CX v CY: Child Custody and Access Dispute Between Parents in Different Jurisdictions

In CX v CY, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by the mother against orders granting joint custody of their child to both parents, with care and control to the mother and limited overseas access to the father. The parents were in a strained relationship and resided in different countries. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the joint custody order and the father's right to overseas access, emphasizing the importance of joint parenting and the child's welfare. The court also clarified the distinction between custody and care and control orders.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding custody and access orders for a child with parents in different countries. The court upheld joint custody and overseas access rights.

1.7 Decision Date

18 July 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
CY	Respondent	Individual	Orders Upheld	Won	Joyce Fernando of Robert Wang and Woo LLC Krishnan Nadarajan of Robert Wang and Woo LLC
CX	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Deepak Natverlal of Bernard Rada and Lee Law Corporation S Radakrishnan of Bernard Rada and Lee Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	No
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Joyce Fernando	Robert Wang and Woo LLC
Krishnan Nadarajan	Robert Wang and Woo LLC
Deepak Natverlal	Bernard Rada and Lee Law Corporation
S Radakrishnan	Bernard Rada and Lee Law Corporation

4. Facts

The parents are married but separated.
The mother is a Singapore national residing in Singapore.
The father is a Dutch national working in Thailand.
The child is both a Dutch national and a Singapore citizen.
The mother has care and control of the child.
The father has limited access to the child, including overseas access.
The parties' relationship is severely strained.

5. Formal Citations

CX v CY (minor: custody and access), CA 104/2004, [2005] SGCA 37

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2001-10-02	Child born in Thailand.
2001-06-23	Parties married in Singapore.
2003-05-01	Parties separated in Bangkok.
2003-07-01	Mother returned to Singapore with the child.
2003-10-01	Father applied to the Family Court under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act.
2005-05-11	Mother filed a divorce petition in the Family Court.
2005-07-19	Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Custody of Child
- Outcome: The court upheld the joint custody order, emphasizing the importance of both parents' involvement in the child's life.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Joint custody versus sole custody
  - Welfare of the child
Access to Child
- Outcome: The court upheld the order allowing the father to bring the child out of Singapore once every six months.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Overseas access
  - Best interests of the child
Principles Governing Appellate Intervention
- Outcome: The court clarified that the principles governing appellate intervention are the same even in custody cases involving the welfare of children.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Sole custody to the mother
Setting aside of joint custody order
Setting aside of overseas access order

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Family Law
Child Custody
Divorce Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
CX v CY (minor: custody, care, control and access)	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 724	Singapore	Cited for the judge's grounds of decision regarding custody, care, control and access.
G v G	House of Lords	Yes	[1985] 2 All ER 225	England	Cited for the principles governing appellate intervention in cases involving the welfare of children.
Bellenden v Satterthwaite	N/A	Yes	[1948] 1 All ER 343	N/A	Cited regarding judicial discretion and the ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.
AD v AE	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 505	Singapore	Cited regarding the discretionary powers to extend time in custody cases.
Re Aliya Aziz Tayabali	N/A	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 754	Singapore	Cited for the approach of the courts not to intervene unnecessarily in the parent-child relationship where there is no actual dispute between the parents over any serious matters relating to the child’s upbringing.
Re G (guardianship of an infant)	N/A	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 229	Singapore	Cited for the approach of the courts not to intervene unnecessarily in the parent-child relationship where there is no actual dispute between the parents over any serious matters relating to the child’s upbringing.
Ho Quee Neo Helen v Lim Pui Heng	N/A	Yes	[1972–1974] SLR 249	Singapore	Cited for the principle that joint custody orders should only be made where there was a reasonable prospect that parties would co-operate. The court in the present case clarified that this principle is no longer appropriate.
CJ v CK	District Court	Yes	[2004] SGDC 135	Singapore	Cited as a case that applied the principle in Helen Ho.
EY v EZ	District Court	Yes	[2004] SGDC 91	Singapore	Cited as a case that applied the principle in Helen Ho.
T v C	District Court	Yes	[2003] SGDC 304	Singapore	Cited as a case that applied the principle in Helen Ho and for the argument that overseas access should only be granted when the child reaches 12 years old.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 234	Singapore	Cited for the argument that all things being equal, the natural mother should be granted sole custody of the child who was of tender years. The court in the present case added a word of caution that the case should not be taken beyond its context.
Chan Teck Hock David v Leong Mei Chuan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR 177	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the interest of the children demands that both parents should be involved in determining what is best for them.
L v L	N/A	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR 222	Singapore	Cited for the muddling of the definition of “custody orders” with that of “care and control orders”.
Yeap Albert v Wong Elizabeth	High Court	Yes	[1998] SGHC 97	Singapore	Cited as an example of local jurisprudence where matters such as choice of schools, tutors or healthcare have been regarded as matters for the custodian(s) to decide.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Women’s Charter (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules (Cap 353, R 4, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Custody
Access
Care and control
Joint custody
Sole custody
Overseas access
Welfare of the child
Joint parenting
Parental responsibility

15.2 Keywords

custody
access
child
Singapore
family law
joint custody
overseas access

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	95
Child Custody	90
Visitation Rights	85
Divorce	40

16. Subjects

Family Law
Child Custody
Divorce