Ep 3: What can be done in challenging situations on child access?

 Welcome to Therapeutic Conversations, a 3-part series of conversations about the practice of family law in Singapore.

This is a podcast organised by the Family Law & Children’s Rights Working Group, under the auspices of the Singapore Academy of Law’s Professional Affairs and Membership Committee. 

The world of family law practice is wide and all-encompassing, and this podcast is a humble attempt at inviting candid discussions about family law practice and developing thought leadership in this area of law. This pilot series comprises informal conversations amongst the panelists about the family law ecosystem, with each podcast focusing on a specific topic of interest.

In this episode, we will be discussing the topic: ‘What can be done in challenging situations on child access?’

You may obtain up to 1 private CPD points by listening to this episode in full. Log in to your SILE account to record this activity.

Transcript

EP 03: What can be done in challenging situations on child access?

Intro
Hello everybody, welcome back to Therapeutic Conversations! A three-part podcast series on the practice of family law in Singapore through this series of conversations with panelists from the family law ecosystem.

We hope to offer you information and insights on family law practice and developing thought leadership in this area of law.

Darren Chan
Hi everyone! My name is Darren from the Legal Aid Bureau. Welcome to the third episode of our podcast series where we will discuss what can be done in challenging situations on child access.

Today we have three guests. Two lawyers who worked on opposing sides in a highly contested child access matter and a consultant counseling psychologist who works with children and their parents during similar court proceedings. They will be sharing their learning points and experiences from being involved in the matter, as well as other similar cases.

Our guests are Ms. Dorothy Tan from PKWA Law Practice, Ms. Ellen Lee from DCMO Law Practice and Ms. Geraldine Young from Empowering Counseling and Psychological Consultancy Services.

Thanks all for coming. Let me tell you a bit more about them.

First we have Dorothy. She's a Senior Associate Director at PKWA Law and has extensive experience in all aspects of family law. She successfully won a court of appeal family case at the tender age of 25 and since that time has accumulated multiple awards and accolades as a family lawyer. Dorothy has also handled numerous contentious proceedings concerning child issues.

Dorothy Tan
Hi everyone!

Darren Chan
Next, we have Ellen. She is similarly a very experienced family law practitioner. She was the chairperson of the Singapore Law Society's Family Law Practice Committee for many years. She has also been a consultant at different law firms in family law and child related matters. Ellen is currently a consultant at DCMO Law Practice LLC.

Ellen Lee
Hi.

Darren Chan
And lastly, we have Geraldine. She's a psychologist at Empowering Counseling and Psychological Consultancy Services. She's well-versed in the field of families in crisis and the psyche of children triangulated in such highly acrimonious divorces. She's also a parenting coordinator, custody evaluator, multidisciplinary collaborative practitioner, and a member of the panel of therapeutic specialists.

Geraldine Yang
Hi everybody!

Darren Chan
Thanks all for coming in once again today.

To provide our listeners with some background, let me set out the pertinent facts of the case that we are going to discuss.

We have a case which involves a five-year-old girl caught in the middle of her parents' dispute. The father had abused the mother. The mother also claimed that the father abused the child physically, mentally, emotionally and had no love for the child. The mother left home with the child and fought divorce proceedings a day after.

The father immediately requested for access because he wanted to see the child. While parties entered into a consent order granting the father access, the conflict between parties quickly escalated. Barely after the third access session, the father breached the consent order.

The father justified his actions by claiming that the mother had sex with her partner in front of the child, beat the child every evening and could not handle the child due to her depression.

While the child was under the father's care, the child's relationship with the mother deteriorated. In fact, the child did not even want to see the mother. Even though the mother subsequently applied and obtained an order for parties to have the child on certain days of the week, this was not useful at all. This is because the child refused to meet the mother. In fact, a further order was made directing the mother to have supervised access to the child at the DSSA.

Unfortunately, this still ended up with the child crying hysterically when she saw her mother. Given the child's predicament, all further supervised access sessions were terminated. The mother who was desperate to see the child applied and obtained yet another order to have reasonable access to the child. However, similar to the earlier orders made, this was not practical since the child did not want to see the mother.

As the father had brought the child to a psychologist, the mother wanted to find out why the child had refused to see her. The child disclosed that she was exposed to the sexual acts between the mother and her partner.

The father in fact claimed that when the child saw this, the mother allegedly strangled the child and threatened her. The mother on the other hand claimed that these stories were fabricated and the father had brainwashed the child to dislike the mother.

During the hearing, given conflicting accounts by parties, the court ordered a custody evaluation report to be made. After consideration, final orders of joint custody of the child, with care and control to the mother and access to the father, were made.

So we're still discussing challenges that parties face and the lawyers as well of course.

Let's talk a bit more about the child. Dorothy and Ellen, you may have seen and even spoken to the child. Can you perhaps share your experience with us?

Ellen Lee
I've seen the girl about three months after the father refused to return her to the mother, after the access. I appealed to the father's first solicitor to make a private arrangement for the distraught mother to see her child in the solicitor's office, while we waited for the court proceedings and she agreed.

A meeting was set up in the solicitor's office. When she brought the girl to the conference room, the girl saw her mother and immediately froze. She refused to enter the room and started to cry hysterically. All of us present, the lawyers, the staff and the mother tried various ways and means to cajole her to go to the mother, who had also brought along her favourite toys.

But the girl dug her heels in and cried even louder. After about 5 minutes of fruitless efforts and with the girl choking and about to throw out, the mother halted the meeting and told the lawyers to return her to the father who was waiting at the lift lobby.

We were all in tears, especially the bewildered mother who could not understand how the short separation period could have changed the girl to make her so terrified of seeing her and rejecting her outright.
This incident also showed that even though we were opposing councils for representing different clients, I was for the mother. We need not wait for the court to initiate access and we could try to accommodate each other.

The outcome was most unexpected and was a failure. But the important thing was that we all tried our best to bring mother and child together to meet.

Darren Chan
This is indeed heart-wrenching. I mean, Dorothy, if I can hear a bit more from your client side.

Dorothy Tan
Yes, I think my experience and what I saw of the child would really actually corroborate with what Ellen had said.

Now, my client, the father, of his own accord, had brought the child to my office on a couple of occasions. It wasn't for me to interview or psychoanalyse the child. It’s more like a by-the-way thing since they were going about their day.

Now, I'm not a psychologist, so my observations are really that of a layperson. There was nothing abnormal that stood out. The child seemed like a normal, happy girl. Sometimes my client's older daughter from his previous marriage would be there as well and they all seemed close-knit.

Now, the mother's allegations about the father are broadly summarised into two points.

First, that the father subjected the child to physical, mental, and emotional abuse and had no love for the child. Second, that the father had poisoned the child's mind against the mother.

Now the first was not made out to me, at least not by the interactions I had with the child and observed of the family. The second I find much harder to decipher. I remember there was one occasion when I was in a room with the child alone. When the father was signing an affidavit in another room, she held my arm and said words to the effect of whether mommy will take her away again. Whether this is because of the father's brainwashing or because of the mother's original taking her away from home and alleged acts of abuse against her, I didn't know.

It is imaginable that a person may not be so excited about seeing someone who had beaten and abused them, if that indeed had occurred. To me, the behaviour of the child also called to question whether the mother's allegations against the father are true.

If the father had abused the child, how did the child so readily stay with the father? How did she reject the mother so quickly? If he had abused her, how did he so swiftly brainwash the child against the mother?

Darren Chan
So these are questions that I believe Geraldine would be the best place to answer and I'm extremely curious as well.

So Geraldine, can you please share with us how is it possible that the child is willing to stay with the father if he indeed had abused her? How did the father actually manage to brainwash the child against the mother so quickly? And I think lastly, why did the child actually reject her own mother?

Geraldine Yang
I think, first of all, I need to clarify that I've not seen this child. I'm just hearing about this case from both Ellen and Dorothy.

I think there could be many reasons why a child appears to be or is willing to stay with the father. Some of these could be, number one, allegations of the abuse are true. Allegations against the mother are true.

Or it could have been threats made to the child. Threats can range from coercive threats to threats of withdrawal of love, resulting in the child's fear of rejection from that parent.

The child could also have been exposed to coaching. The whole idea or intention of coaching children is based on the adult's interpretation of what's best for the child, rather than what the child actually wants. The needs, wishes and feelings of these children are biasedly interpreted by that adult.

Also, it could be to feed a particular view to the child and telling the child what to say, how to behave, how to react in the presence of other significant adults. So in this case, the other significant adults could be the lawyers, could be the counsellors, or whoever may be acting against the father or the child.

There could also be brainwashing, which is the coaching and reinforcing of the view so that the child believes it. And these can actually include the denying of the existence of the parent, which is the mother, or telling the child how bad the mother had been to her. And children, I believe she was about five years old then, wasn't she? Children that young, they are susceptible to suggestions.

I also understand from the context that the child has been away from the mother for three months. That's a long, long time and a lot can actually happen during that period of time. So even if the child had a very good relationship with the parent and the mother was the primary caregiver, then it is still possible for the child to be influenced against the mother and subsequently reject the mother based on what she has been made to believe.

The child can also feel under pressure to support the father having resided with the father for so long. There could also be bribes made to the child. It also depends on her relationship with her half-sister. I believe she's got an older half-sister from the father's other marriage.

All of that actually plays a part in influencing the child's decision or behaviour towards the mother.

Darren Chan
I think another thing that's on the lawyer's mind is when speaking with the child, how do we discern the truth? How do we ensure that we are able to identify who's telling the truth or what is the truth out of this?

Geraldine, do you have any tips on this and how could it have been applied to this case?

Geraldine Yang
I guess we will never know what the ultimate truth is, considering how high stakes these situations usually are.

I can only speak from the point or perspective of the child, right? If the lawyer would like to hear from the child and were to speak with the child, we need to be mindful of the child's developmental milestones and their limitations.Due to their young age, their susceptibility to suggestions, how we interview the child is actually very important.

As such, it would always be best for lawyers to work in partnership with a mental health professional familiar with a child's developmental milestones in the context of family in family law.

The mental health professional can offer not only neutrality but also obtain information that is distilled so that better recommendations can be made in the child's best interest. And it also takes the focus of parties but on the child.

So the question about how lawyers can speak with the child – it is best to do it in partnership with a mental health professional, also because children are very intelligent.

They are able to pick sides very quickly. They're able to see who is on whose side, right?
And it really depends on what has been said to them earlier. How they present themselves could also be different to either lawyer. That's something that needs to be taken into consideration.

Darren Chan
Thanks, Geraldine, for sharing that.

I think another question that lawyers would have on their mind is that one moment the child is very close to the mother, I think as you have mentioned before that was like three months ago, that the child was very close to the mother and then shortly thereafter the child then refuses to even see her to the extent of even crying hysterically.

So do you happen to know what could be the reasons why this happened and essentially how can a parent who has been rejected by the child cope and stop this from happening.

Geraldine Yang
Okay, that's many questions in one sentence. Let me answer the first one first.

I think, as I mentioned earlier, I don't really know this child. But there could be many reasons why the child has rejected the mother.

One, allegations made against the mother are true. Because of that, the child is behaving in a justifiable way.

Secondly, the child could be behaving in that way in order to protect the mother because threats have been made to the child about the safety of the mother. I mean these are just examples, right? I'm not saying that these have been made.

It could also be the child had been coached to behave in a certain way in the presence of the significant adult acting for the mother. And the significant adult acting for the father. So it could be the lawyers on the father's side, it could be the lawyers on the mother's side. Anybody who is present for this case, the child would probably have to behave in a certain way. This would include the counsellors and the psychologists engaged as well. So these could be some of the reasons why the child behaves in a certain way.

How do we know whether or not these behaviours could have been coached or not would be to actually look for consistency of patterns and behaviours. I also understand from the scenario earlier mentioned, the child was removed or the whole access, the parenting time with the mother, was stopped after five minutes when the child broke out in a loud cry.

Children learn very fast. So once the child has broken up into a long cry or learns that certain behaviours would lead to an end of a session, then they would repeat that behaviour again to end the session earlier for the next other sessions.

This is also not only to protect themselves from what has been taught to them or coached to them, but also to probably do what the parent has instructed the child to do.
Some reasons as to why they're behaving and why he's rejected the mother.

Darren Chan
What can a lawyer do to help a rejected parent cope and stop this from happening?

Geraldine Yang
I guess the lawyer can advise and support the mother. I'm not sure whether your role would include that supportive part. It is very hard as a mother to have a child reject you or reject us. It's very difficult for us to not give up hope, the cost involved, etc. So I think it would be extremely helpful for the lawyers to advise these parents to really not give up hope.

And if possible, where possible, like what Ellen and Dorothy had done in the previous case to request for facilitated parenting time – that would be helpful in allowing the mother the opportunity to actually close the gap of known parenting time with the child.

Darren Chan
Thanks very much, Geraldine.

The question that I have for you is, what do you think lawyers can do to change their client's mindset from one that is party-centred to one that is child-centred?

Geraldine Yang
It can be difficult focusing on the child when parties are fighting over their assets and means, etc. Because this is a win-lose between parties, right?

However, on issues pertaining to custody, care and control, maintenance, anything that's related to the child, it may be helpful to direct parents' attention on the impact of their proposals and allegations against each other on the child.

What is it that they would like for the child at the end of the day? So bringing up the focus of the child rather than each other might be helpful in getting them to consider the best interests of the child.

Darren Chan
Thanks for that, Geraldine.

Another challenge that lawyers may face is understanding the family dynamics and determining what is in the best interest for the family. So for many of us lawyers, I think we believe that this is actually outside the legal realm and we are not really equipped to handle this.

Let's ask Dorothy and Ellen what they think psychologists can do to help lawyers in this area and how it could have been applied to this case. We'll start with Dorothy this time.

Dorothy Tan
I think something that would be very helpful would be for us to have open roundtable discussions. This is really less of what these psychologists can do and more of how we can work together to make communication amongst every player in this cross-disciplinary team a norm. I feel we play the game of broken telephone too much with lawyers hearing one side of the story from their clients and not communicating directly with the other professionals who are involved in the case.

There's so much we can bounce off each other. This is really not unlike mediation, where the mediator and lawyers can huddle together, put aside their adversarial stances, and speak candidly to solve problems.

One idea could be that maybe the psychologists can join in the mediation as well. This idea of having open roundtable discussions will require a high level of trust that parties aren't trying to use the knowledge to fuel litigation. And trust is eroded as proceedings get uglier and more contentious.

I spoke earlier about early intervention. I think it would be very useful if lawyers opened their clients to the idea. Set ground rules, obtain their consent to having these roundtable discussions early on, and not only wait until things have hit panic mode.

Ellen Lee
Yeah, I agree with what Dorothy has just shared with us. Lawyers can all work together with psychologists to help the little girl.

Darren Chan
Thanks Ellen for sharing that. Geraldine, I wanted to run Dorothy's proposal by you and she mentioned that the psychologist can join in the mediation session at the very early stage of the proceedings.

What are your views on this? Is this even feasible or are there any difficulties with this proposal?

Geraldine Yang
I think that's actually a great idea. However, there has to be mutual trust that the information shared is not taken out of context and used in the litigious context later, but rather a true collaboration towards therapeutic justice for the family.

At the end of the day, my role as a psychologist for us mental health professionals would be to look at the best interests of the child and not the parents as they are the adults who would be best able to look after themselves represented by their lawyers like yourselves.

However, I personally would not just interact with one party's lawyer but to both at the same time and this is important coming from a mental health professional because I think an understanding has to be made amongst us, professional collaborators, the intention of the limitations of the
information shared.

And of course, this multidisciplinary collaborative practice should and can only occur from my side with the consent of both parties.

Darren Chan
Thanks very much, Geraldine.

Next, let's move on and talk about the changes that can be made to the current court process arising from this case. Are there any systemic changes, Dorothy and Ellen, you feel need to be implemented to prevent such similar cases from being so long drawn out?

I think this time we can start with Ellen first.

Ellen Lee
Yes, thanks Darren.

I feel that if the law could provide for a child that one parent has refused to return after access to be immediately brought into the custody of a neutral third party who could perhaps be another independent or impartial family member such as grandparents or kids that the child is not a stranger to, and to be cared for by them until the final court order is made.

Perhaps this may break the spell that the defaulter parent has cast on the child, bearing in mind that the defaulter would have been brainwashing the child against the other party and creating in the young mind all sorts of fears and insecurity.

In this case, I firmly believe that the father would have lied that the mother no longer loved the girl and therefore never came back to take her home after access. Remember that the girl was only 5 years old then, and before alienation, she was very close to the mother and had disliked the father.

The case is long drawn out because the mother had to apply for court assistance. Before the court hears the matter, parties must file affidavits to state their positions, to rebut each other's lies and then parties must file written submissions before hearing, wait for the court hearing date that is suitable to all parties, etc.

In between, there were also too many third parties in the form of counsellors, social workers, psychiatrists, etc.being involved. All these are very time consuming and work in favour of the father, not the mother and the girl.

If the system could decisively handle the return of the child to the parent, who has care and control, treated as top priority and intervened at the shortest possible time upon being notified of the breach of court order, and then make orders for return of the child instead of waiting for due
process.

This would drastically reduce the father's deliberate delineation of the mother and restore the relationship between the girl and her mother. I would also like to add that the mother was given care and control after the ancillary hearing because of one incident that took place at the DSSA.

During one of the DSSA access for the mother, the CCTV outside the DSSA office captured the girl urinating publicly outside the door of the DSSA office.

She then said to the father, who was seen standing nearby, “You said to pass urine here, I passed urine already, when must I still see mother?”.

Which made the DSSA officers realise that previous CCTV images of the child also urinating in public before access was actually coached by the father who had asked DSSA officers to believe that the child was so afraid of seeing her mother that she urinated in public.

The DSSA officers told the mother this incident and said that they would submit a report to the court. We know that parents coach their children to brainwash them against the other parent.

How can we prove this and to stop this as well?

This is something that we have been struggling to do all this time.

Darren Chan
Thanks Ellen for sharing that.

Now Geraldine, I understand that you have already shared with us tips on how to prevent a parent from coaching or rather I would say brainwashing the child.

I think the question that I have for you at this juncture really is on Alan's suggestion which is to place the child in a neutral third party's care. In your view, is that feasible proposal or is that not a feasible one?

Geraldine Yang
Placing the child in a neutral third party care, in theory, is a very good idea. Believe it or not, we actually thought of something like that as well.

However, we need to then decide who that third party needs to be and that decision needs to be considered very carefully. Some of what needs to be considered, whether or not the third party is family and if they are extended family, are they partaking in the tribal warfare? Because then that defeats the whole purpose, right? And if they are not partaking in tribal warfare, is there acrimony between the parent and that family member? Is the child comfortable with that family member?

Placing a child with strangers or within a system may not be a good idea, as separating the child from their main caregivers can in itself be quite traumatic. It's like yanking a child away from a place of comfort and somewhere else where it's totally unfamiliar with them.

Anyway, there isn't such a service available to the best of my knowledge. I'm wondering if I should set up one of such services. But anyway, the stakes are high. All hope may not be lost though.

It may still be plausible if parents are able to cooperate and facilitate the process of adjustment should such a service be available.

So, taking for example, we would need both parents to be agreeable to help the child through that adjustment period because it is very difficult for a child to be living, sleeping in somebody else's house, right? And being unfamiliar with anybody and everybody.

Difficulty actually goes to, like I said earlier, parents who are still emotionally volatile due to their hurts from the failed marital relationship and more.

Darren Chan
Thanks, Geraldine, for sharing that.

Dorothy, I think I can ask you now, what are the systemic changes you feel that can be implemented to prevent such cases from being long drawn out?

Dorothy Tan
Thanks Darren.

I think the issue that I had here is that there were so many different specialists who came on board on this case at different times. To put things into context, I think there were at least six different sets of specialists that came on board. There were two sets of psychiatrists and psychologists producing reports on the mother's mental state.

A separate private psychologist who was assessing the child, the professionals who did the custody evaluation report, and two sets of DSSA specialists – one for the mother's interim supervised access and another when the court made final ancillary orders reversing care and control and at that stage they roped in the DSSA's assistance for the transition.

Now my bugbear is I feel that there were too many players dropping in and out of this case and no one was communicating with each other. This then led everyone to form very different opinions based on who they were receiving information from and at what stage they were coming on board.

I feel it would benefit families if a fixed, dedicated team of specialists is determined and streamlined as early in proceedings as possible. The same set of specialists should then journey with the family, both during and after proceedings and cases where they can be with the family pre-divorce, that's great as well.

A family situation is ever evolving and when someone comes on board for a limited period of time, they are only seeing a snapshot of the family at that specific period. This picture may look very different a month later, which is really what we saw in this case.
So to me, it would be much more holistic if we had one set of professionals rather than so many different reports coming from different specialists who only walked part of the journey with the family. Being together with one set of specialists for a longer period of time may also make for a more meaningful working relationship. It may help to alleviate any concerns by the parties that they've not been sufficiently heard or understood, and it may make the family more willing to accept the recommendations that come from the professionals.

Darren Chan
Thanks Dorothy for sharing that.

Indeed, I do agree that if we have one set of specialists following through the trial, then I think it may be easier for the courts, easier for the parties, easier in fact for the trial because the trial might be seeing so many different parties at one go.

Speaking of the trial per se, I think at the back of everyone's mind at this juncture, you have gone through many loopholes of many different psychologists, many counsellors, many psychiatrists for the trial and for parties.

‘Where does that leave the child now?’ is the question I think at the back of their heads, right? How's the child doing? How are parties doing at this juncture? And maybe I think it's an opportune time for me to ask Ellen at this juncture.

How is the child really and how are parties doing?

Ellen Lee
I think this case has quite an unexpected turn because after the mother was granted care and control of the child, the court actually ordered a suspension of four months of the order for the child to get used to the idea and for access to continue at DSSA.

Unfortunately, what happened was that in the process of this, the father had also appealed against the decision. Of course, not just the care and control order, division of assets as well.
And unfortunately at that point in time, because this case has taken up quite a bit of time and effort, it actually lasted almost three years.

The mother had developed a brain tumour. And she had to go for surgery. So after the operation, one day she actually fainted on the road. And when she went for a review, the surgeon discussed her matter. The surgeon was telling her that there's a probability that the fainting spells may recur.

And for her to consider if she were to be out with a child and one day and unfortunately she were to faint on the road, wouldn't that frighten the child? What would she expect the child to do? That really caused her to think very long and deep and her final decision was, then “I don't want the care and control. I don't want it.”

Yes, she said no.

“In that case, let the father have the care and control because I don't want to scare the child. I don't want to traumatise her if she sees me just drop on the road, faint and things like that.”

She said “No. No. In that case, it's okay. Go and seek a change of the order. Give the care and control to the father.”

So despite my persuasion to say why don't you let matters lie for a while and see how it progresses, after all let's try this out because it may not happen the way that it had been told to you. She was very adamant that “No, I don't want care and control.”

If it is not going to be in the best interest of the child and therefore we had actually gone to court to change to to have a variation of the court order.

The variation was made I think within the six months of still within before the four months was up actually because there was a time she was supposed to have the care and control.

Darren Chan
Yes, so that was 2016, was it?

Ellen Lee
Something like that, yes.

Darren Chan
So you're saying from 2016 all the way until 2023, that's now seven years she has...

Ellen Lee
Actually more than that because before then she already did not see the child. From the time the father did not return the child. So for the brief moment where we had it at the father's first at the solicitor's office, where she had that brief five minutes or so, after that she has never, never seen the child.

Darren Chan
Wow. So more than seven years in fact.

Okay. So where does that leave us? I mean, it leaves us with a very sad case that after all this fighting, the mother still hasn't seen the child for more than seven years.

I mean, that now leads me to my next question for every one of us, which is, in hindsight, what do you think really could have been done to help this child or help the mother reunite with the child?

Ellen Lee
Personally I felt the court was being too cautious in making the order for four months of suspension of the care and control order. If the court had by then just given the child back to the mother's care and control, I think things would have been different.

Because at that time, the child was still almost six years old when the order was made and she could still reunite with the mother, so to speak, because her impressions of the mother would not have been that bad.

After all, if she had the opportunity to really come back to the mother again because I felt that the reason why she had changed her mind about the mother was because when the father did not return her and did not know what the father has said about the mother and things like that – having been kept away from, I believe the child would have been living in fear of the father not loving her as well and therefore she has to show that she loved the father and do as the father had told her to do.

Darren Chan
Okay, that's interesting. Thanks very much for sharing that, Ellen.

Dorothy, what do you think of Ellen’s suggestion?

Do you think that's a feasible option or a feasible proposal for the court to have given the mother care and control earlier on?

Dorothy Tan
Yeah, you know, I think this case went from 0 to 100 in a split second. We're talking a month between the mother leaving home with the child and the child never wanting to see the mother again. And we've just heard from Ellen, you know, that means the past seven years she's not seen the mother anymore.

The case itself until the time that the court reversed care and control – that took us about two years to get there. My concern is there's so much that has happened within the first one month and after that, despite the number of people that we brought on board, nothing seemed to have been able to change that.

So I guess coming back to the question as to what we could have done differently, I think the key here really is for lawyers to take the initiative. Be proactive. Be more than just litigators and really try to actually be active problem solvers.

Here I really applaud what Ellen and my predecessor did to try to arrange a private session for the child to meet the mother. They didn't wait for the court to do that. I think both sides understood that the situation wasn't great and them coming together is something that I think we should really try to do more of.
And perhaps if we were to do it all over again, you know, right from the start with hindsight being 20-20, you know, I think I'll reach out to my learned friend across the table and work to get our ducks in a row right at the outset.

Very similar to what Ellen and my predecessor did. We could decide to propose and agree on the team of specialists that we can jointly appoint – jointly appoint such that everyone doesn't go around getting a different set and we can go and tell the court we've already got the team set up.

You know, what we talked about earlier about having one set of specialists that follows the case throughout. From there, get their recommendations and really see where we go from there.

And hopefully this sort of more inclusive setup would have averted many of the upheavals that the child went through in these proceedings.

Darren Chan
Thanks Dorothy for sharing that.

Ellen, anything on hindsight on your end that you know could have been done better for this case?

Ellen Lee
Well, I think parties and the lawyers like what Dorothy has said must really sit down to talk as a mediation and must learn to give and take. Lawyers must manage the client's expectations. Give them reality checks.

I've always told my client to let go of the past and to look forward to the future where each will be trying their best to live without the other to lead a new life. A bad father or a bad mother who didn't play the active role before divorce can always change to become more active after divorce because he or she knows that he or she will lose the child forever.

If he or she continues to behave the same way after divorce and the court is always ready to give these parents a chance to become better and not hold the past against them.

Darren Chan
Thanks Ellen for that. And Geraldine, I'll turn it over to you.

Having heard the facts of the case, in hindsight, what do you think could have been done differently as well?

Geraldine Yang
I think it might, as Dorothy had mentioned earlier, it would be good to have a team of multi-D professionals to come in to support this family. A lot of people have been involved in this family and I think it has created some form of confusion, delays as well. It is not in the best interest of the child to see too many professionals as well. It confuses the child and it also, because they've seen so many mental health professionals, they know what to say and what not to say.

It's like a practice for them, right? So that is not going to be helpful for the case as well. Every new mental health professional that the child sees, it's going to be a more difficult case for that mental health professional.

What the lawyers have actually mentioned, as long as a team has been set up, To support the family from the beginning, and if the court knows that this team has already been set up with consent of both parties, the prognosis may be better, you think?

I would think so.

Because there is follow-up, there is consistency of information, these are the pros.

What's the con? The con would be the child is not happy with one professional. Do we then force the child to continue with that particular professional? How can we actually go about doing that?

I'm looking at it from a child's perspective. Of course, it does not mean that just because the child is not happy with one professional, we will just keep changing, right? We will still work with the child on it. But sometimes either one of the parties has decided that a mental health professional is not going to be helpful for the child.

Then how do we as a professional team support each other in supporting the family in this case? It's like a wraparound kind of a team that we have to support the family and that's something that we as multi-d professionals will need to agree on to help parties understand the need to continue with the team.

Darren Chan
Thanks Geraldine for sharing.

So before closing today's discussion, maybe I can get each of you to share one key takeaway from this case that you want to leave with our listeners. And maybe I'll start with Dorothy again this time.

Dorothy Tan
For me, Darren, I think the key takeaway is that family law is a team sport. It is not an individual sport. Us lawyers, we are programmed to work in silos. We don't trust anyone. We think reaching out makes us look weak.

But the best outcome for our clients is one that calls for us to go merely being their storytellers and actively finding ways to minimise the family's suffering for them, with them.

And we can't do that alone, we're not trained, we're not a one-man band, you know. I think it helps also to remember that our clients are humans, they are not angels. Honestly, I don't think any one of us is getting the whole picture unless we come together ourselves to piece it together. I think it'll make us better at our jobs.

Darren Chan
Wise words indeed. Thanks, Dorothy!

Ellen, over to you.

Ellen Lee
For me, my takeaway is that it is always better to live with a compromised situation after negotiations that may not be ideal than for parties to be ordered by the court to accept what the court thinks is fair and reasonable by way of a judgement because the court hears the arguments and submissions, then decides based on the law what the court thinks is fair and reasonable to the parties.

But then the thing is or the unfortunate outcome of this is that neither party will like this decision, so it is better to reach a compromise, so to speak.

Darren Chan
Thanks Ellen. Geraldine, over to you please.

Geraldine Yang
With all the clients that I've seen, I've always opened my session with informing parties. At the end of the day, they are the parents of the child, of all of the children, and they have a right to decide what would be in the children's best interest at that point in time.

Do they want to make that decision or do they want to hand over the decision to a stranger and for them to make a decision that they may not like at the end of the day, very similar to what Ellen has mentioned.

It is very sad to say that most of these parents are so bogged down with the fight and the anger. I wouldn't say hatred, but the anger they have against the other party that they've given up that opportunity to attempt another conversation and say “No, I want to let the judge decide.”

I found that to be quite sad for them to actually say that as a parent myself.

At the end of the day, all of us as professionals, all coming from very different fields, have one thing in common. We all want the best for our clients and their children. What would be the best for the family – is really for their needs to be met. Not wants, the needs.

Due to the limitations of our professional knowledge and expertise, me as a psychologist and my learned friends across the table, as lawyers – the needs of each individual party within the family unit can only be best met when we professionals work as a team.

And for that to happen, trust has to be established. And for trust to be established, I think there has to be conversations between us. We need to get to know each other. It doesn't happen just like that. I think that would be most important. For us as professionals and for our listeners to also understand the need for us multi-D professionals to work together to support their family.

Darren Chan
Thanks Geraldine, Dorothy, and Ellen for all the insights that you shared.

I'm sure that we will apply these nuggets of wisdom to the next complex case that we encounter regarding child access. With that, we'll bring this conversation to a close.

This is the third and final podcast for the year and we hope to share more with you soon.

Outro

We hope that this episode has helped you gain a deeper understanding of the challenging issues revolving around child custody and access and provided you with some food for thought to take away.

We have come to the end of this three-part series on Family Law in Singapore and we hope that you have taken away some valuable insights, whether you are an aspiring family law practitioner or a listener with an interest in family law.

Once again, thank you for tuning in to Therapeutic Conversations, a podcast organised by the Family Law and Children's Rights Working Group under the auspices of the Singapore Academy of Law's Professional Affairs and Membership Committee.

Until then, we wish you well.