Skip to content

TEN v TEO and another appeal [2020] SGHCF 20

Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore — Family Division (sitting as the appellate court on appeals from the Family Court). Decisions of the High Court Family Division on appeal from the Family Court are reported in the SGHCF series. Date: Judgment delivered 23 November 2020 (final hearing 15 July 2020; earlier directions hearings 6 March 2019 and 21 October 2019). Judge: Debbie Ong J (then Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts of Singapore; subsequently Justice of the Appellate Division of the High Court). Sat alone. Reported at: - Full judgment (eLitigation, official judiciary publishing platform): https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHCF_20 - Family Justice Courts case highlight (official judiciary summary): https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/judgments/FJC-case-highlights/case-highlights-detail/ten-v-teo-and-another-appeal-2020-sghcf-20 - Subject-matter index, "General Children Issues": https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/judgments/FJC-case-highlights/CaseHighlightSubjectAreas/general-children-issues

Parties

  • Appellant in HCF/DCA 98/2018 and Respondent in HCF/DCA 99/2018: "TEN" — the Mother (anonymised by Singapore's family-court naming convention for divorce and child proceedings).
  • Appellant in HCF/DCA 99/2018 and Respondent in HCF/DCA 98/2018: "TEO" — the Father.
  • Subjects of the proceedings: two daughters, aged approximately 16 and 13 at the date of the High Court judgment (the elder having been born in 2004 and the younger in 2007 — exact dates of birth not publicly confirmed in the judgment as published, which is the standard for SGHCF anonymised family decisions).
  • State agency involved at earlier stages: Child Protective Service (CPS) of the (then) Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), as the party in earlier care-and-protection proceedings; the Divisional Director of Social Welfare (DSSA — Division of Social Service Agencies) cited as the responsible agency for therapeutic and family-conference support.

Background

The marriage produced two daughters and broke down by 2012, when divorce proceedings commenced. Custody, care-and-control, access, and maintenance were litigated in escalating rounds from 2013 onwards. The relationship between the Mother and the children deteriorated catastrophically after August 2014 — at which point both parents made cross-applications for sole custody following an incident in which the children were hospitalised, with the Father alleging maternal injury (an allegation that the court ultimately found "unsubstantiated"). Regular contact between the Mother and the children effectively ceased from that point.

In 2016 the case generated a sequence of orders: - 2 February 2016 — interim order: joint custody with Father holding care-and-control; Mother limited to telephone and Skype access. - 2 August 2016 — final Family Court order ("August 2016 order"): joint custody; care-and-control to Father; Mother to have overnight and holiday access. - 4 November 2016 — children became "hysterical" upon attempted overnight access at the Mother's home; both were hospitalised. - 6 December 2016 — children referred to Child Protective Services. - 27 December 2016 — CPS commenced child-protection proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act ("CYPA"). - 11 September 2017 — Youth Court made final care-and-protection orders: children to reside with Father; Mother's access subject to CPS approval.

The Mother appealed the care-and-protection orders. In UNB v Child Protector [2018] 5 SLR 1018, the High Court (Family Division) set aside the care-and-protection orders, finding that the children were not suffering "emotional injury" of the kind that justified state intervention, and directed reunification support via the CAPS (Counselling and Psychological Service) team and a referral to a DSSA-administered family service. That judgment cleared the way for the parties' competing applications on custody and access to be re-litigated, leading to a DJ decision in September 2018 and cross-appeals to the High Court — which produced the present TEN v TEO judgment.

Key facts

  • 2012 — divorce proceedings commenced.
  • May 2013 — first order: joint custody, care-and-control to Mother, access to Father.
  • August 2014 — both parties applied for sole custody after the hospitalisation incident; the Father's allegations of maternal injury were ultimately found unsubstantiated; regular Mother–children contact ceased.
  • 2 February 2016 / 2 August 2016 / 4 November 2016 — interim, final, and post-final orders as above; the November incident triggered CPS involvement.
  • December 2016 – September 2017 — CPS proceedings: children placed with Father, Mother's access locked to CPS approval.
  • 2018 — UNB v Child Protector [2018] 5 SLR 1018: High Court set aside the care-and-protection orders.
  • September 2018 — DJ consolidated decision on custody, care-and-control, access, maintenance and overseas-travel.
  • 2018–2020 — cross-appeals to the High Court (Family Division) (HCF/DCA 98/2018 by Mother; HCF/DCA 99/2018 by Father). High Court directed CAPS family conferences; the parties reached interim consent on overseas travel; final hearing 15 July 2020.
  • 23 November 2020 — Debbie Ong J's judgment.

By the date of judgment, the children had had minimal direct contact with the Mother since August 2014 — approximately six years — and were expressing strong resistance to seeing her.

Procedural posture

The two cross-appeals (HCF/DCA 98/2018 and HCF/DCA 99/2018) were brought against the District Judge's consolidated decision of 13 September 2018 on FC/SUM 117/2017 (Mother's application for sole custody, sole care-and-control and immediate return of the children) and FC/SUM 1440/2018 (Father's application for sole custody, passports/birth certificates, prohibition on Mother's contact pending psychiatric assessment, and 50% maintenance contribution).

The Family Division of the High Court hears appeals from the Family Court under Singapore's Family Justice framework. A single Judge of the Family Division sits as the appellate court; the further appellate route runs to the Appellate Division of the High Court (and previously to the Court of Appeal).

The judgment

Ong J dismissed both parties' appeals on the principal points but issued a substantive set of orders shaping forward access, maintenance and travel. Her reasoning is the most fully articulated treatment of "alienating behaviour" and "excessive gatekeeping" in any Singapore family-court judgment to date.

On alienating behaviour and the Father's conduct

Ong J's central finding was that the Father had engaged in conduct that, intentionally or unintentionally, undermined the children's relationship with the Mother:

"I found it likely that there was excessive gatekeeping or alienating behaviour by the Father, through conduct arising whether intentionally or unintentionally from his words and acts." (para 37)

She gave concrete examples — including a questionnaire the Father had created and discussed with the children that was "framed in an unbalanced manner", referring to the Mother's home only by address (with no mention of the Mother herself) while using "an affectionate description of the Father's home without an address" (para 37).

On the pattern of defying access orders, she found:

"The Father repeatedly defied orders for supervised visitation or access by claiming that the Children were resistant" (para 43)

And drew the line between the law's role and a parent's responsibility:

"It was, and remains, the responsibility of the Father as the parent with care and control, to facilitate the reunion between the Children and the Mother. The law does not 'force' children to love a parent... The law does, however, expect a parent not to engage in alienating behaviour, and to support the reunification efforts as far as he or she can." (para 43)

"Here, the Father did not merely fail to be facilitative, the reports and evidence available on the relationship breakdown between the Mother and the Children suggested he had exhibited excessive gatekeeping or polarising conduct." (para 43)

"Having considered the evidence available before me, I found that the Father had undermined the Children's emotional and psychological wellbeing by failing to cease this behaviour over the past years." (para 44)

On the children's stated views

Ong J set out a careful framework for how a family court should treat the views of children whose relationship with one parent has fractured. She held that the children's "voices" might not reflect authentic perspectives where they have been influenced by a parental figure over a period of years (para 32); that counsellor reports sought for litigation purposes must be viewed cautiously (para 33); and that the children's escalating anger despite minimal contact with the Mother since August 2014 was itself evidence of the Father's continuing influence (para 36).

On sole custody

The court refused both parties' applications for sole custody and ordered joint custody, with the Father empowered to make the final call where the parents could not agree. Quoting CX v CY:

"An order for sole custody of a child is only made in exceptional circumstances, such as where one parent physically, sexually, or emotionally abuses the child. Acrimony alone is not sufficient to justify a sole custody order." (para 48, citing CX v CY [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690)

"Generally, an order for sole custody would have the consequence of depriving children of the guidance and input of the non-custody parent in major issues affecting their upbringing — as such, it should not be made too readily." (para 50)

On care-and-control and access

This is the part of the judgment most painful for parents who hope a finding of alienating conduct will trigger a transfer of care. Ong J found that the relationship breakdown was not solely attributable to the Father's conduct and that, given the depth of the children's resistance and the years of estrangement, forcing immediate contact would cause further deterioration. She therefore left care-and-control with the Father and suspended direct contact:

"I found that the best interests of the Children required the Mother to cease direct contact with them until they were ready and willing to meet her. This would be painful for the Mother, but I was of the opinion that pushing the Children to connect with the Mother now might cause a further deterioration of whatever remained of their relationship with her." (para 56)

She rejected the Father's application that the Mother be psychiatrically assessed before any contact.

On overseas travel

The Father could take the children abroad for up to one month at a time, on one week's notice to the Mother (an upward variation from the 24-hour interim arrangement); school trips permitted on prompt notification; the Father to hold the children's passports and birth certificates.

On maintenance

The Mother was ordered to pay $1,500 per month for both children — well below the Father's claim of $3,761.35 per month. Ong J emphasised:

"I assured the Mother that this was a sum that the Children would require for their basic necessities each month in any event, including their school fees, food and daily expenses." (para 63)

The duty to maintain is a statutory duty under section 68 of the Women's Charter and "does not vary based on access or personal relationship" — a quiet but important holding for any case where a parent argues that loss of contact ought to extinguish a maintenance obligation.

Conclusion of the judgment

Ong J declined to fix further review hearings, ruling that "it was time for litigation to conclude, for the Children's sake" (para 65), and expressed the hope that "in time, the Children will rediscover their relationship with the Mother" (para 66).

Who else was involved

  • Bench: Debbie Ong J, then Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts and Judge of the High Court (Family Division). Subsequently elevated to the Appellate Division of the High Court. Ong J is, on the strength of TEN v TEO and a series of related judgments (UNB v Child Protector [2018] 5 SLR 1018; VKW v VKX and others), the lead family-law jurist of her generation in Singapore and the principal author of Singapore's contemporary doctrine on "gatekeeping" and "alienating behaviour."
  • Counsel: not publicly confirmed in the publicly anonymised judgment text. Singapore's anonymisation convention removes counsel names from the headnote and body of family judgments.
  • Court-appointed services: the Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS) team of the Family Justice Courts; the Child Guidance Clinic at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH); and a Division of Social Service Agencies (DSSA) family service. The earlier child-protection proceedings were prosecuted by the Child Protective Service (CPS) of the Ministry of Social and Family Development.
  • Earlier judgment in the same family: UNB v Child Protector [2018] 5 SLR 1018, in which the High Court set aside the care-and-protection orders that had locked the Mother's access to CPS approval. That judgment is the necessary procedural anchor for the present decision.

Reactions and commentary

  • Family Justice Courts Case Highlight — the judiciary publishes its own contemporaneous summary of the decision, framing it as the leading Singapore authority on the legal expectation that a custodial parent must "not engage in alienating behaviour" and must "support the reunification efforts." https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/judgments/FJC-case-highlights/case-highlights-detail/ten-v-teo-and-another-appeal-2020-sghcf-20
  • Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) Family Case Digest (2023) — Singapore's Legal Aid Bureau publishes an annual case digest for the bench and bar; TEN v TEO is included as a foundational reference. https://lab.mlaw.gov.sg/files/LAB_Family_Case_Digest_2023.pdf
  • Subsequent Singapore decisions citing TEN v TEO — the case is now routinely cited by the Family Justice Courts in disputes involving allegations of one-sided parental conduct. A 2025 SGHCF judgment ([2025] SGHCF 12, https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/gd/2025_SGHCF_12/pdf) and a 2024 Court of Appeal judgment ([2024] SGCA 1, https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/gd/2024_SGCA_1/pdf) both draw on the TEN v TEO framework of "alienating behaviour" and "gatekeeping" — full transcripts on eLitigation.

The case is not "controversial" in the public sense — it is not the subject of campaigning press coverage — but within the Singapore family bar it is the standard authority on the limits of what a family court can and should do when one parent is shaping the children's hostility to the other.

Why this case matters

  1. It is the clearest articulation in Singapore law of the distinction between (i) what the court can compel ("the law does not 'force' children to love a parent") and (ii) what the court does expect of a parent with care-and-control ("a parent [shall] not engage in alienating behaviour, and... support the reunification efforts"). That two-limb test is now the working frame for Singapore family-court analysis of alienation cases.

  2. The case establishes that the term "alienating behaviour" is a legitimate term of family-law art in Singapore — without committing the court to "parental alienation syndrome" as a clinical diagnosis. Ong J uses the language of "excessive gatekeeping", "alienating behaviour" and "polarising conduct" — language drawn from contemporary family-law and family-psychology literature rather than from the contested PAS diagnostic tradition. This is a useful template for jurisdictions that want to recognise the conduct while side-stepping the science debate.

  3. It demonstrates the limits of judicial remedy when alienation has hardened over years. Ong J found the Father responsible for the breakdown but did not transfer care — because by 2020 the children's resistance to the Mother was so deeply entrenched that forced contact would cause further harm. This is the painful counter-lesson to cases (such as Re A (Children) (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWFC B56 in England) where transfer of residence has been used as the remedy: at six years' estrangement, the Singapore court concluded that the window for transfer had closed and only a long, patient therapeutic process could open it again.

  4. The maintenance holding is exportable. The court's reasoning that the section 68 Women's Charter duty to maintain "does not vary based on access or personal relationship" cuts off the argument — often made by an alienated parent under stress — that loss of contact should extinguish the financial duty. That is good law in Singapore and good rhetoric for any common-law jurisdiction with a similar statutory framework.

  5. It is the anchor common-law-Asia case for the AntiAlienate knowledge base, sitting alongside the India Supreme Court's decision in Vivek Singh v Romani Singh (2017) 3 SCC 231 as the principal Asian authorities on the recognition of one-parent obstructive conduct as a family-law wrong. Singapore's small population, world-class judiciary, and consistent publication of full anonymised reasons via eLitigation make Singapore family-court decisions an unusually clean primary-source corpus — TEN v TEO is the flagship.

Sources

Primary sources (judgment and official judiciary publications):

  • TEN v TEO and another appeal [2020] SGHCF 20, full text (eLitigation): https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHCF_20
  • Family Justice Courts Case Highlight (official judiciary summary): https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/judgments/FJC-case-highlights/case-highlights-detail/ten-v-teo-and-another-appeal-2020-sghcf-20
  • Family Justice Courts Case Highlights — General Children Issues subject index: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/judgments/FJC-case-highlights/CaseHighlightSubjectAreas/general-children-issues
  • Singapore Courts homepage / eLitigation portal: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/ and https://www.elitigation.sg/

Related Singapore decisions on the same family or doctrine:

  • UNB v Child Protector [2018] 5 SLR 1018 — the predecessor judgment in the same family setting aside the care-and-protection orders.
  • [2025] SGHCF 12 — 2025 SGHCF decision citing the TEN v TEO framework on alienating behaviour: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/gd/2025_SGHCF_12/pdf
  • [2024] SGCA 1 — Court of Appeal decision drawing on the TEN v TEO framework: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/gd/2024_SGCA_1/pdf
  • CX v CY [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 — earlier Court of Appeal authority cited by Ong J on the "exceptional circumstances" threshold for sole custody.

Bar and practitioner literature:

  • Legal Aid Bureau, Family Case Digest 2023 (Singapore Ministry of Law): https://lab.mlaw.gov.sg/files/LAB_Family_Case_Digest_2023.pdf
  • Practical Law Country Q&A, Family Law in Singapore: Overview, Drew & Napier: https://www.drewnapier.com/getmedia/9579f812-fa01-4597-abb1-9989af8aab5f/Family-Law-in-Singapore-Overview.aspx
  • ICLG, Family Laws and Regulations — Singapore: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/family-laws-and-regulations/singapore

Legislative reference:

  • Women's Charter (Singapore) — section 68 (duty to maintain children).
  • Children and Young Persons Act (Singapore) — care-and-protection jurisdiction invoked in the earlier 2017 Youth Court proceedings.
  • Guardianship of Infants Act and the welfare-of-the-child principle.

Related cases already in this knowledge base:

Case study prepared for the AntiAlienate knowledge base (github.com/AntiAlienate/antialienate-knowledge) under CC BY 4.0. All quotations transcribed from the published eLitigation text of [2020] SGHCF 20 and confirmed against the Family Justice Courts case highlight. Parties anonymised in accordance with Singapore family-court convention; counsel names not publicly available in the published judgment.