YHW v YHX
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Sheela Kumari Devi |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | Dodwell & Co LLC, I.R.B. Law LLP, Alfred Dodwell, Kulvinder Kaur, Marina Sani |
Source: [2026] SGFC 120, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YHX v YHW [2026] SGFC 120 was decided by District Judge Sheela Kumari Devi in the Family Court on 26 August 2026, after hearings on 24 June 2026 and 7 July 2026, in FC/OAG 37 of 2026 and FC/OAG 68 of 2026. The parties are Italian nationals working in Singapore, with one child born on 5 July 2021. Each filed an application under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953, the Mother for care and control and the Father for care and control with supervised access for the Mother. The Father appealed against interim parenting time orders. The issues were whether supervised access should continue and whether overnight time should be allowed. The court ordered unsupervised parenting time, including one overnight per week, until the final decision.
[2026] SGFC 120 explained
YHW v YHX ([2026] SGFC 120) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 26 August 2026. It is categorised under Family Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGFC 120 about?
YHW v YHX ([2026] SGFC 120) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law – Interim Parenting Time Orders – Unsupervised and Overnight time”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGFC 120 consider?
The judgment refers to Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 120 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHCF 26. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Family Court gave grounds for interim parenting time orders in cross-applications under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1953 between two Italian parents of a five-year-old child, YHX (the Father) having appealed against orders made on 7 July 2026. The court rejected the Father's grounds for continued supervised access, namely incidents during access, the Mother's mental health support and an alleged flight risk. It ordered unsupervised parenting time for the Mother, including one overnight per week from Friday after school to Saturday at 8pm, pending the final decision.
Did the court order supervised access in YHX v YHW [2026] SGFC 120?
No. District Judge Sheela Kumari Devi was not satisfied that the Father's grounds, taken individually or cumulatively, showed sufficient risk to justify continued supervised access, and made interim orders for unsupervised parenting time for the Mother.
How much overnight access did the Mother receive in [2026] SGFC 120?
The Mother received one overnight per week, from Friday after school to Saturday at 8pm, as part of her interim parenting time. The court described this as a measured, gradual recalibration pending its full decision in the cross-applications.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 120)