been admitted to hospital on 7 April 2026. One stated diagnosis was “[t]ransient ischaemic attack (tia) and migrane”. The Father had also included a doctor’s memo which stated that he had been admitted to the neurology department for “likely migrane with left sensorimotor symptoms exacerbated by ongoing stressors” with an “incidental finding of possible right paraclinoid ICA aneurysm” and that he would be reviewed in 4 – 5 months.

97 Crucially, none of the documents which the Father had produced stated that he was visually impaired. I had also noted that when the Father was leafing through his bundle of documents in an attempt to locate his medical certificate from his bundle of documents, he did not appear to have any difficulty in doing so.

98 I therefore found it rather curious (and made a note of this in my minute sheet: P 3 r 4 of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024 read with s 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 ¹⁷ ) that when the Father was shown a document by Mr Lim in cross-examination, the Father held up that document, squinted at it, and claimed that he could not read it. ¹⁸

99 At that juncture, I pointed out to the Father that none of the medical documents he had produced showed that he had difficulty with his vision. I reminded him that his conduct on the stand would be taken into account. I noted that after I had administered this reminder, the Father had no difficulties in reading from the documents which he referred to in his testimony.

100  In addition to this, there was also the Father’s responses to Mr Lim’s questions in cross-examination during the same hearing. For instance, when Mr Lim put a question to him, the Father claimed he was not processing it well and asked me to repeat the question for him. ¹⁹

101 However, in the minutes prior to the Father’s request that I repeat the question posed by Mr Lim to him, I had observed that the Father had the presence of mind to tell Mr Lim how he thought the question should be phrased. ²⁰ That suggested to me that the Father had understood the original question well enough to be able to point out what he thought was fallacies or inaccuracies in the question. I would also add that it was rather telling that the Father was able to engage in sustained verbal combat with Mr Lim, despite his earlier claim that he was feeling under the weather.

102 The Father’s conduct at the hearing on 29 April 2026 was, in my judgment, an attempt to play up what may have been a legitimate medical condition in a bid to avoid answering questions in cross-examination. His conduct strongly suggested that he was not above exaggerating his circumstances in an attempt to secure an advantage.

103 I thus concluded that the Father’s applications against both D1 and D2 were brought for a collateral purpose and that his claim that he needed protection from his daughters rang hollow.

104 In that vein, our courts have made it abundantly clear that applications for such protective orders should only be for the purposes of seeking protection. That is, after all, the entire purpose of the family violence regime. The court will not tolerate any attempt at seeking such orders for collateral purposes, especially and including for the purposes of obtaining leverage in divorce proceedings: see YCF v YCG [2026] SGFC 59 at [27]; XLD v XLE [2025] SGFC 45 at [21] citing XFL v XFM [2024] SGFC 103 at [22]; see also XNY v XNZ [2025] SGFC 69 at [31].

105 On this basis alone, I found that the Father’s applications against D1 and D2 should be dismissed. That being said, in any event, I did not find that he had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that it was necessary to grant the PPO for his personal safety or protection.

106 Our jurisprudence has made it clear that in assessing the necessity of ordering a PPO, the court adopts a risk assessment. I found there to be a low risk of D1 and D2 committing family violence on the Father. In particular, I gave weight to the attitudes the both of them had towards him. I thought it clear from the testimonies of both D1 and D2, and their demeanour when they responded to their Father’s questions in court, that they no longer wanted to have anything to do with him.

107 To be clear, I did not find that they bore any hatred or animosity towards him. It did appear to me, however, that the both of them were sad and disappointed at how their relationship with their Father had panned out, and that the both of them had long since come to the realization that they could no longer sustain the relationship with their Father by continuously redrawing their personal boundaries.

108 For these reasons, I dismissed the Father’s applications against both D1 and D2.

109 To sum up, I granted D1 and D2’s applications for a PPO against their Father. They were also granted a partial DEO for their bedrooms in the flat at [XXX]. Finally, I ordered that all three of them attend counselling.

110 As for D2’s application for a MTO against her Father, that application was dismissed. I saw no reason to call for a Preliminary Assessment Report with a view towards making a MTO. There was no evidence before me to indicate that the Father was suffering from a psychiatric condition that was the cause or contributing factor to the family violence.

111 As for the costs of these four applications, after hearing arguments from parties on the issue of costs, I ordered that the Father to pay $2500 to D1 and $2500 to D2 respectively.

112 I had concluded my oral grounds with brief words of encouragement to parties. Those words are set out in the paragraphs below.

113 My orders are meant to protect, and in so doing, they will necessarily create a certain measure of distance between the Father, D1 and D2.

114 Distance, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. To quote a small excerpt from Rebecca Solnit’s chapter, The Blue of Distance in her book – A Field Guide to Getting Lost (Canongate Books, 2017), which I think beautifully encapsulates this point:

115 I hope that parties will take the time to heal, and in due course, hopefully rebuild the father-daughter relationship that they once shared.