YDR v YDQ

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGFC 135 consider?

The judgment refers to Women's Charter (Cap 353). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGFC 135 Family Court 12 October 2026 FC/ECAO 17/2025 · FC/ECAO 15/2026 41 min read

11 cases cited

Key facts

Court	Family Court
Decided	12 October 2026
Judge	Kow Keng Siong
Charges / claim	Family Law
Counsel	M/S A. Rajandran, A Rajandran, Kasturibai Manickam

Source: [2026] SGFC 135, Family Court, decided 12 October 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Family Law – Access – Enforcement of child access order under s 126B of the Women's Charter 1961 – Show-cause procedure – Burden and standard of proof Family Law – Access – Children refusing to see access-parent – Care-parent's duty to take reasonable steps to facilitate access – Whether sufficient cause shown for non-compliance Family Law – Access – Make-up access – Whether missed weekday dinner-access sessions may be consolidated into longer weekend daytime sessions under s 126B(3)(a) and (4) of the Women's Charter 1961

Practice Areas

Family Law

Judges (1)

Kow Keng Siong Delivered

Counsel (3)

M/S A. Rajandran Firm

A Rajandran Counsel for the respondent

Kasturibai Manickam Counsel for the respondent

Parties (2)

YDQ Respondent

YDR Applicant

Case Significance

YDR v YDQ [2026] SGFC 135 is a Family Court judgment of District Judge Kow Keng Siong delivered on 12 October 2026 in ECAO 17/2025 and ECAO 15/2026. The Father applied under s 126B of the Women's Charter 1961 to enforce a consent access order of 20 June 2025 concerning two children born in March 2016 and August 2017. The Mother contended the order was defective, was not served before some breaches, and that the children refused to meet the Father. The court held that the order bound her from the day it was made, found no proof of breach on 25 and 28 June 2025, but found she failed to provide 13 weekend overnight and 24 weekday dinner sessions. A second consent order of 2 February 2026 superseded the first prospectively. The court ordered make-up dinner access and an Access Evaluation Report, and reserved make-up overnight access.

[2026] SGFC 135 explained

YDR v YDQ ([2026] SGFC 135) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 12 October 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 135 about?

YDR v YDQ ([2026] SGFC 135) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law – Access – Enforcement of child access order under s 126B of the Women's Charter 1961 – Show-cause procedure – Burden and standard of proof Family Law – Access – Children refusing to see access-parent – Care-parent's duty to take reasonable steps to facilitate access – Whether sufficient cause shown for non-compliance Family Law – Access – Make-up access – Whether missed weekday dinner-access sessions may be consolidated into longer weekend daytime sessions under s 126B(3)(a) and (4) of the Women's Charter 1961”, 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 135 consider?

The judgment refers to Women's Charter (Cap 353). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 135 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGFC 86, [2026] SGFC 3, and [2024] SGHCF 46, and 2 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

The Family Court heard two applications under s 126B of the Women's Charter 1961 in which the Father sought to enforce a consent access order made on 20 June 2025. The Mother argued the order was defective, that service was irregular and that the children refused to see him. The court held the order bound her, found she failed to provide 13 weekend overnight and 24 weekday dinner access sessions, and did not prove reasonable steps. It ordered make-up dinner access and an Access Evaluation Report, reserving make-up overnight access.

What did the court decide in YDR v YDQ [2026] SGFC 135?

District Judge Kow Keng Siong held the Mother was bound by the 20 June 2025 access order and had failed to provide 13 weekend overnight and 24 weekday dinner sessions. He ordered make-up dinner access and an Access Evaluation Report.

Does children's reluctance excuse a breach of an access order in [2026] SGFC 135?

The court held that the children's alleged reluctance to meet the Father did not relieve the Mother of her duty to take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and she had not shown that she took any.