[2015] SGHC 17

“be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 December 2022 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 the Singapore case of APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17, where reference was made by Tan Siong Thye J to an enlightening article Contact and Domestic Violence – The”

“hat of the mother. [74] Parties must be reminded of the role that a father has in ensuring that a child is raised in a nourishing environment. This was highlighted in the Singapore case of APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17, where reference was made by Tan Siong Thye J to the article Contact and Domestic Violence – The Experts’”

“f the mother. [21] Parties must also be reminded of the role that a father has in ensuring that a child is raised in a nourishing environment. This was highlighted in the Singapore case of APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17, **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 May”

“ies must also be duly reminded of the crucial role that a father plays in fostering a nurturing environment for his child. This significance was notably underscored in the Singapore case of APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17, wherein Tan Siong Thye J referred to the article Contact and Domestic Violence – The Experts’ Court Repo”

“8] It was imperative to underscore the pivotal role that a father plays in creating a nurturing environment for his child. This significance was notably emphasised in the Singapore case of APE v. APF [2015] SGHC 17. In that case, Tan Siong Thye J referenced the enlightening article titled Contact and Domestic Violence”

“f the crucial role that the Petitioner Husband, as a father, plays in fostering a nurturing environment for his children. This significance was notably underscored in the Singapore case of APE v. APF [2015] SGHC 17, where Tan Siong Thye J referred to the article Contact and Domestic Violence - The Experts ' Court Repor”

“ly, it was crucial to underscore the pivotal role that a father plays in fostering a nurturing environment for his child. This significance was notably highlighted in the Singapore case of APE v. APF [2015] SGHC 17, where Tan Siong Thye J referenced the enlightening article titled Contact and Domestic Violence – The S/”

“sponsibility. [39] It was crucial to bear in mind the role that a father has in ensuring that the child is raised in a nourishing environment. This was highlighted in the Singapore case of APE v. APF [2015] SGHC 17, where reference was made by Tan Siong Thye J to the article Contact and Domestic Violence - The Experts'”

“that “maintenance is ordered in order to meet the reasonable needs of the child and if the child’s lifestyle is overly extravagant, the husband should not be made to bear the costs of it”: APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17 at [43]. I agree with the Husband that these expenses are excessive. In respect of Child [A], I do not see”

“Relying on APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17 ("APE”), the Husband submitted that the maintenance orders for the Children should not be pegged to his financial ability. The court in APE held at [43] that the purpose of maintenance is to meet the”

“I turn to the law. In APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17, Tan Siong Thye J (at [32]) observed that unsupervised access should be the norm, save in exceptional circumstances such as the following: (a) serious welfare concerns such as violence or inappropria”

“Wife has made much of the need for stability in the Son’s life. I agree. Stability is best maintained by continuing the interim access orders in ORC 5016. In relation to supervised access, APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17 stated that supervised access would only be appropriate in the following situations (at [32]):”

“ders must be supported by sufficient evidence. Bare assertion, unparticularised fear, and unsubstantiated suspicion are not enough: BKJ v BKK [2013] SGDC 261 at [23], cited with approval in APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17 at [21].”

“Unsupervised access is generally awarded to the parent without care and control, unless the following exceptional circumstances are present (APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17 at [32]):”