SG Judge: Child would be safer with one parent at a time due to the parents’ violent history whenever they’re together

SINGAPORE: A Singapore court has ruled that a baby boy should be in his mother’s care under supervision instead of being placed in foster care, saying the child’s greatest danger comes from his parents being together rather than either parent caring for him alone.

While the child had been exposed to repeated domestic violence, the court found there was enough evidence that each parent could care for him separately.

District Judge Chua Wei Yuan said state intervention, especially removing a child from the family home, should only happen when there are no less intrusive options. The written grounds were released on June 22, while the report was published on June 27 by The Malay Mail, citing The Straits Times.

Repeated family violence placed the infant at risk

The boy, now about 11 months old and due to turn one in August, was removed from his home after several violent incidents involving his parents and extended family.

Court documents described one case in which the father allegedly slapped the mother and blamed her for the child’s club foot condition. In another incident, the mother allegedly hit the father while he was carrying the baby.

A later family dispute escalated into a fight involving both sets of grandparents. During the confrontation, the child’s maternal grandmother suffered a fractured nose. Both parents later obtained personal protection orders against each other.

Medical care and safety concerns shaped the court’s decision

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) said the child faced risks of physical harm, emotional trauma and medical neglect. It sought a one-year foster care order. The court accepted that witnessing repeated violence could affect the child’s long-term development.

Medical care also became an issue. The baby’s prescribed leg brace for treating his club foot was reportedly worn for only four days after it was fitted, with each parent blaming the other for failing to continue treatment.

However, Judge Chua found that the child’s medical care improved after the father no longer lived in the home. The judge also rejected MSF’s concern that placing the child with one parent could create a negative view of the other, noting the infant was still too young to form those perceptions.

Supervised care with the mother replaces foster care

Instead of foster care, the judge ordered that the child return to his mother under statutory supervision. The father’s contact with the child will require approval from a supervising welfare officer.

The judge concluded that separating the parents, rather than separating the child from both parents, was enough to reduce the immediate risk. The father has since appealed the decision.

Protecting a child is the first priority, but where risks can be managed without breaking family bonds, careful supervision may offer a better path than removing a child from home altogether.