YEN v YEO
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Shin Yi |
| Charges / claim | child maintenance, sole care and control, Guardianship of Infants Act 1934, Child Development Account trustee, section 4(1)(b) of the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001, effect of MSS order on child maintenance in guardianship proceedings |
| Counsel | Malcus Poh Law Corporation, Victory Law Chambers LLC, Poh Jun Zhe Malcus, VM Vidthiya |
Source: [2026] SGFC 76, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YEN v YEO [2026] SGFC 76 is a decision of District Judge Tan Shin Yi in the Family Court, dated 11 August 2026, after hearings on 31 March 2026 and 15 May 2026. The parties were not married and have two children, aged 7 and 5. The mother filed FC/OAG 32/2024 on 21 December 2024 for custody, care and control, access and maintenance, and later filed MSS 381/2026 to vary an existing maintenance order of $600 per month. The issues included care and control, child maintenance, backdating and the trustee of the children's Child Development Accounts under s 4(1)(b) of the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001. The court ordered joint custody by consent, ordered the father to pay $3,000 per month from 21 December 2024, and ordered transfer of the accounts to the mother.
[2026] SGFC 76 explained
YEN v YEO ([2026] SGFC 76) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 11 August 2026. It is categorised under child maintenance, sole care and control, Guardianship of Infants Act 1934, Child Development Account trustee, section 4(1)(b) of the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001, and effect of MSS order on child maintenance in guardianship proceedings. 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 76 about?
YEN v YEO ([2026] SGFC 76) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “child maintenance”, “sole care and control”, “Guardianship of Infants Act 1934”, and “Child Development Account trustee”, 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 76 consider?
The judgment refers to Family Justice Act and 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 76 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHCF 36. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Family Court dealt with an application by the mother, YEN, concerning two children of unmarried parents, together with her application to vary an existing maintenance order against the father, YEO. The parties agreed to joint custody. The court kept care and control with the mother, ordered the father to pay $3,000 per month for the children's maintenance from 21 December 2024, and ordered him to transfer the children's Child Development Accounts to the mother, who was substituted as trustee.
What maintenance did the court order in YEN v YEO [2026] SGFC 76?
The court found the children's reasonable expenses to be about $3,700 per month and ordered the father to pay $3,000 per month for their maintenance, backdated to 21 December 2024, the date the guardianship application was filed.
Who became trustee of the children's Child Development Accounts in [2026] SGFC 76?
The mother was substituted as trustee. Under s 4(1)(b) of the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001, the trustee is substituted with the parent granted care and control, so the father was ordered to transfer the accounts to her.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
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 76)