Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCF 59
- Title: Father of XQD and XQE v Child Protector
- Court: High Court (Family Division), General Division
- Case Type: Youth Court Appeal
- Appeal Number: Youth Court Appeal No 3 of 2025/01
- Judgment Date: 15 October 2025
- Date of Decision/Release: 24 October 2025 (judgment reserved; delivered thereafter)
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Appellant/Applicant: Father of XQD and XQE
- Respondent: Child Protector
- Legislation/Legal Area: Family Law — Youth Court — Care and protection orders
- Statutes Referenced: Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”); Criminal Procedure Code 2010
- Procedural Rules Referenced: Family Justice (General) Rules 2024 (Part 3 rule 4(6) read with Part 3 rule 2)
- Length: 6 pages, 1,451 words
- Lower Court: Youth Court (District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng)
- Lower Court Citation: Child Protector v Parents of XQD and XQE [2025] SGYC 5
- Representation: Appellant in-person; Regina Chang (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Respondent
- Key Orders Challenged: Care and Protection Orders (“CPOs”) for 12 months; incidental orders including counselling and safety-related restraints
Summary
This High Court decision concerns an appeal by a father against Youth Court orders granting Care and Protection Orders (“CPOs”) in respect of his two children. The CPOs were made under the statutory framework in the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”), following findings that the children had suffered, or were likely to suffer, emotional or psychological harm attributable to emotional or psychological abuse by their parents. The Youth Court had concluded that the children were exposed to frequent parental conflict and violence, including physical altercations and verbal intimidation, and that this exposure had adversely affected them.
In dismissing the appeal, the High Court applied the appellate standard for reversing Youth Court decisions under s 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The court held that the District Judge did not err in law and did not reach a decision against the weight of the evidence. The High Court accepted that the documentary evidence—particularly the Protective Service (“PSV”) reports (then known as the Child Protective Service), school reports, and a social report from Whispering Hearts Family Service Centre (“WHFSC”)—was credible and supported the conclusion that the children were exposed to violence against the mother. The father’s challenges to the reliability and balance of the reports were rejected.
Practically, the decision confirms that where evidence demonstrates that children have been exposed to domestic violence and parental conflict, courts may find emotional or psychological abuse within the meaning of the CYPA and order protective measures, even where the non-offending parent and children may be willing to cooperate with a temporary arrangement and the offending parent argues for reunification.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The father and the children’s mother married in 2007. The children were born in China on 29 December 2008 (the elder child, XQD) and 11 December 2014 (the younger child, XQE). The family lived in China until 2020, when they relocated to Singapore. Over time, the father and the children became Singapore citizens, while the mother remained a citizen of China.
At the time the Youth Court proceedings were initiated, the children were 16 and 10 years old respectively. The factual narrative before the courts was dominated by the parents’ repeated quarrelling, which escalated at times into violence. By December 2024, the father had been charged with four offences, including voluntarily causing hurt to the mother by repeatedly slapping her face and criminal intimidation by threatening her with death. These criminal charges formed part of the broader evidential context for the protective proceedings.
In March 2025, the mother left the matrimonial home and sought refuge at a crisis shelter. The children, however, continued to live in the matrimonial home with the father. The mother later found rental accommodation, and the Child Protector’s assessment identified the landlord as a “safe adult”. This “safe adult” concept became relevant to the interim arrangements made by the Youth Court.
On 2 May 2025, the Youth Court granted interim orders allowing the children to reside either at the crisis shelter with the mother or at the residence of the safe adult, subject to assessment and approval by the Child Protector. The Youth Court also directed the father to refrain from going to the crisis shelter or the safe adult’s residence without approval from an Approved Welfare Officer. Despite these interim safeguards, the father appeared near the safe adult’s apartment and outside the younger child’s school and the mother’s workplace on various occasions without the required approval.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the statutory threshold for making CPOs under the CYPA was satisfied. In particular, the court had to determine whether the children had suffered or were likely to suffer emotional or psychological harm on account of emotional or psychological abuse by their parents, as contemplated by s 5(1)(g) of the CYPA.
A second issue concerned the scope and intensity of the evidence required to establish “emotional or psychological abuse”. The High Court needed to consider whether exposure to parental conflict and violence—especially violence directed at a related person (here, the mother)—could amount to emotional or psychological abuse by a parent, and how s 5(2)(f) of the CYPA informs that inquiry.
Finally, the appeal raised an appellate review issue: what standard the High Court should apply when reviewing Youth Court orders. The court addressed this by reference to s 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, which restricts reversal to situations where the appellate court is satisfied the decision was wrong in law, against the weight of the evidence, or (for sentences) manifestly excessive/inadequate. This standard shaped the High Court’s approach to the father’s evidential complaints about the PSV reports.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court began by identifying the applicable appellate framework. Because the case concerned the Youth Court’s power under s 54 of the CYPA to make care and protection orders, the court held that s 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 applied. That provision requires the appellate court to be satisfied that the Youth Court decision was wrong in law or against the weight of the evidence. This meant the High Court would not simply re-weigh the evidence as if it were a trial court; rather, it would assess whether the District Judge’s conclusions were supportable on the evidence and consistent with the law.
On the substantive CYPA threshold, the High Court agreed with the District Judge that the children were in need of care or protection under s 5(1)(g). The District Judge had found that the children “had suffered or were likely to suffer from emotional harm on account of emotional or psychological abuse by their parents”. The High Court endorsed the reasoning that “frequent conflicts and violence” between the parents had affected the children adversely and that the children were at risk of emotional harm because of emotional or psychological abuse arising from parental conflict.
Critically, the High Court relied on the documentary evidence. It noted that the PSV reports, school reports, and the WHFSC social report described the children as having been frequently exposed to conflicts, including being made to watch quarrels and being involved in interventions when quarrels escalated into violence. The elder child had also sustained injuries during one of the parents’ altercations. The court accepted that these experiences were reflected in the reports, including descriptions that the children were “scared”. The High Court treated these as concrete indicators of emotional impact rather than abstract allegations.
The father’s principal challenge was to the reliability and balance of the PSV reports. He argued that the reports were “one-sided” and based on emotional accounts from the mother, omitted his version of events, contained exaggerated statements, and were inconsistent with police records. The High Court rejected these submissions. It held that the PSV reports and the WHFSC social report were based on information provided by multiple sources, including the father and third parties such as KKH and WHFSC. The court found that the sources corroborated each other and that the reports’ makers had interviewed the children who had direct knowledge of the frequency and intensity of the parents’ fights.
In addition, the High Court emphasised the neutrality and credibility of certain documents. It referred to KKH hospital records and school reports as being made by neutral third parties whose observations appeared impartial. The court found these documents credible and, importantly, found that the documentary evidence did not support the father’s case; in many instances, it refuted it. This approach illustrates the court’s willingness to treat contemporaneous records and third-party observations as strong evidential anchors in child protection proceedings.
On the legal meaning of “emotional or psychological abuse”, the High Court endorsed the District Judge’s application of s 5(2)(f) of the CYPA. That provision provides that a child may be under emotional or psychological abuse by a parent if the parent exposes the child to any violence against a related person of the child. The High Court held that it was clear from the totality of the documentary evidence that the children had been exposed to the father’s violence against the mother. Although the father denied this, the court concluded that his denial and arguments did not persuade either the Youth Court or the High Court that the evidence was unreliable.
Finally, the High Court considered the prospects of reconciliation and the likely future risk. The court observed that the father’s submissions displayed deep animosity towards the mother. It therefore considered it unlikely that the parents would reconcile unless both were willing to make great effort to do so. At the time of the appeal, the court found that they did not appear to be moving in that direction. The court reasoned that, if the CPOs were reversed and the children returned to the matrimonial home, the children would likely continue to be exposed to physical and verbal abuse due to the strained relationship between the parents.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the father’s appeal. It affirmed the Youth Court’s decision to grant CPOs in respect of the children, including the associated incidental orders. The practical effect was that the children would remain in the mother’s care under supervision of an approved welfare officer for the period ordered by the Youth Court (12 months), rather than returning to the matrimonial home.
By upholding the CPOs, the High Court also maintained the protective structure that had been put in place through interim orders, including the father’s restraint from approaching the crisis shelter or safe adult’s residence without approval. The decision thus reinforces that protective orders can be sustained where evidence supports findings of emotional harm arising from exposure to domestic violence and parental conflict.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts apply the CYPA’s emotional harm and emotional/psychological abuse provisions in the context of domestic violence exposure. The High Court’s endorsement of s 5(2)(f) demonstrates that “emotional or psychological abuse” is not limited to direct abuse of the child; it includes exposing the child to violence against a related person. For family lawyers, this is a key interpretive point when advising clients whose conduct is directed at another adult but whose children are present or otherwise affected.
From an evidential perspective, the decision underscores the weight that courts may place on multi-source documentary material, including PSV reports, school observations, and medical records from neutral third parties. The court’s rejection of the father’s “one-sided” critique indicates that challenges to report reliability must be supported by persuasive evidence rather than general assertions of bias or omission. Where reports are based on interviews with the children and corroborated by other records, appellate courts may be reluctant to disturb the Youth Court’s findings.
Finally, the case highlights the practical importance of the appellate standard under s 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. Even where an appellant disputes factual findings, the High Court will not overturn Youth Court decisions unless it is satisfied the decision was wrong in law or against the weight of the evidence. This has direct implications for how appeals should be structured: counsel should focus on demonstrable legal error or clear evidential imbalance rather than inviting a re-hearing of contested facts.
Legislation Referenced
- Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”), in particular:
- Section 5(1)(g)
- Section 5(2)(f)
- Section 54
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010, s 394
- Family Justice (General) Rules 2024, Part 3 rule 4(6) read with Part 3 rule 2
Cases Cited
- Child Protector v Parents of XQD and XQE [2025] SGYC 5
- [2025] SGHC 59
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCF 59 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.