SINGAPORE: A woman and her mother-in-law filed applications for personal protection orders against each other, but only the younger woman’s was successful.
Their relationship had soured after the woman’s marriage with her husband broke down after she discovered he had been unfaithful to her, a Family Court judgment made available on Wednesday (Aug 13) stated. The woman and her husband are in the midst of divorce proceedings.
The magistrate found that the mother-in-law had harassed the woman by having the locks of the woman’s matrimonial home changed and by picking the woman’s son up from school, resisting when the woman tried to get her son back.
In contrast, the court found that the woman had committed no acts of family violence on her mother-in-law, despite the older woman’s claims. The magistrate said it was “clear” that the mother-in-law had chosen to take her son’s side in the divorce proceedings, and that she was willing to take steps to ensure her son obtained a positive outcome from the divorce.
THE CASE
Both the woman and her mother-in-law had filed for personal protection orders against each other based on the same two incidents.
The first incident occurred on Jan 8, 2024. The woman had taken her son to school. However, her husband and her mother-in-law picked the boy up as they wished to celebrate his birthday.
The woman panicked, especially when her husband refused to tell her where he had taken their son. She began searching for him and went to the home of her mother-in-law’s sister in a condominium, suspecting that he was there.
Her hunch was correct, and she saw her son at a lift lobby there with her mother-in-law and her mother-in-law’s sister.
The woman picked up her son and tried to leave, but a tussle ensued, with both older women trying to pry the boy out of his mother’s arms.
Afraid that her son would be injured, the woman put the boy down, and the two older women took him up to the unit. The boy was returned to his school the next day.
The second incident occurred on Mar 11, 2024, when the woman and her husband took their son for a speech therapy session.
While on the way there, the woman received a notification on her mobile application that a stranger had appeared at the doorstep of her matrimonial flat. Perturbed, she asked her mother to drop by to see what was happening.
When the woman’s mother went to the flat, she saw the mother-in-law having its locks changed by a locksmith.
The woman later returned home with her husband and her son. The boy was sick and had vomited all over himself. The helper took him to the bathroom, and a quarrel ensued as both the woman and her mother-in-law wanted to bathe him.
When the woman cried for help, her mother ran over, trying to film the incident, but got embroiled in a fight with the mother-in-law.
The woman tried to break up the fight. In the ensuing events, she claimed that her mother-in-law then scuffled with her, with the older woman pushing her several times and exerting physical violence on her.
The situation only calmed down when the police arrived.
In contrast, the mother-in-law alleged that the woman had bitten her in this scuffle, tendering photos of the alleged bite mark as well as a medical report.
She also called her son as a witness to testify that he had seen his wife bite his mother.
THE COURT’S FINDINGS
Magistrate Soh Kian Peng, who presided over the case, said he did not find that the woman had committed any act of family violence on her mother-in-law.
He said it was clear to him that the woman had obviously become agitated and distressed when she discovered that her son had been taken from school without her permission.
Yet, despite this, she did not hurl any vulgarities towards her mother-in-law during the confrontation. This was apparent from the testimony and written statement of the mother-in-law.
While the mother-in-law had alleged in her written statement that the woman had acted violently and lunged forward to grab her son by force, she did not repeat this in her oral testimony.
The mother-in-law’s sister had testified that the woman had indeed lunged forward in a violent fashion, in a way that left her “so traumatised”.
When the magistrate said he wanted to understand why she would feel so much fear, the woman said: “Because I never experienced things like this before and especially for a (kid) … a baby … the (son), someone I love, to … let him see this kind of things in front of him.”
She continued to say that she was trembling and called a security guard to get the woman out because the situation was “too violent”.
The magistrate said he did not find the mother-in-law’s sister to be a credible witness.
“It was apparent to me that she had come to court with an agenda: that was to paint a certain picture of (the woman) in the hopes that this would strengthen (the mother-in-law’s) case,” he said.
Her statement was similar to the statements produced by the mother-in-law and the estranged husband, said the magistrate.
MOTHER-IN-LAW DISCUSSED EVIDENCE WITH HER SISTER
The mother-in-law’s sister later admitted that she had discussed her evidence with her sister and her sister’s son while preparing her statement.
Based on this alone, the magistrate said he could not give full weight, if any at all, to her evidence.
He added that the mother-in-law’s sister attempted to “exaggerate the trauma” she had suffered as a consequence of the woman’s allegedly violent behaviour on that day.
She broke down in tears, sobbing, during her testimony.
However, video footage that was produced showed her directly involved in the tussle with the woman and the mother-in-law as the three women fought to gain and maintain control over the boy, said the magistrate.
The actions of the mother-in-law’s sister captured in the video directly contradicted both her testimony and demeanour in court, where she sought to portray herself as being deeply traumatised by the woman’s actions that day, said the magistrate.
He also pointed out what the mother-in-law’s sister had said to the woman while the former was being cross-examined.
The woman had asked her mother-in-law’s sister if she would describe herself as someone who is easily influenced.
In response, the mother-in-law’s sister said: “I do get influenced, but I think I know what is right and wrong. And to me, never, never (adding) violence in front of a (kid) is very, very, very important to me. So, I hope you take this from me, please. Please don’t let (your son) go through this kind of thing. Never – whatever hate you have for (your husband) or his family.”
The magistrate said the transcript did not capture the tone that the mother-in-law’s sister had used.
“It was apparent to me, from (her) tone, that she had seized the opportunity to lecture (the woman), and in so doing, attempted to paint a picture of (the woman) as someone who not only acted irrationally, but also bore a deep hatred and resentment towards (her husband) and his family,” said the magistrate.
He gave no weight to the testimony of the mother-in-law’s sister.
He found that the woman had committed no family violence against her mother-in-law in the January 2024 incident.
“One must bear in mind that (the woman) was embroiled in bitter divorce proceedings with (her husband). The battle lines had been drawn between herself, (her husband) and her in-laws. (She) had discovered that (her husband) as well as (her mother-in-law) had taken her son out of school,” said the magistrate.
“What she did not know was where the son had been taken to and if she would ever see him again. To be separated from him in this fashion had obviously left her in no small amount of distress – after all, she was very closely attached to her son,” he added.
He said that despite the woman’s emotional turmoil, she acted assertively but not aggressively. She did not hurl vulgarities or verbal abuse against her mother-in-law or her mother-in-law’s sister, and did not physically assault them. All she did was try to take her son with her, said the magistrate.
As for the alleged bite, he did not find that the woman had bitten her mother-in-law. He found it more likely that the bite had been administered by the woman’s mother.
The mother-in-law admitted that she had originally suspected this, and told the police so.
Although the woman’s husband testified in favour of his mother, the magistrate found that his credibility was “severely undermined” for several reasons, including the fact that he had discussed his evidence with his mother and her sister.
The magistrate also noted that, based on the man’s testimony and how he reacted to his wife during cross-examination, he did bear a grudge against his wife.
This animosity appeared to stem from, among other things, his frustration over not being able to see his son, said the magistrate.
He found that the woman was not likely to commit family violence against her mother-in-law. Despite the state of her marriage, she was “indeed sincere in wanting to maintain good relations with her in-laws”, said the magistrate.
However, this was not possible given that the older woman had chosen to side with her son, he added. While this deeply disappointed her, the magistrate found that she was prepared to move on and was focused on doing the best for her son.
THE ISSUE OF THE LOCKS
As for the locksmith incident, the court heard that the mother-in-law had insisted on moving into the couple’s matrimonial home to ensure that the divorce could proceed without any issues.
The mother-in-law knew that this was not an arrangement the woman was comfortable with.
The mother-in-law testified that it was her son who asked the locksmith to change the locks that day, with her son concurring. However, the magistrate found that, in all likelihood, the mother-in-law had asked her son to do so.
This was because the mother-in-law regarded herself as the true owner of the matrimonial home.
The magistrate said this was evident from her own testimony, where she said she and her husband had paid for the matrimonial home in full and put it in her son’s name.
She testified that they put the home in her son’s name because they did not want to pay additional buyer’s stamp duty on the flat.
Apart from this, a video was played where the mother-in-law’s sister asked why the locks were being changed.
“(The mother-in-law’s) response is telling,” said the magistrate. “She had said, with a rather satisfied expression on her face, that the matrimonial home was her house.”
He said the changing of the locks was an act that caused the woman “no small amount of worry” as her belongings were still in the flat. She would also occasionally drop by to do some work, as it was more convenient for her to travel from the unit to her son’s school to pick him up.
The magistrate also pointed to the conduct of the mother-in-law, who testified about making plans with her son to bring her grandson from school to his birthday celebration.
“While much was made of the fact that (the father) had the right to see the son given that he was the father, the fact remains that (the mother-in-law) had indeed participated in taking the son from the school,” said the magistrate.
Not only this, the older woman “actively resisted” when her daughter-in-law tried to take her son back. Video footage showed the older woman “desperately clinging on to” the boy, the magistrate said.
He granted the woman’s application for a personal protection order against her mother-in-law, saying it was needed to enforce a clear degree of separation between the women.
It is also to ensure that the mother-in-law does not “increase the acrimony in the divorce process” or frustrate any arrangements relating to the care, control and custody of the boy.
The magistrate ordered both women to attend counselling to better manage their conflict and ordered the mother-in-law to pay costs of S$3,500 (US$2,730) to the woman.
In conclusion, he told the mother-in-law that it is understandable that she wanted to support her son through the divorce proceedings.
“But there are better ways of showing your support,” he said. “You must also consider how (your daughter-in-law) would perceive your actions and how they might impact her.”
He said the personal protection order should not preclude either of the women from working to rebuild the cordial relationship they once shared.
.jpg?itok=XGi0kX-H "Hyflux trial: Prosecutor crosses swords with defence in re-examination of lead investigator")
