1 The Parties before me are the Mother and Father of an only son (referred to as the ‘Child”). He will be turning 10 this year. Unfortunately, even well after the divorce proceedings had concluded in 2022, the Parties continued to be embroiled in bitter disputes, in particular over access of the Father to the Child.

2 Under the ancillary matters order granted on 26 January 2022 (the “AM Order”), the Father is to have regular unsupervised access to the Child from Saturdays 9 p.m. to Mondays 9 a.m. He is also to have access on Thursdays after school (or 5 p.m. when there is no school) to 8 p.m. If the Child is required to be fetched to and from school when he is residing with or having access with one parent, then the respective parent is to be responsible for ensuring that the Child attends and is picked up from school.

3 For the purpose of the AM hearing, the Mother had insisted on supervised access, citing the Child’s unwillingness to be with the Father. The District Judge who heard the AMs took the view that the Child’s unwillingness to be with the Father did not represent the entirety of his experience with the Father. The District Judge further stated that it was natural to expect that there would sometimes be hesitancy to be with the Father, especially when the Child was constantly being shifted between different homes every week.

4 The Mother’s position has not changed much three years down the road. She maintained that the Child is unwilling to be with the Father and that he should not be forced to go for access with the Father if he is unwilling or uncomfortable to do so. Her perspective on this issue forms the basis of one of her arguments that the Child was harassed and distressed by the Father, particularly when the Father turned up in school or insisted on having video calls with the Child. The Mother went so far as to allege that the Father was trespassing onto the school compounds. I shall return to this in due course. For now, it is sufficient to set this as the background to the proceedings at hand.

5 The Parties filed the following applications in chronological order:

6 The Parties also have cross-applications to vary the AM Order in respect of care and control of and access to the Child. These would be heard after the SSP applications have been determined.

7 Before dealing with the issue of video evidence and going into each of the Parties’ cases, I shall set out the law in brief governing these SSP applications; that being the law in place after the new amendments under the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) (Amendment) Act 2023 came into effect on 2 January 2025.

8 Section 60A of the Women’s Charter 1961 (the “WC”) states:

9 Both limbs of section 60A must be satisfied before the Court will grant a PPO: -

10 Under section 58B of the WC, family violence is committed by X against Y if -

(a) X is a family member of Y; and

(b) X commits physical, sexual, or emotional or psychological abuse against Y.

11  “Physical abuse” includes conduct or behaviour that —

12 “Emotional or psychological abuse” means conduct or behaviour that —

13 The standard of proof to be applied is one of the civil standard in the PPO proceedings. Nevertheless, the High Court in the case of UNQ v UNR [2020] SGHCF 21 had emphasized (at [28]) that it is important to recognise that the protection conferred by a PPO carries with it criminal sanctions and that in light of the criminal consequences that follow a breach of a PPO, ordering one is not a decision a court would take lightly.

14 Both Parties sought to rely on video evidence, especially the Father. He sought to admit over 50 video recordings in these proceedings. The Mother objected to the admission of these video recordings in these proceedings in one of her emails to the Court, claiming that they were unauthorised as well as the fact that the Father had not produced any certified transcripts in relation to some of them. She repeated her objection at the trial that while all of her transcripts were certified, most of the transcripts produced by the Father were not certified.

15 According to the Father, throughout the lengthy divorce proceedings, the Mother had made many repeated and unfounded allegations against him. She also had the tendency to distort even the smallest details. These had caused him significant anxiety. As a safeguard, he now wears a body-camera whenever he is with the Mother and/or the Child. This was so that he could be protected from the Mother’s false allegations; to him, the video recordings provide an objective and contemporaneous record of events, should they later be mischaracterised. I mention this not to condone the Father’s actions or to make any findings on the Father’s general allegations against the Mother but to provide my understanding as to why the Father may have such a voluminous number of video recordings.

16 The objection of the Mother that the video recordings were “unauthorised” does not preclude the admission of such video recordings. As for her objection that there were no certified transcripts of most of the Father’s video recordings, I had subsequently directed that the Father produce certified transcripts of the key events he was relying on both in support of his own application and in his defence of the Mother’s applications. Only the certified transcripts are relied upon in the Court’s determination of the applications in this case.

17 The key event which apparently prompted the Mother to file the first of the applications i.e. SSP 1013/2025 on 29 May 2025 was an incident on 24 May 2025 where she alleged that the Father used an umbrella as a weapon against her and the Child inside the lift (the ‘Umbrella Incident”). According to her, she and the Child suffered from abrasions.

18 Prior to the incident, the Mother alleged that the Child was suffering from anxiety after the Father insisted on taking him to Malaysia during the June holidays. On 16 May 2025, the Child had apparently disclosed to the doctors at the Accident and Emergency (A & E) Department of the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) that the Father had kicked him on the backside. According to the Mother, KKH had filed a police report but she did not have a copy of it. She also claimed that this disclosure had been repeated by the Child to multiple authorities and professionals such as the police, the Protective Service from MSF, the doctors, case workers and social workers.

19 There were other incidents that the Mother is relying on as follows: -

20 Since 31 July 2025, the Father does not have any further physical access with the Child to date. The Court understands that the school at which the Child is attending is facilitating video call access between the Father and the Child on Thursdays (which used to be the days on which the Father would pick up the Child from school).

21 After the physical access ceased, the Mother claimed that the following new incidents of harassment constituting family violence had occurred: -

22 The Mother also claimed that the Father had harassed and stalked both her and the Child by appearing unannounced at KKH on 27 June 2025 and trespassing at her mother’s flat, her own new residence and the school since 2020, bringing along his 5 sisters and their children despite court orders prohibiting this. According to the Mother, the Father had trespassed at her new residence close to 10 times between January to March 2025. She also alleged that on 1 February 2025, during one of the times the Father trespassed at her new residence, he almost drove to hit an old security guard. The Child was so terrified and cried in his car because the Father refused to allow him to leave his car for handover to the Mother. On 6 September 2025, the Father was alleged to have turned up at the Child’s maternal grandmother’s house in the morning without prior notice despite being aware that the Mother and the Child were no longer residing there and that all handovers were to be at her new residence. He also subsequently turned up the Mother’s new residence to demand for access.

23 These would be referred collectively as “alleged general harassment incidents”.

24 Apart from the above incidents, the Mother also surfaced the following incidents under 3 previous PPO applications which were withdrawn by her:-

(b) 6 February 2021 – The Father was alleged to have tried to snatch her sling bag from her a few times when he did not want the Mother to keep the health booklet after the Child’s review at the Bukit Panjang Polyclinic.

(c) 18 February 2021 – The Father followed her and the Child to the lift lobby and tried to prevent the lift door from closing when they were already in the lift. He then kicked the lift door and walked off but not before shouting at the Mother.

25 In the Mother’s statement, she had also brought up alleged harassment by the Father’s five sisters and the Father’s denial of her access and non-replacement of her “access days”. In particular, she had introduced a video recording during which one of the Father’s sister had called her a “bad mother”. All these are not matters which are relevant in this PPO proceeding and hence, they would be disregarded by the Court.

26 It is the Mother’s case that the Child has anxiety and stress-induced stomachache and vomiting which is linked to the family violence committed by the Father. He is also at risk of epilepsy. She requested that for the well-being of the Child, the Father should not be allowed to have unsupervised access to the Child.

27 The Child had first disclosed to the doctors at KKH when he was brought by his mother to A & E on 16 May 2025 that he had been “kicked on the buttocks either on 10 May 2025 or 15 May 2025”. It is the Mother’s case that the Father had been kicking the Child during his access in 2025 and that the Child’s disclosure had been documented with the police, the medical professionals, the social workers and the Protective Service of MSF.

28 The Mother produced recordings of her conversations with the Child. By way of examples, the transcripts of the recordings ² on 15 August, 30 August and 20 September 2025 are reproduced below as her intended proof that the Father had kicked the Child, resulting in his refusal to go for access on those days:-

29 The Father denied intentionally kicking the Child. On 11 May 2025, the Child had sustained some minor injuries to his back while playing at the playground with his friends. On 12 May 2025, before returning the Child to the Mother, he documented the injury using his body-camera as he knew that the Mother would use this to wrongfully accuse him. On the stand, he acknowledged that as they played Nerf Gun games together or engaged in other sport activities, there could be “accidental kicking”; however, he had never physically abused the Child. The Father produced a video recording of his conversation with the Child on the way to school on 19 May 2025 (Monday morning): -

30 The Mother alleged that the Father had forced the Child to say the above and intentionally recorded the conversation. She asked that the Court should have no regard to this video recording.

31 Having reviewed all the relevant video recordings and the evidence, I am of the view that the Mother has not discharged her burden of proof that the Father had intentionally kicked the Child. Not only had the Child said different things in the presence of either of his parents, but the access had gone on albeit with the usual acrimony and difficulties in the next two months in June and July 2025. More importantly, there were also warm moments between the Father and the Child that were on display after the “disclosure” of the alleged kicking by the Father. These showed that the Child did not have any genuine fear of or was in distress because of the Father.

32 I further note that although the Child allegedly disclosed that the Father had kicked him in May 2025, the scope of his allegations as at September 2025 (by that time, the Father had had no physical access for nearly 2 months) had expanded to include two of the Father’s sisters also kicking him most of the time during the Father’s access times, which seem incredulous.

33 Further, after the Father filed a variation application for shared care and control of the Child on 4 August 2025 (which according to the Father, also coincided with the week that he no longer had physical access), the Child had called him on 13 August 2025 while he was in his car. He could not see the Child as the camera was not switched on; the following conversation was recorded by the Father’s body-camera: -

34 When the Mother was questioned on the stand on the above conversation, she denied coaching the Child. She stated that the Child saw her “working hard” at the Court documents, which was why the Child spoke in this manner to the Father. It is hard for the Court to accept what appeared to the Mother’s weak explanation for the Child’s outburst of anger and his blaming the Father for the “mess”, with a demand that he “take back the Court order” and “if not”, the Child would never see the Father again. I find that it is more likely than not that the Mother was angry at having received the variation application and had projected her anger towards the Father in the presence of the Child, which in turn caused the Child to behave in the way that he did. The refusal of the Child to see the Father to date, as alleged to be linked to family violence, must therefore be treated with great circumspection.

35 The Mother had produced drawings and psychological sheets as her proof that the Child viewed the Father negatively as a “bully”. In my opinion, these would need to be viewed with much caution against the Mother’s influence over the Child. While the Father had generally referred to the Mother as “mama” in the presence of the Child, the Mother had often called the Father by his full name or even referred to him as “that man” or “monster” when talking to the Child about his father. She had continually disparaged him and painted him in a negative light before the Child.

36 It is the Mother’s case that the Father had intentionally opened the Child’s umbrella in the confines of the lift lobby to block her view of the Child, thereby hurting her and the Child in the process. The Father categorically denied this. He contended that the umbrella inadvertently sprang open and that before he could close it, the Mother was violently pulling and pushing at the umbrella.

37 Both Parties tendered video recordings of this incident.

38 Having watched the video recordings, it would appear to me that the umbrella did spring open and both Parties were then struggling over the umbrella and yelling at each other. The Child appeared amused over the occurrence and was seen tapping at the handle of the umbrella and smiling. I am not able to find that the Father had intentionally opened the umbrella to cause hurt to the Mother and the Child. From the Father’s perspective, there was no reason to cause further trouble to himself by doing such an act and jeopardising his access to the Child. The Father also pointed out that by the Mother’s own act of pushing the umbrella, the handle of the umbrella had brushed against the Child’s lips. ³

39 The Mother submitted a medical memo to show that she had sustained tenderness to the shoulder due to the aggressive act of the Father in pulling the Child’s bag. She stated that she is still receiving follow-up treatment for the shoulder.

40 Both Parties tendered video recordings of this incident.

41 From the video recordings, it was clear that the Father had no intention to hurt the Mother. He was getting angry and frustrated as he was belabouring under the impression that the Mother was trying to be difficult by refusing to handover the Child’s bag to him for access. He said that he would count to 5 to give the Mother notice that he would be taking the bag from her. The Mother also started counting to 3 – “1, 2, 3 count!”. Although the Mother tried to tell the Father that she wanted the Child to take the bag from her, she could not be heard above the Father’s own loud words. In fact, the Court did not hear what she said from the Father’s video recording until she pointed this out at the trial.

42 In response to the Father’s submission that no injuries were documented on the Child at all, the Mother had repeatedly stated that just because there are no injuries does not mean that family violence had not been committed. The converse is also true. The fact that an injury is sustained does not mean that family violence had been committed if there was no intention to cause that injury. I am satisfied that the Father has intended to take the Child’s bag from the Mother, without intending to cause her any injury. I also note that the Mother was not afraid of the Father as she had said “No, thank you very much. I have all the evidence against you” and then laughed at him. In consideration of all the circumstances, I find that the Father had not committed family violence against the Mother in respect of this incident.

43 The Mother contended that the Father had forcefully pulled the Child out of the lift during handovers despite the Child’s clear refusal to go for access.

44 The Father does not dispute that the Child might have some resistance towards him at the start of some of these handovers. The Father stated at the trial that one of the points of contention for these handovers is that they should occur at the lift lobby instead of inside the lift; however, when the Child was with the Mother inside the lift, he would often exhibit some reluctance to leave the confines of the lift. The Father would then have to step inside the lift to try and get the Child out of the lift.

45 From the video recording of the 19 July incident, it would appear that the Mother and the Child remained in the lift when the lift door opened. The Mother started to question the Father as to when he was going to pay the hospital bill. When the Father stated that “it is a different issue with the handover”, the Mother then asked the Child whether he wanted to go with the Father. The Child kept quiet. Subsequently, when the Mother asked again whether the Child wanted to go, he had said “yes”. The Parties continued to have an exchange of words on the issue of the Mother holding onto the Child’s bag and not handing it over. When the Father walked into the lift, the Child started to resist the Father, notwithstanding he had earlier told the Mother than he wanted “to go [for access]”. As a result of the resistance, the Father tried to hold onto him and bring him out of the lift. The Child then walked away with the Father, as the Parties continued to quarrel over the Child’s bag. The Child then became worried that he had no bag to bring to school the following Monday.

46 The Mother appeared to be upset with the Father over a hospital bill; as a result, the handover was more difficult than usual. I see no reason why the Mother could not have handed the Child’s bag over to him, even if she did not want to hand it over to the Father. She could also have put it down on the floor for either the Father or the Child to collect, as requested by the Father. She did neither. Given the context of the incident, I find that there has been no family violence committed by the Father against the Child.

47 The Mother also made a bare allegation against the Father for forcefully pulling the Child out of the lift on 18 May 2025; no proof was tendered in respect of this alleged incident.

48 The Mother contended that the Child was dragged from a coffeeshop to the Father’s car, and subsequently from the car to the hospital. She stated that there were witnesses and CCTV footages but neither witnesses nor CCTV footages were presented by her. She herself was also not present with the Child on 20 July 2025.

49 The Father presented evidence that the Child and he were not even at the coffee shop in question. The Father stated that after lunch at Times Vegetarian, they did visit the Child’s grandaunt at the hospital. The Child had danced for the grandaunt at the hospital room (which was recorded by the Father). There were no signs of distress, refusal or anguish on the Child’s end. After the visit to the hospital, the Father took the Child to a swimming playdate with his friends. The Father added (at [166] of his affidavit):

50 The Mother had no basis for the allegations she made and I find that there was no family violence committed by the Father in respect of this alleged incident.

51 The Mother contended that the Father had put psychological pressure on the Child while taking him from the school to the police station in an attempt to coerce the Child to recant his previous statements to the IO that the Father had kicked him. She also alleged that the Father had kicked the Child in the car afterwards.

52 The Father denied putting any psychological pressure on the Child to recant his statements and kicking the Child in the car. He stated that he did bring the Child to the police station in response to an appointment made with the IO. At the trial, he explained that he thought it was fair if he could also be given a chance to bring the Child down to the police station, especially given his views that the Mother had filed multiple false police reports against him. He exhibited evidence in the forms of photographs showing him and the Child bonding over badminton and chess that day.

53 The video recording of the Father and the Child at the end of his access on 31 July 2025 showed a giggling and happy child and the Father and Child hugging each other. After the Father walked the Child to the lift lobby and the lift door opened revealing the Mother, the Child walked in and hugged his Mother. As the Father had earlier asked the Child to give his Mother a hug as well, the Father shouted “Good boy!” to the Child. The Mother was heard saying to the Child as the lift door closed: “Love you! You want him?”.

54 The events of 31 July 2025 as documented by the Father would show that the Child was comfortable and relaxed while with his father. If the events were as the Mother had alleged, with intense psychological pressure exerted on the Child, he would not have such warm and happy moments with the Father. I note that the Mother had not even been with the Child during the alleged incident.

55 Again, the Mother had no basis for the allegations she made and I find that there was no family violence committed by the Father in respect of this alleged incident.

56 The Mother had highlighted several dates (in August and September 2025) on which the Father was alleged to have trespassed into the school, causing distress and harassment to the Child.

57 It is significant to note that under the existing AM order, the Father retains the express right to collect the Child from school on Thursdays when school is in session. The Father could not therefore be regarded as having trespassed into the school. Given that no variation to the AM order is currently in effect pending the determination of the cross-applications for variation, the Father remains entitled to exercise his access rights by attending the school premises to collect the Child in accordance with arrangement under the AM order. The mere fact that the Child may be distressed in his refusal to leave with the Father from the school does not, without more, transform what is otherwise the exercise of the Father’s access rights into conduct constituting intentional harassment of the Child.

58 The Mother contended that the Father had trespassed into the grounds of her new residence despite her being very clear that the Father was not welcome. She also alleged that he had harassed her and the Child by turning up at her mother’s place.

59 In response, the Father stated that there was no reason to be going either to the Mother’s residence or the grandmother’s residence apart from access. Furthermore, he wanted to pick up and drop off the Child at a safe location within the Mother’s condominium premises and disagreed that he should pick up or drop off the Child at the guardhouse.

60 I note that the instances during which the Father was alleged to have harassed the Mother by coming into her condominium premises were on days on which the Father needed to pick up the Child for access or drop him off after access. That being the case, the Father could not, under the law, be regarded to have harassed the Mother or the Child. There was no family violence on the part of the Father, but simply sharp and strong disagreement by the Parties over where the Child should be picked up or dropped off. Furthermore, in order to avoid being in conflict with the Mother, the Father eventually agreed to park his car elsewhere and walk the Child over to the Mother’s condominium after access. The Mother herself also acknowledged during the trial that she eventually asked to switch the handover of the Child for access back to the grandmother’s residence.

61 When it was pointed out to the Mother during the trial that the Father had gone to her or the Child’s grandmother’s residence for access purposes only, the Mother surfaced an incident on 15 February 2024. She alleged that the Father had come up to the grandmother’s flat and stood outside, harassing her and invading on her privacy by filming the inside of the flat with his body-camera. According to her, this was done outside the access times and after the drop-off had occurred. The Mother produced a video recording with the following transcript: -

62 Although the Father had dropped off the Child after access at the lift lobby, he had come up to the grandmother’s flat. This was, according to the Mother, a form of harassment. However, it was clear from the certified transcript that she had produced that the Father was trying to ask her what the treatment plan for the Child was. The Mother herself had also engaged the Father on this very issue. During the exchange of words between the Parties, the Mother had accidentally hit the Child’s head with her elbow, which caused him to cry out in pain and to ask for an apology from the Mother. The Mother thereafter called the police. From this short exchange, lasting about only one minute before the Mother called for the police, the Court does not find that there was any harassment on the part of the Father, which constituted family violence.

63 The Mother raised previous incidents under the withdrawn PPO applications in an attempt to show that there is an established pattern of violence and aggression on the part of the Father.

64 Given that the Court has not found that the Father committed family violence in any of the recent alleged incidents in 2025, the Court is hard pressed to rely on any of the previous incidents (in 2017, 2021 and 2022) to ground a case for a PPO in favour of the Mother or the Child. Furthermore, the Mother had been shown not to have any basis for a number of the recent allegations; her perspective of the various incidents was also coloured by her own negative view of the Father.

65 One of the previous incidents relied on by the Mother (which was more recent) was the alleged harassment incident on 15 February 2024; this had been determined by the Court not to constitute family violence: see [61] to [62]. For completeness, I should add that the video recording of the incident on 30 April 2021 showed that the Father was trying to keep open the window while the Child was trying to close it. The Father does not appear to have intentionally hurt the fingers of the Child. As for the 2022 Nerf gun incident, it was the Father’s case that the Child was accidentally hit by a shot from a Nerf gun while they were engaged in the game; the Child himself did not deny that he was hit by a shot from a Nerf gun and told his mother so. The Mother’s allegations during the trial that the doctor suspected that the Child was slapped by the Father had no credible basis or evidence. While the medical memo had the words “non-accidental” handwritten on it, it was not clear who inserted the words. Furthermore, the medical memo had recorded that the Child was playing Nerf gun with the Father at about “6-7 p.m. last night”.

66 Having reviewed the Mother’s case in its entirety, I am dismissing her applications.

67 The Father contended that in view of the Mother’s escalating hostility since December 2024, repeated breaches of the Court’s access orders and her conduct that had caused emotional and psychological harm to both him and the Child, he found it necessary to file his own application against the Mother. It was not a tit-for-tat manoeuvre.

68 His account of events in the affidavit spans numerous incidents and he invited the Court to view them not in isolation but against the broader backdrop of the Mother’s persistent hostility and obstruction. He claimed that the chronology of events provide evidence in support of his own PPO application while demonstrating the baseless and retaliatory nature of the Mother’s multiple PPO applications.

69 His chronology of events is as follows: -

(l) 28 July 2024 – The Mother allegedly accosted Mdm [L] at a Bukit Batok bread shop unprovoked, making nasty remarks. She also trailed Mdm [L] as the latter was walking to meet the Father and the Child. The Child was allegedly upset by the public hostility, which undermined his sense of security.

(aa) 19 March 2025 – The Father received a call from the IO to verify yet another police report lodged by the Mother, alleging that he had forced the Child to go home with him. According to the Father, her frequent reports to the police, prompting them to regularly call and interrogate him, has caused him significant anxiety and emotional distress.

70 It is the Father’s case that the Mother’s actions had caused immense harm to the Child – who now suffers from seizures, situational anxiety and stress-induced stomach upsets – as well as to the Father through ongoing harassment, false allegations, and hostility.

71 The Father produced a number of video recordings ⁴ which show the Mother’s conduct towards the Child or in the presence of the Child; she was often seen as saying negative things about the Father and also guilt-tripping him about not loving her. The Father contended that the Mother had subjected the Child to emotional and psychological abuse. I reproduce some of the transcripts of the recordings below.

72 On 5 October 2024, the Child had the following conversation with the Father: -

73 On 24 December 2024, when the Child was at East Coast Park, the Mother had a call with the Child:-

74 On 28 December 2024, the Child was having a conversation with the Mother in the car through a video call:

75 Having reviewed the Father’s case in its entirety, while I make the finding that the Mother has indeed triangulated the Child in her intense dislike for the Father and brought him squarely into the conflict of his parents, I am of the view that her conduct does not (as yet) amount to emotional or psychological abuse on the Child. I therefore dismiss the Father’s application for a PPO on behalf of the Child.

76 As for the Father’s application for a PPO for himself, I am minded to grant it. I find that the Mother had inflicted emotional or psychological abuse on the Father through her conduct that harassed and distressed him through the sending of over 1,200 messages with the words “karma” and other distressing images such as the following: -

77 The Mother had also digitally inserted the photo of the Father into an obituary with the date of his birthday as his date of death. She also digitally inserted the photo of the Father onto a corpse in a coffin.

78 These digitally altered images (obviously done with intention and effort) and other distressing images were sent to the Father with various phrases such as: -

79 There were also other mocking messages about the Father’s family being “the best joker family in town”, the Father looking old – “so much older that the 70 ur old uncle” and about asking “your sister to feed you their milk since u need them everywhere”.

80 The Mother defended her actions by saying that karma is defined as “the belief that your actions in this life affect all your future lives”. She stated that it is a blessing and a reminder (which she shared out of goodwill basis) to the Father of his current actions affecting his future life. The Mother may now try to downplay her actions by suggesting that “karma” is a neutral term but it is obvious from other disturbing images and the tenor of her messages that she meant the Father much ill-will rather than blessings.

81 I am of the view that a counselling order rather than a mandatory treatment order is more appropriate for the Mother in this case and I so order.

82 Given how the Mother had involved the Child in her conflicts with the Father, in consideration of his best interests, I also direct that the Mother is not to share the details or outcome of this case with the Child. The Mother is reminded that the Child is young and should not be burdened with the conflict of his parents, especially not with the legal disputes which they may have or are currently facing. If she truly has the interests of the Child at heart, she must do at least this much.

83 The Father has succeeded in his application for a PPO for himself. He informed the Court that he had spent close to $30,000 in legal fees before deciding to discharge his lawyers to appear on his own at the one-day hearing. The Mother strongly objected to any cost order, saying that she should not be made to fund his litigation.

84 It was the Mother who had made the first application. The Father thereafter filed an application and succeeded in defending all of the Mother’s PPO applications while obtaining a PPO for himself.

85 I am of the view that costs should follow the event and that it will be just in the circumstances for the Mother to pay costs of $5,000 to the Father.

86 The Mother’s anger, contempt and disdain towards the Father was palpable, even in the Courtroom setting. When the Father held up papers containing the distressing images, the Mother was observed to have smiled and given two thumbs up on the stand. Perhaps, the Mother had been deeply hurt emotionally while in the marriage with the Father. This Court is certainly in no position to judge what had truly transpired between these two people who used to be husband and wife.

87 What is patently clear, however, from the numerous video recordings that were played in the courtroom or reviewed in the Court’s own time, is a young child caught in between two people who should be most precious to him. He looked resigned, he looked lost, he looked at blank spaces; he tried to shut out, and he tried to pretend.

88 The Mother does not appear to realise that the anger which had so consumed her had spilled out onto the Child and almost every interaction she had with the Father; every action of the Father is to be dissected and viewed minutely through negative lens. This has led to the acrimony and conflict at most of the handovers. She also texted and called the Father to lash out at him.

89 This must not continue. The Child is in Primary 4 and will be coming into his teenage years sooner than the parents realise. That period sets the foundation for adult life, making it a critical time for growth, learning, exploration and development. I implore the Mother especially to set aside her differences with the Father for the sake of the Child and make the experiences of the Child as fulfilling as possible. There is no need to be worried that the Child will love the Father more or that he has happy times with the Father. It is obvious that the Child loves her much. Every positive experience for the Child whether provided for by the Mother or the Father is a “win” for him. The choices made by his parents today will shape the man he becomes tomorrow, and both parents have the power to ensure those formative experiences are filled with love and peace rather than conflict.

Amy Tung

District Judge