Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGFC 3
- Title: XXK v XXL
- Court: Family Court of Singapore
- Date of Judgment: 6 January 2026
- Case Number: FC/ECAO 2/2025
- Judges: District Judge Phang Hsiao Chung
- Hearing Dates: 16 and 25 July 2025
- Plaintiff/Applicant: XXK (the “Father”)
- Defendant/Respondent: XXL (the “Mother”)
- Children: Two fraternal twin boys born in 2014 (the “Children”)
- Nature of Proceedings: Application to enforce child access orders
- Primary Statutory Provision Invoked: Section 126B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961
- Relevant Prior Order: Ancillary Matters Order dated 12 December 2018 in FC/D 359/2017
- Custody/Access Arrangement (material parts): Joint custody; care and control to Mother; Father granted specified unsupervised overnight access on alternate weeks, weekly access once a week (as mutually agreed), and Chinese New Year access on specified days
- Key Alleged Breaches (post-2 January 2025): Denial of alternate week overnight access on multiple weekends in Jan–Mar 2025; denial of weekly access on 1 and 16 March 2025; denial of Chinese New Year access on 29 January 2025; obstruction of access (slamming door, stopping child from coming out, obstructing view); alleged parental alienation
- Specialist Meeting: Court Family Specialist met the Children separately on 25 July 2025
- Judgment Length: 15 pages, 3,792 words
- Cases Cited: [2014] SGHC 29; [2026] SGFC 3
Summary
XXK v XXL concerned a Father’s application to enforce child access orders against the Mother in respect of two twin boys. The parties’ divorce proceedings had resulted in an Ancillary Matters Order dated 12 December 2018 granting joint custody, with care and control to the Mother. Under that order, the Father was entitled to specified access, including unsupervised overnight access on alternate weeks, weekly access once a week (as mutually agreed), and structured Chinese New Year access. The Father alleged that the Mother denied him access on multiple occasions in early 2025, and also obstructed his attempts to exercise access.
The Family Court (District Judge Phang Hsiao Chung) approached the matter as an enforcement application under section 126B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961, focusing on breaches occurring on or after 2 January 2025, when section 126B came into operation. The Court found that while there were relationship difficulties between the Father and the older twin, the Mother’s conduct contributed to and perpetuated the older child’s resistance to access. The Court accepted that the Mother did not facilitate the Father’s access in the manner required by the Ancillary Matters Order, and that the Father’s access was effectively denied for the relevant periods.
Accordingly, the Court granted the enforcement relief sought, ordering measures to ensure compliance with the access regime and to address the practical reality that the Mother’s actions had undermined the Father’s court-ordered time with the older child. The decision underscores that enforcement proceedings are not merely about whether access was missed, but about whether a parent has taken the steps reasonably required to enable the other parent to exercise court-ordered access.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties are the Father and the Mother of two fraternal twin boys born in 2014. In the parties’ divorce proceedings (FC/D 359/2017), an Ancillary Matters Order dated 12 December 2018 provided joint custody of the Children, while care and control were given to the Mother. The Father’s access rights were set out in the Ancillary Matters Order, including unsupervised overnight access from Friday evening to Sunday evening on alternate weeks, with a limited exception that the Mother could be present only on the first night of such overnight access. In addition, the Father was granted weekly access once a week from 6 pm to 8.30 pm, as may be mutually agreed, and Chinese New Year access on specified days and times, alternating in subsequent years.
After the Children’s custody and access arrangements were established, the Father experienced repeated difficulties in exercising access, particularly in relation to the older twin. The Father applied to enforce the child access orders under section 126B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961. Because section 126B came into operation on 2 January 2025, the Court treated only alleged breaches occurring on or after that date as relevant for the enforcement application.
The Father’s allegations were specific and time-bound. He claimed that the Mother denied him alternate week overnight access to the older child on multiple weekends between January and March 2025, including 10–12 January 2025, 24–26 January 2025, 7–9 February 2025, 21–23 February 2025, 7–9 March 2025, and 21–23 March 2025. He also alleged denial of weekly access on 1 March 2025 and 16 March 2025, and denial of Chinese New Year access on 29 January 2025.
Beyond denial, the Father alleged obstruction and interference. He claimed the Mother obstructed his access by preventing him from seeing the older child, slamming the door in his face, and stopping the older child from coming out of the house. He further alleged parental alienation, contending that the Mother allowed the older child to have excessive online games and television programmes, which he said contributed to the older child developing glasses. The Father stated that he attempted to resolve matters amicably by initiating conversations during access visits and by emailing the Mother, but that she refused to engage.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the Mother had breached the child access orders such that enforcement relief should be granted under section 126B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961. This required the Court to examine the evidence of access denial and obstruction for the relevant period after 2 January 2025, and to determine whether the Mother’s conduct amounted to non-compliance with the Ancillary Matters Order.
A second issue concerned causation and responsibility: even if the older child resisted access, the Court had to consider whether the Mother’s actions (or inactions) were responsible for that resistance and whether she facilitated the Father’s court-ordered time. The Court also had to assess the credibility of competing narratives—particularly the Mother’s explanation that the older child did not want to see the Father and that she had attempted to manage the situation.
Finally, the Court had to consider the appropriate approach to the Children’s views and welfare. Although the Court met the Children separately with a Court Family Specialist, the District Judge indicated that the decision would not rest on what the Children expressed, but on the evidence in affidavits and testimony. This raised the practical question of how to weigh the Children’s apparent reluctance against the legal requirement to enforce access orders.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court’s analysis began with the legal framework for enforcement. The Father relied on section 126B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961. The District Judge noted the temporal limitation created by the coming into operation of section 126B on 2 January 2025. As a result, the Court confined its attention to alleged breaches occurring on or after that date. This ensured that the enforcement application was assessed within the statutory regime applicable at the time of the alleged non-compliance.
In evaluating the evidence, the Court treated the Children’s access history as a key factual backdrop. The District Judge observed that there was “some truth” in the Mother’s suggestion that there were relationship issues between the Father and the older child. The Father admitted that there had been at least one occasion when the older child ran away from him, and the Father also acknowledged an incident that led to the older child avoiding him. The Father’s explanation was that he had ordered a “cut” in screen time after the older child failed to clean a bathroom properly, and that the older child—described as more emotional—took the instruction literally, even though the Father did not ultimately enforce the screen-time cut.
However, the Court was careful to distinguish between relationship difficulties and legal responsibility for access compliance. The District Judge held that the Mother was not “free from blame”. The Mother’s own evidence indicated that when the older child told her on 20 October 2023 that he did not want to see the Father and asked her to tell the Father, the Mother asked the older child to tell the Father directly. The Court reasoned that, given the older child’s young age (about nine at the time), the Mother’s conduct would likely have conveyed that it was acceptable to reject the Father. The Court further found that the Mother did not show that she took steps to persuade the older child to maintain a relationship with the Father or to explain the importance of access.
The District Judge also scrutinised the Mother’s conduct during subsequent access periods. The Court found that since October 2023, whenever it was time for the Father to have access to the older child, the Mother would “acquiesce” in the older child’s resistance and even open a door to prevent the Father and older child from seeing each other across a passageway in the Mother’s home. The Court considered that such differential treatment—where the younger twin could go for access but the older twin could decline—would likely have reinforced the older child’s perception that rejecting the Father was supported. The Court concluded that the Mother’s conduct introduced and perpetuated a difference in how the two children were treated, potentially affecting both the Father’s relationship with the older child and the relationship between the siblings.
On the Mother’s claim that the Father did not try to resolve the issue and did not talk to her to engage her to help, the Court found evidence that the Mother sometimes ignored the Father when he attempted to communicate about access arrangements. The Court also noted that when the Father sought to reach out to the Children outside the time mandated by the Ancillary Matters Order by bringing both children back after student care ended, the Mother accused him of violating the Ancillary Matters Order and disrupting routines and studies. The District Judge observed that the Mother did not adequately explain how the Father’s initiative disrupted the younger child’s routines or caused distress to her. The Court’s overall impression was that the Mother did not want the Father to meet the older child unless she was present.
At the hearing, the Court also found it “somewhat troubling” that the Mother, when asked about whether the older child had eaten a birthday cake and durian sent by the Father, used the opportunity to disparage the Father, even after acknowledging that the older child “ate a lot”. While this point was not determinative on its own, it contributed to the Court’s assessment of the Mother’s approach to the Father and the access dispute.
Importantly, the Court’s decision-making process included a meeting with the Children on 25 July 2025. The District Judge stated that the meetings are confidential and that the decision would not be based on what the Children expressed. Nonetheless, the meeting provided a sense of each child’s maturity, perceptions, and feelings. This approach reflects a careful balance: the Court recognised the relevance of the Children’s emotional state, but maintained that enforcement should be grounded in the evidence of compliance or non-compliance with the court order and the conduct of the parents.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court granted enforcement relief in relation to the Father’s access rights. Given the Mother’s admitted denial of access to the older child from 10 January 2025 onwards, and the Court’s findings that the Mother’s conduct facilitated or tolerated the older child’s refusal, the Court concluded that the Mother had breached the child access orders during the relevant period after 2 January 2025.
Practically, the outcome meant that the Court’s orders were directed at ensuring that the Father’s court-ordered access would be respected and that the Mother could not unilaterally undermine access by allowing the older child to refuse without taking the steps necessary to comply with the Ancillary Matters Order. The decision also signals that where one child resists access, the custodial parent must still take positive steps to facilitate the access regime ordered by the court.
Why Does This Case Matter?
XXK v XXL is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how enforcement proceedings under section 126B(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961 will be approached in the Family Court. The decision emphasises that enforcement is not limited to mechanical proof that a parent did not hand over a child; it also involves an evaluative inquiry into whether the custodial parent took reasonable steps to enable the other parent to exercise access as ordered.
The case also provides guidance on how courts may treat child resistance. While the Court acknowledged that there were relationship issues between the Father and the older child, it refused to treat the child’s reluctance as a complete justification for non-compliance. Instead, the Court looked at the custodial parent’s role in shaping the child’s perceptions and behaviour, including whether the custodial parent tacitly supported rejection of access and whether differential treatment between siblings was introduced.
For lawyers, the decision is a reminder to build enforcement cases around clear timelines, documentary and testimonial evidence of missed access, and specific conduct alleged to constitute obstruction or interference. For respondents, it underscores the importance of demonstrating active facilitation of access and constructive engagement with the other parent, rather than relying on the child’s preferences or the custodial parent’s own narrative of events.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- [2014] SGHC 29
- [2026] SGFC 3
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGFC 3 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.