YCD v YCE
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Phang Hsiao Chung |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | Harry Elias Partnership LLP, Legal Eagles, Clement Yap Ying Jie, Diana Foo, Urmi Nag |
Source: [2026] SGFC 98, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YCD v YCE [2026] SGFC 98 is a Family Court decision of District Judge Phang Hsiao Chung, with grounds dated 30 July 2026. In FC/OAG 154/2025, the applicant mother sought under section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 maintenance of $8,926 a month or a lump sum of $1,071,120 for a child from the respondent, whom she alleged was the biological father. The child was born on 26 May 2014 during her marriage to another man, who was named as father on the birth certificate. She also sought an order for a DNA paternity test, a declaration of paternity and costs of testing. The issue was whether the court could order paternity testing. The court found the evidential threshold unmet and dismissed prayers 2, 3 and 4 on 13 July 2026. Prayer 1 was stayed pending appeal HCF/DCA 52/2026, and the applicant was to pay costs of $1,800.
[2026] SGFC 98 explained
YCD v YCE ([2026] SGFC 98) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 30 July 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 98 about?
YCD v YCE ([2026] SGFC 98) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law - Parentage - Paternity testing - Whether Court has power to order paternity testing by DNA analysis”, 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 98 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), Family Justice Act, and Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 98 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGFC 58. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Family Court heard an application by YCD, the mother of a child, for maintenance of $8,926 a month or a lump sum of $1,071,120 from YCE, whom she alleged was the child's biological father, together with an order that YCE submit to a DNA paternity test. The court held that she had not met the evidential threshold for a DNA paternity test and dismissed the paternity testing and related prayers. The maintenance prayer was stayed pending her appeal, and she was ordered to pay costs of $1,800.
What was YCD v YCE about ([2026] SGFC 98)?
It was a Family Court application by a mother for child maintenance from a man she alleged was the child's biological father, together with an order that he submit to a DNA paternity test and a declaration of paternity.
What did the court decide in [2026] SGFC 98?
The court held the applicant had not met the evidential threshold for a DNA paternity test and dismissed prayers 2, 3 and 4. It stayed the maintenance prayer pending appeal and ordered her to pay the respondent costs of $1,800.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
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 98)