WYQ v Child Protector
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Family Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Choo Han Teck |
| Charges / claim | Family Law-Children and Young Persons Act |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers (Civil Division), Au Wei Hoe, Genevieve Lee |
Source: [2024] SGHCF 31, High Court (Family Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
WYQ v Child Protector [2024] SGHCF 31 was decided by Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of the Republic of Singapore, heard on 28 August 2024 with the grounds of decision delivered on 3 September 2024. The matter was Youth Court Appeal No 1 of 2024/01, an appeal by the appellant (the mother) against the decision of the District Judge below, who had ordered the mother's two daughters, aged 14 and 11, to be sent to a place of safety for 12 months with a review in six months. The catchwords were Family Law and the Children and Young Persons Act.
The District Judge made the order under s 54(1)(b)(i)(A) of the Children and Youth Protection Act, having found that the two daughters needed care and protection under s 5(1) of that Act; the father, who is divorced from the mother, did not object to the decision. The judgment set out the various grounds in s 5(1) under which a child is in need of care or protection, including limb (c)(ii) (a parent unfit, unable or who has neglected to exercise proper supervision and control such that the child falls into bad association, is exposed to moral danger, or is beyond control), limb (d)(i) (ill-treatment by a parent), limb (f) (a child behaving in a manner harmful to self or others where the parent is unable or unwilling to remedy the situation), and limb (g) (emotional harm). The respondent, the Child Protector, was represented by Au Wei Hoe and Genevieve Lee of the Attorney-General's Chambers (Civil Division).
Summary
This was an appeal by a mother against a District Judge's order, made under the Children and Young Persons Act, that her two daughters (aged 14 and 11) be sent to a place of safety for 12 months with a review at six months, on the basis that they were in need of care and protection. The District Judge had found that the daughters faced moral danger through exposure to pornography, were likely to harm themselves and others through self-cutting and physical altercations, and that the mother had emotionally or psychologically abused the younger daughter. Choo Han Teck J found no merit in the appeal, considered that the daughters would be better off at their places of safety, and dismissed the appeal.
What was the appeal in WYQ v Child Protector [2024] SGHCF 31 about?
It was the mother's appeal in Youth Court Appeal No 1 of 2024/01 against the District Judge's order sending her two daughters, aged 14 and 11, to a place of safety for 12 months with a six-month review under the Children and Youth Protection Act, decided 3 September 2024.
On what statutory basis were the children placed in a place of safety in WYQ v Child Protector ([2024] SGHCF 31)?
The District Judge acted under s 54(1)(b)(i)(A) of the Children and Youth Protection Act, having found the two daughters in need of care and protection under s 5(1), whose grounds include parental unfitness or neglect, ill-treatment, harmful behaviour, and emotional harm. The divorced father did not object.
Statutes Cited
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHCF 31)