1 On 1 July 2026, the Court passed a care and protection order for the young person, YGA (“Q”) to be committed to the care of a place of safety, Singapore Girls’ Home (“SGH”) or any other place of safety as may be determined by the Director-General ¹ or a protector for a period of 12 months, with a review in 6 months, along with other related orders to ensure the safety and well-being of Q (collectively, “Orders”).

2 At the time the Orders were passed, Q was about 15 years and 5 months old.

3 On 3 July 2026, the natural mother of Q (“Mother”) filed her Notice of Appeal against the whole of the Court’s decision and Orders. On 13 July 2026, the natural father of Q (“Father”) filed his Notice of Appeal against the whole of the Court’s decision and Orders.

4 This judgment will deal with both appeals.

5 The parents (“Parents”) of Q are divorced. The Mother has sole custody and care and control over Q (as well as the two other children of the marriage), while the Father has reasonable access.

6 On 23 January 2026, the Child Protector (“Applicant”), Protective Service (“PSV”), Ministry of Social and Family Development (“MSF”), applied to Court for a care and protection order under section 54 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (“CYPA”) for Q (“Application”). The orders sought (“Orders Sought”) ² include, in particular, an order for Q to be committed to the care of a place of safety, namely, SGH, as may be determined by the Director-General or a protector for a period of 12 months with a 6-month review.

7 Prior to the Application being brought, Q was previously residing at the Salvation Army Gracehaven (“SAGH”) from 4 August 2025 to 21 January 2026. Before that, Q had resided at Interim Placement and Assessment Centre – Gladiolus Place (“IPAC GP”) from 22 May 2025 to 4 August 2025.

8 At the time the Applicant brought the Application, Q was residing at SGH where she was committed to on 21 January 2026 after the Protector’s Order ³ was invoked, following her escalating aggressive behaviour towards residents and staff at SAGH ⁴ .

9 The Parents contested the Application and the Orders Sought.

10 At the hearing on 1 July 2026 (which was conducted via Zoom), the Applicant was represented by counsel from MSF’s Legal Services Unit. The Parents were self-represented and appeared separately. Q was present at the hearing via Zoom from SGH.

11 After consideration, I passed the Orders Sought, after giving brief reasons.

12 There are essentially two main issues. The first main issue (“First Main Issue”) is whether Q is in need of care and protection under section 5(1) of the CYPA. If the answer to the First Issue is in the affirmative, the second main issue (“Second Main Issue”) is what orders are in the best interests and welfare of Q.

13 The Applicant’s position is that Q is in need of care and protection under three grounds under section 5(1) of the CYPA, as follows:

(i) Q has been, is being or is at risk of being ill-treated by the Parents, under section 5(1)(d)(i) (“First Ground”);

(ii) The Parents are unable to exercise proper supervision and control over Q, and Q is beyond control, under section 5(1)(c)(ii) (“Second Ground”); and

(iii) Q has behaved in a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to herself or to any person and the remedial measures taken by the Parents have failed, under section 5(1)(f)(ii) (“Third Ground”).

14 The Applicant also submitted that the Orders Sought are in Q’s welfare and best interests.

15 At the hearing, the Parents disputed that Q is in of care and protection on the three grounds relied upon by the Applicant.

16 In her written submissions, the Mother stated that she accepted that Q requires care, support and intervention, and that she does not dispute Q has significant emotional and behavioural needs. However, she submitted that Q’s welfare would be better served by Q’s return to her care under “appropriate supervision and safeguards”. Her primary position is that Q should be returned to her care under the supervision of an approved welfare officer, and subject to such conditions, safeguards and professional monitoring as the Court considers appropriate. Alternatively, if the Court considers that a period of placement is necessary, for a duration of placement shorter than 12 months, with a structured reintegration plan, increased family access and completion of Q’s outstanding clinical assessment.

17 At the hearing, the Mother claimed that she has capacity to take care of Q well, as she had sought help, learned about autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and enrolled into care-giver programmes and training. She also claimed that Q misses her and the family, and that was why Q had behaved in this way. She further claimed that the bond between Q and Q’s younger sister, (“C”), is good, even though it comes with some conflicts which are normal.

18 In his written submissions, the Father requested that the Court consider a structured family-based rehabilitation pathway, including access arrangements, counselling, supervision and phased reunification measures, as may be appropriate in Q’s best interests. He claimed he remains willing to participate in parenting programmes, counselling, supervision arrangements and any professional services recommended by the Court.

19 At the hearing, the Father said that how Q’s best interests can be achieved is based on pure projection, and that the focal question is how to bring up the cooperativeness of Q, to shape her life in future.

20 Q declined to state her views in Court. It was stated in the Social Report that she wishes to return to the Mother’s care, and the reasons are that she wants freedom and a long-term 12-months placement would diminish any motivation for positive behaviours ⁵ .

21 I start with the First Main Issue – whether Q is in need of care and protection under section 5(1) of the CYPA.

22 For the First Ground, the Applicant submitted that Q has been and continues to be at risk of being ill-treated by the Parents, given the following factors:

(a) The Father has meted out excessive physical punishment on Q;

(b) The Father has subjected Q to inappropriate touching;

(c) The Mother has subjected to Q to inappropriate touching; and

(d) The Parents’ ill-treatment of Q has caused or is likely to cause Q unnecessary physical pain, suffering or injury, emotional harm and injury to her health and development.

23 The Parents did not admit to committing inappropriate acts towards Q. However, their non-admission or denial came across as equivocal, and lacked conviction. I give a few examples below.

24 In the Father’s Reply Affidavit ⁶ , he did not expressly deny that Q has been ill-treated by him due to excessive physical punishment meted out on her. He claimed that his intention was not to challenge the necessity of protection, but that he is able to provide a safe and suitable environment for Q moving forward. He also acknowledged that he had been strict in disciplining Q in the past, and clarified that his intention has always been to guide and protect her, and not to cause harm. Further, in his written submissions, he did not directly address whether Q in in need of care and protection on any of the grounds relied upon by the Applicant.

25 In the Mother’s Affidavit ⁷ , she denied allegations of inappropriate conduct against her, and highlighted that the allegations were investigated by the police and no further action was taken against her. However, in her written submissions, she stated that she did not dispute that Q has significant emotional and behavioural needs, and that Q requires ongoing support and supervision. Further, in addressing the suggestion that Q is at risk of harm in her care, she simply stated that the police decided to take no further action after allegations of inappropriate touching made against her were investigated, and that an allegation that has been investigated and closed and assessed as low risk cannot fairly bear the weight of a finding that Q is at risk of ill-treatment in her care.

26 In the psychological report from Psychological and Social Services, MSF (“PSS”) dated 22 August 2025 (“1st PSS Psychological Report”) ⁸ , I noted the following findings under “Summary of Assessment Findings”:

“4 [Q] presented with a history of multiple trauma exposures and adverse childhood experiences starting from early childhood. This included significant family related experiences, such as alleged physical abuse by [the Mother] and [the Father], alleged emotional abuse by [the Mother] and [the Father], alleged sexual abuse by [the Mother] and [the Father] and witnessing domestic violence between her parents….

5 Taken together, [Q]’s multiple trauma exposures and adverse childhood experiences since a young age appeared to have a cumulative impact on her current emotional and interpersonal functioning….”

27 I was cognizant that the 1st PSS Psychological Report was prepared by PSS, MSF and that the writer of the Report would not have personally witnessed the actual events and alleged abuse experienced by Q, since the Report was prepared based on, among other things, interviews with Q, the Mother, the case workers from IPAC GP and the counsellor from Q’s secondary school.

28 Nonetheless, the Parents did not challenge the admissibility of the 1st PSS Psychological Report. Neither did they seriously challenge the assessment and/or deny the specific findings in the Report. As such, I was prepared to give considerable weight to the findings in the Report (including that Q had a history of multiple trauma exposures and adverse child experiences, including significant family related experiences).

29  Having considered, I found that there were sufficient grounds for me to conclude that Q was, while in the respective care of the Parents during various periods, subject to ill-treatment, including harsh punishment by the Father while she was living with him in Malaysia.

30 In addition, I noted the following findings under “Summary of Assessment Findings” in the 1st PSS Psychological Report:

“6 [Q] presented with symptoms of trauma that currently met the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Her trauma symptoms appeared to result from the cumulative impact of multiple adverse experiences throughout her childhood. Based on her self-report and clinical impression, the emotional abuse by [the Mother], physical abuse by [the Father] and sexual assault that occurred during preschool appeared to bother her the most. Although she denied being bothered by most of her adverse experiences, she later reported some distress from these incidents…”

31 Again, the Parents did not seriously challenge the above assessment and/or deny the specific findings in the said Report.

32 Having considered, I accepted the Applicant’s submission that the Parents’ ill-treatment has caused, or is likely to cause, Q unnecessary physical pain, emotional harm, and injury to her health or development.

33 Further, given the Parents’ difficulties and challenges in managing Q’s behaviour thus far (to be dealt with below), I also found that there was a risk that if she were to return to either of the Parents’ care at this point in time, she would be at risk of ill-treatment by way of harsh punishment.

34 Overall, I found that Q has been and is at risk of being ill-treated by the Parents (under the First Ground).

35 I move on to deal with the Second Ground and Third Ground together.

36 For the Second Ground and Third Ground, the Applicant advanced the following points in support:

(a) Q’s pattern of harmful and destructive conduct within the home environment;

(b) Q’s violent behaviour towards her younger sister, C;

(c) Q’s harmful behaviour towards herself, as evidenced by her repeated expressions of suicidal ideation;

(d) Q’s exposure to sexual content;

(e) Q’s escalating and inappropriate sexualised behaviours towards her peers;

(f) Q’s harmful behaviour towards others while residing in out-of-home placements; and

(g) Q’s complex developmental needs and high-risk behaviours.

37 For the most part, the Parents did not seriously challenge or dispute the Applicant’s evidence of Q’s challenging behaviours, including the following ⁹ :

(a) Aggression towards the Mother such as shouting at, hitting or kicking the Mother when she attempted to discipline Q or when she requested Q to homework, which led to Q’s primary school referring Q and the Parents to Kampong Kapoor Family Service Centre (“KKFSC”) for intervention in December 2021, and the Mother continued to struggle with Q’s escalating behaviours despite the intervention with KKFSC lasting close to two years;

(b) Increasingly unpredictable behaviours since the beginning of 2025, when Q displayed frequent emotional outbursts towards her family members, severe school refusal, as well as late nights (which raises concerns regarding her safety and whether she was engaging in at-risk behaviours), and the Mother’s intervention methods were inconsistent and ineffective;

(c) When Q was residing with the Mother and her siblings, Q had acted in a violent, harmful manner towards C (such as repeatedly hitting C during arguments, hitting and kicking C when she was upset with C and using profanities and hurtful statements towards C), which the Parents have been unable to prevent.

38 The Mother had claimed that prior to Q’s (out-of-home) placements, Q had not exhibited violence towards the public, and that based on her observations, Q’s significant behavioural escalation appears to have occurred primarily during periods of welfare and institutional placement ¹⁰ . However, I had difficulty with this claim, as it does not cohere and is inconsistent with the time periods when Q had displayed (repeatedly and increasingly) challenging behaviours (as set out in the preceding paragraph) which started before her out-of-home placements.

39 It is also pertinent to note that while the Mother had claimed that she had actively attempted to manage and address Q’s behavioural and school attendance issues, and that she had constantly remained involved in Q’s welfare, education, emotional condition and rehabilitation ¹¹ , she did not provide details or evidence of the effects or outcome of her attempts, such as whether there was positive or sustained change or improvement on Q’s part. As such, there are considerable doubts over the effectiveness of her efforts to address Q’s behavioural issues.

40 I was prepared to accept that the Mother has, for the most part, been involved in the care of Q and had put in efforts to manage her. However, I found that she was largely unable to exercise effective supervision and control over Q for any sustained period when Q was living with her. This included not being able to effectively deal with Q’s aggressive behaviours (including towards C), ensure Q attends school regularly, or control Q’s at-risk behaviours such as late nights. In arriving at this conclusion, I took into account, among other things, the following observation that SAGH had reported in its Progress Report ¹² :

“Mother remains receptive to professional guidance and has attempted to set boundaries with [Q]. However, these efforts have had limited effectiveness. Mother has shared that [Q]’s behaviours may escalate when her demands are not met. As a results, there have been several occasions where Mother has attempted to placate [Q] by acceding to her demands in order to prevent further escalation.”

41 On the Father’s part, he had simply stated in his written submissions that he observed that Q has experienced behavioural and emotional difficulties across multiple caregiving environments, and that these difficulties have arisen while residing with different caregivers and under different forms of supervision. However, I noted the lack of details or evidence on his part of any practical efforts or attempts to deal with Q’s behavioural issues. Further, since the Mother has sole custody and care and control over Q, and he has at all material times been living in Malaysia after the divorce, his involvement in Q’s care would have been limited at best, if not minimal. Except for a short period when Q was living with him in Malaysia from March to April 2025, he would not have been in any position to exercise any meaningful or proper supervision and control over Q, except (ostensibly) through phone calls or sending messages, which would not have been effective or sufficient.

42 Apart from Q’s harmful and challenging behaviour towards her family, the Applicant had also raised the concern of Q’s harmful behaviour towards herself. The Applicant submitted that Q’s repeated expressions of suicidal ideation and threats of self-harm is evidence that Q has behaved in a manner that is harmful to herself and pointed to Q’s expressions of suicidal ideation in July 2022, April 2024 and July 2025 ¹³ . The Applicant submitted that notwithstanding the Parents’ attempts to intervene, these expressions have persisted, demonstrating that the remedial measures taken by the parents have failed to address this concern.

43 It is noted that the 1st PSS Psychological Report stated that Q denied both current and historical thoughts of suicide ideation and self-harm, and it appeared that current risks of suicide and self-harm are low ¹⁴ . At the same time, however, the said Report also stated that stressors which could elevate Q’s risk of suicide and self-harm include conflictual interactions with the Mother, and significant changes in routine. In my view, even though Q’s current risks of suicide and self-harm may have been assessed to be low, such risks are not absent and therefore should not be minimised or lightly dismissed. Necessary measures should still be taken to address such risks.

44 The Applicant had acknowledged that the Mother had attempted to engage Q regarding Q’s suicidal tendencies, and had also sought professional support. However, the Applicant had also assessed that there has been limited effectiveness in the Mother’s attempts to address the concerns surrounding Q’s suicidal ideation, and that despite her efforts to speak to Q to express her concern and find out the underlying reasons for Q’s suicidal thoughts, her interventions proved insufficient as Q remained resistant to her attempts at communication ¹⁵ . This aspect of the Applicant’s assessment and evidence was not challenged by the Mother.

45 The Father had sought to rely on his act of contacting the police in April 2024 and communicating with Q via messaging, purportedly to deal with Q’s suicidal attempts ¹⁶ . In my view, such purported measures on his part would at best have limited (if any) effectiveness to deal with Q’s suicidal ideation or tendencies. I accepted the Applicant’s point that, given he is residing in Malaysia, he has not been in a position to offer immediate support or supervision as he is not present to locate Q, bring her home or physically intervene to ensure her safety ¹⁷ .

46 In addition to harmful behaviour towards her family members and herself, the Applicant had also raised the concern that Q has exhibited escalating and inappropriate sexualised behaviours that have been harmful towards her peers, and these behaviours further demonstrated that Q is beyond control ¹⁸ . The Applicant contended that notwithstanding the Mother’s awareness of Q’s sexualised behaviours since 2021, she has been unable to adequately address these concerns surrounding Q’s conduct, and has thus failed to exercise proper supervision and control over Q. The Applicant stated that in response to updates from IPAC GP and SAGH on the concerns surrounding Q’s behaviour, the Mother had attempted to communicate with Q during access sessions to understand the underlying reasons for her behaviour and the circumstances surrounding each incident, and had also encouraged her to share what had happened and explored potential solutions or interventions. However, despite the Mother’s attempts to reach out, Q remained unresponsive and disengaged and remained unwilling to participate in these conversations or acknowledge the seriousness of her actions.

47 In my view, the Applicant’s concern regarding Q’s sexualised behaviour was not unfounded. I noted that the Mother did not deny that Q had exhibited escalating and inappropriate sexualised behaviour, including at IPAC GP and SAGH. She also did not refute or deny the Applicant’s contention that her attempts to address Q’s sexualised behaviours have proven ineffective. While there is nothing to suggest that the Father was engaged regarding the concerns over Q’s sexualised behaviour, given that he was at all material times residing in Malaysia, he would not have been in any position to meaningfully address these concerns with Q, if at all.

48 Q’s reported destructive behaviour and aggression towards others (including property damage and physical assault towards peers) while residing in out-of-home placements are also of concern.

49 The Applicant’s evidence is that Q began to present with such destructive behaviour and aggression when she was placed in IPAC GP between May and August 2025 when she repeatedly damaged furniture and fittings (while claiming to be unsure how the damages had occurred) ¹⁹ , and that after her placement in SAGH in August 2025, her destructive and aggressive behaviour escalated significantly, which led to her current placement in SGH. These behaviours included numerous incidents of physical aggression towards fellow residents between September 2025 to January 2026, the most serious of which occurred on 25 November 2025 and 17 January 2026 (both of which resulted in significant physical harm requiring medical attention) ²⁰ .

50 On the Mother’s part, she continued to remain involved along the way, and when she was updated of Q’s behaviour in IPAC GP and SAGH, she had attempted to encourage Q to improve her behaviour when she visited Q during access sessions. However, it is quite clear that despite this, Q still continued her behaviour, which unfortunately escalated. And as mentioned above, the Father would not have been in any position to meaningfully address Q’s behaviour.

51 The Applicant’s position that in view of Q’s complex developmental needs and high-risk behaviours, she is currently beyond control and requires intensive specialised care that is beyond the capacity of the Parents to provide.

52 It is fairly apparent that the Parents did not accept that they cannot provide the necessary care and address Q’s needs and behaviour. In addition, the Mother had claimed that she is “concerned that conclusions formed during highly emotional or escalated periods may not necessarily present a complete or balanced picture of [Q]’s usual personality, emotional state, family dynamics, or long-term emotional needs.” ²¹ She also claimed that a full psychological assessment for ASD had not been completed at the material time ²² , while adding that her intention “is not to dispute the professionals involved but to respectfully seek a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of [Q]’s needs moving forward” ²³ .

53 While I noted the Mother’s concerns, there was lack of objective evidence and basis to place much weight on her concerns. At the end of the day, I had to make my findings based on the available evidence. Based on the evidence submitted by the Applicant, I was prepared to find that Q has both at-risk behaviours as well as complex developmental needs. I took into account the assessments contained in the following medical and psychological reports:

(a) 1st PSS Psychological Report dated 22 August 2025 ²⁴ :

“6 [Q] presented with symptoms of trauma that currently met the DSM-5 met the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Her trauma symptoms appeared to result from the cumulative impact of multiple adverse experiences throughout her childhood. …

7 [Q] also presented with depressive symptoms, although her symptoms did not currently meet clinical criteria for any mood-related disorders.”

(b) Medical Report by the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) Child Guidance Clinic dated 30 January 2026 ²⁵ :

“3. Since 16.10.2025, she has been assessed at our Child Guidance Clinic to have autism spectrum disorder (ASD) following a referral from MSF for an assessment. She has been seeing MSF psychologist for post traumatic stress disorder and was noted to have atypical communication, emotional dysregulation and sensory issues. She has difficulty in the regulation of use of force and in interaction with others. …”

(c) Psychological Therapy Report by PSS dated 10 February 2026 (“2nd PSS Psychological Report”) ²⁶ :

“Aggression and Violence

7 Across settings, [Q] exhibited persistent difficulties in regulating physical force used, resulting in frequent damage to property. …

8 [Q] also presented with difficulties with behavioural regulation across settings, which escalated in end 2025. …

9 Especially of concern were [Q]’s pro-violent cognitions and acts of pre-meditated violence towards her peers. … Based on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth…, [Q]’s current risks of violence in the community and in an institution (i.e. at SGH) are assessed to be High and Moderate respectively. …”

54 I noted the following assessment in the Progress Report on Q by SGH dated 25 February 2026 ²⁷ :

“Given the complexity of [Q’s] needs as a youth who has difficulties with social communication and interaction, [Q] could benefit from a holistic intervention that would address her current risks and needs as well as her overall development in the long term. Her challenges with social awareness, compliance towards rules, emotional regulation and poor behavioural insight necessitate targeted psychological support and interventions. Her history of aggressive behaviour and limited insight into the impact of her actions indicate the needs for sustained therapeutic interventions to develop more effective coping strategies and emotional management skills. …”

55 Based on the above assessments, I accepted that Q would need sustained and specialised care and intervention to address her complex developmental needs and high-risk behaviours.

56 The Applicant submitted that based on the professional assessments, the Parents are unable to provide the intensive specialised care that Q requires in light of her complex developmental needs and high-risk behaviours. The Applicant also submitted that the Parents are unable to exercise proper supervision and support through the level of monitoring, safety management and specialised behavioural interventions necessary to protect both Q and the community from her escalating violent tendencies.

57 Between the Parents, it is quite clear that on the whole, the Mother would have been the parent who was more involved in Q’s life and had put in more effort to address the areas of concern that have been identified. However, there is little evidence or grounds to find that her efforts to address Q’s developmental needs and/or behavioural issues have had any significant and/or lasting effect. Also, given the lack of consistent involvement on the Father’s part, and any steps and measures taken by him to address the areas of concern would have had minimal (if any) effect.

58 Overall, following the above, I found that: (a) the Parents were unable to exercise proper supervision and care over Q and Q is beyond their control (under the Second Ground), and (b) Q has behaved in such a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to herself or to any person and the remedial measures taken by the Parents have failed (under the Third Ground).

59 As such, as regards the First Main Issue, I was satisfied that the Applicant had proven on balance of probabilities that Q is in need of care and protection under section 5(1)(d)(i), 5(1)(c)(ii) and 5(1)(f)(ii) of the CYPA.

60 Since the First Main Issue is answered in the affirmative, I move on to the Second Main Issue – what orders are in the best interests and welfare of Q.

61 The Applicant submitted that the Orders Sought are in Q’s welfare and best interests, and made four points in support of this submission:

(a) First, in light of the serious, longstanding child protection concerns as well as Q’s complex developmental needs and current risk profile, a 12-month stay in SGH is the minimum period necessary to stabilise Q’s situation and to properly address her behaviours and needs.

(b) Second, the Orders Sought would allow for PSV to require Q to attend assessments, psychotherapy, treatments and other programmes and to put in place necessary monitoring and support measures for the next 12 months, to ensure Q’s sustained progress with the help of professionals who are able to safeguard her wellbeing, progress and safety.

(c) Third, the Orders Sought are necessary to mandate the Parents’ cooperation with PSV and other professionals to improve their parenting capabilities and to agree on a sustainable care plan for Q, to enable PSV to address the safety concerns relating to Q and to continue to develop and implement safety plans for her in the longer term.

(d) Fourth, the Orders Sought are necessary to ensure that the parents continue to work with PSV and other professionals to receive any counselling, programme or treatment that is deemed necessary in order to address the current concerns relating to their parenting capabilities.

62 I noted that the Parents did not wish for Q to continue to remain in SGH, and Q herself wishes to return home. However, while the wishes of the Parents and Q are understandable, they are not the determinative or main factor. The primary consideration in determining the appropriate orders, including Q’s placement, is Q’s best interest and welfare.

63 In Q’s case, I found that the child protection concerns (as discussed above) are serious and longstanding, and Q has complex developmental needs, which the Parents did not seriously dispute. Having considered, I was not satisfied or persuaded that it was appropriate or in Q’s best interest and welfare for her to return to the care of either of the Parents at this point in time, even under the supervision of an approved welfare officer.

64 For a start, it is not the case that Q or the family did not have the benefit of prior intervention. Community intervention (for example, by KKFSC) was first given, and when things did not improve, Q was placed in IPAC GP and subsequently SAGH. Unfortunately, Q’s behaviours did not improve, and had in fact escalated (including harming others physically).

65 Next, in determining that it is not appropriate for Q to return to the care of the Parents at this point in time, I also took into account that, based on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth in the 2nd PSS Psychological Report, Q’s risk of violence in the community was assessed to be high, while risk of violence in an institutional setting was assessed to be moderate.

66 The Parents have each proposed their respective plans and measures for Q to return to their respective care. However, given the lack of significant and/or sustained progress when intervention was provided in the community and in other placements (i.e. IPAC GP and SAGH), and noting Q’s escalating behaviour and risk of violence, as well as the lack of effective parental supervision and control in a familial setting thus far, I was not confident nor persuaded that the measures proposed by the Parents are sufficient to address the care and protection concerns (including Q’s complex developmental needs and behavioural issues, as well as safety concerns for the younger sister, C).

67 The Mother relied on positive interactions between Q and herself and C during access sessions as a positive development. She also claimed in her written submissions that Q maintains a close relationship with Q’s grandmother, who has continued to visit and support her despite the practical difficulties involved.

68 However, even if there are positive interactions between Q and the Mother and C during access sessions, little weight can be given to this. I accepted the Applicant’s point raised at the hearing that these sessions are controlled and time-limited in nature, and are materially different from living together full-time in the same household. I also accepted the Applicant’s submission that the risk to C’s safety has not yet been adequately resolved for Q to be re-integrated home at this point in time. I noted that the Parents did not challenge or dispute the Applicant’s evidence that when PSV interviewed C in May 2025, C expressed considerable relief that Q was no longer residing at the family home, and shared with PSV that she did not want any contact with Q and felt unsafe around her, even when the Mother was present to supervise ²⁸ .

69 In addition, no weight can be placed on the supposed close relationship between Q and the maternal grandmother. Suffice to say there is no evidence to suggest that the maternal grandmother would be willing or able to take on any meaningful or effective role (if at all) in managing Q at home.

70 I further noted that while the Parents disagreed with Q’s continued placement at SGH, they did not challenge or dispute the following assessment by SGH ²⁹ :

“Overall Assessment

[Q] was generally well, able to care for herself and assimilated to the Home’s routine. Her current presentation in the Home had been satisfactory indicating her capacity to function within structured environments when appropriate support is provided. …”

71 Overall, I could not find any good or sufficient basis or grounds for me to depart from or disagree with PSV’s assessment that SGH has been able to provide appropriate institutional support and structured consequences to effectively manage Q’s challenging behaviours ³⁰ .

72 For completeness, the Mother had claimed that she genuinely believed that prolonged separation from family and placement within an institutional environment may have exacerbated Q’s emotional distress ³¹ . I was unable to accept or place any weight on this claim of hers, as it is a bare assertion and is unsubstantiated by any objective and/or medical evidence, and therefore lacked genuine basis.

73 Having considered, I was of the view that given Q’s harmful and escalating behaviour and complex developmental needs (including ASD), she would benefit from a period of stay in SGH, which is a place of safety. I accepted the Applicant’s submission that 12 months stay in SGH is appropriate, as this will allow Q sufficient time and opportunity to stabilise and receive targeted and sustained intervention in a structured environment by trained professionals to properly address her risks, needs and other identified areas of concern. I further considered that a 6-month review would also be appropriate, as it would allow the Court to review the case to see how the case is progressing, and determine whether the Orders should continue or otherwise.

74 In addition, as part of the Orders Sought, the Parents (as well as Q) will also be required to undergo counselling, programmes or other forms of intervention that is deemed necessary. I considered this to be appropriate as this will give the Parents time and opportunity to build up and improve their parenting capacity, so that in future, they would, hopefully, be in a better and stronger position to manage Q.

75 For completeness, I accepted the Applicant’s submission as regards the remainder of the Orders Sought, including orders relating to decision-making of certain matters affecting Q, as I considered them appropriate and necessary to ensure that her interests, safety and well-being are protected.

76 As such, as regards the Second Main Issue, I accepted the Applicant’s submission that the Orders Sought are in the best interests and welfare of Q.

77 For the above reasons, I passed the Orders accordingly.

78 I conclude by stating that I recognise that this outcome may be disappointing to the Parents and Q. Nonetheless, I urge them to take a longer term view of things, and consider the desirability to allow Q to undergo focused and sustained intervention in a structured environment to address the areas of concern, and not just focus on short-term inconvenience or discomfort. Q and the Parents are also urged to cooperate and work with the professionals to address the identified areas of concern, for the welfare and betterment of Q.

79 At the time of the writing of this judgment, there is no stay (or any application for a stay) of the Orders.