Divorce and Child Custody Cases where Allegations of Child Abuse to Prevent Access were Proven False in Last Three Years

1 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the last three years, how many cases have there been in divorce and child custody cases where allegations of child abuse by one spouse against the other spouse in attempting to prevent access to children have been proven to be false.

The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry is unable to provide the specific number of cases where one spouse falsely alleges during the divorce process that the other spouse has abused the child, in order to prevent the other spouse from obtaining custody care and control or access to the child, as the Family Justice Courts does not have such data available.

Nonetheless, furnishing false information to a public servant, which includes a judge or officer of a court of justice, whether or not as part of the divorce process, is an offence under the Penal Code. If convicted, the individual would be liable to a fine and/or a term of imprisonment. Over the last three years, from 2019 to 2021, an average of approximately 80 persons were convicted annually of such an offence of furnishing false information, but this is not limited to the context of child abuse allegations in divorce proceedings.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I just want to set the context for my supplementary question. It is not uncommon for us to come across cases where, post-divorce or during divorce, individuals try to find reasons to deny or prevent access or custody of the ex-spouse from the children. In the spirit of MSF's latest efforts to introduce restorative justice into divorce proceedings, whether MSF currently has or will include emphasis in the divorce counselling process to stress to parents that depriving children of access to their parents can actually have detrimental effects on their well-being and to stress the importance that collaborative co-parenting is necessary for the children's well-being.

I ask this because I have come across several attempts by residents to seek advice from me, knowing that I champion women's rights, to ask for advice on how they can prevent custody of their ex-husbands for their children. Personally, those can be stemming from vices or fears that the individual may have. So, I feel that MSF can do something to help citizens understand the importance of having both parents in a child's life despite divorce.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, at the recent Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I had shared about how we will be introducing a range of measures to enforce child access and that includes allowing the Court to order: (a) the care and control parent to grant the access parent additional access to the child to make up for the access denied; (b) the care and control parent to compensate the access parent for expenses incurred as a result of the breach of order; (c) both parties and the child or any of them to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes or family support programmes; (d) the care and control parent to enter into a bond to ensure future compliance with the order; and (e) as a last resort, imprisonment or a fine for the care and control parent.

That said, I entirely agree with the Member that what is important is that we try to encourage co-parenting behaviours between the divorced spouses, because at the end of the day, there is a child at the centre of this and we do not want too acrimonious a relationship between the ex-spouses as it would be to the detriment of the child.

Specifically on this, we have set up five FAM@FSCs, and there would be a further five more FAM@FSCs which would be set up by the end of 2022. And these bring together existing marriage and divorce support programmes and support services. We have also introduced a new family counselling service which includes parenting support that helps to look at parent and child issues. The work at the FAM@FSCs is also complemented by the work of the DSSAs. The programmes of the DSSAs and FAM@FSCs are delivered by specialised counsellors and social workers, whose aim is to help divorcing parents understand the impact of the divorce on their children and also to work out their differences so that they can parent effectively.

What I mentioned earlier on the legal measures, we hope that those would be a last resort. At the end of the day, we want to restore the relationship, hopefully, between the divorced, ex-spouses so that they can co-parent effectively for the best interest of the child.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I echo what Ms Carrie Tan has said in relation to restoring the family relationships despite the breakdown of the parents' marriage.

Currently, it has been made compulsory for parents, prior to the filing of the divorce, to undergo counselling sessions. My suggestion to MSF is to consider this, as children are often feeling torn apart and feeling it is very difficult to make decisions when it comes to choosing which parent to follow as a result of the breakdown of the parents' marriage, whether it may be helpful for a compulsory session to be made for the children to undergo a series of counselling sessions while the parents, at the same time, go for the counselling and mediation sessions?

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. I mentioned earlier that the Court can order the parties – the divorced spouses – and the child or any of them to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes or family support programmes. So, the Court can order this.

But we have stop short of making it mandatory across, like the Marriage Parenting Programme (MPP) which I had talked about at the Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. That is because we recognise that there can be different circumstances that affect families. We do not want a situation where, by making certain programmes compulsory, we actually add on to the stress that the child or the divorced spouses may already be experiencing. So, we have adopted a balanced approach, in that should there be persistent transgressions from one spouse in denying access to the other spouse, then, the Court can order such counselling and mediation programmes.

But we stop short of making it compulsory because we recognise that there may be different, unique circumstances facing each family.