Adjournment

Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." – [Ms Indranee Rajah].

ADJOURNMENT MOTION Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

PUTTING CHILDREN FIRST: EARLY ACTION AGAINST PARENTAL ALIENATION AND GATEKEEPING Mr Speaker: Ms Diana Pang.

7.27 pm

Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask for an urgent review of how our family justice system responds when one parent removes or withholds a child, or persistently prevents contact with the other parent, without proper justification.

As a mother, I find it painful to imagine a child trying to call a parent and not being able to get through. Or a parent going to bed each night wondering – is my child alright? Does my child think I have stopped caring? These are the fears behind the cases brought to me. And they are why I am asking for a review of how quickly our family justice system can respond.

When a marriage breaks down, the adults may have deep disagreements. There may be hurt, anger on both sides. But a child should not have to carry that anger or feel that loving one parent meaning betraying the other. Where it is safe, a child should be able to keep a loving relationship with both parents. When that relationship is being disrupted, help must come early enough to make a difference.

Let me share a resident's account. She told me that she has an existing Court order which provides for shared care and control of her child with regular communication during the other parent's care period. Yet, she says, her daughter's calling watch repeatedly becomes unreachable when the child is with her father. Her written requests to the father have not resolved the problem and several consecutive days have passed without proper telephone or video contact.

She has no other immediate family here in Singapore. She is seeking legal advice and has prepared evidence in terms of the messages, call records and chronicle of events. According to her, her daughter becomes distressed when she cannot contact her mother. Her email to me made an emotional plea. She asked me who can help her daughter now, while the legal process takes its course.

Mr Speaker, this is one parent's account. The father must also be heard, and this House cannot decide their dispute. But we can ask whether our system responds quickly enough when a child may be losing contact with a parent. For the parent, there is the anguish of waiting. For the child, there may be confusion about why someone who was part of their daily life has suddenly become absent. A few weeks may seem short in a Court timetable. For a young child, they can mean many missed bedtimes, unanswered phone calls and days of wondering when they will see their parent again.

We say that the child's welfare comes first. That must also shape how quickly we act.

In the cases brought to me, the concern goes beyond an occasional missed visit. Parents describe repeated blocked calls, withheld visits or agreed arrangements that do not happen. Sometimes, they also describe a child being told that the other parent does not care or being made to feel guilty for wanting to see them. This is the conduct I am concerned about when I speak of harmful gatekeeping and parental alienation.

We must examine the facts carefully. A child's reluctance to see a parent can have different causes, including genuine fear or harmful experiences. But we should never assume that one explanation fits every family. But when contact is being deliberately obstructed without proper justification, waiting can allow the damage to deepen.

I have been encountering these complaints more frequently. That does not by itself establish a national trend, but it does tell me that we need better information and a timely response to the families seeking help.

There are two situations I would like the Government to address.

The first is where a Court order already exists. If one parent breaches the order, the law already provides the remedies. Section 126A of the Women's Charter permits the Court to order a child's return to the person granted custody or care and control and to direct the bailiff to carry out that return. Section 126B provides measures to enforce access, including make-up access, expenses, programmes and compliance bonds, with fines or imprisonment also available. Contempt proceedings, including applications for committal, may be another option.

My concern is how quickly these remedies translate into actual contact with the child.

In cases that are brought to my attention, parents have described waits up to six months for a substantive hearing. Once the application is taken out in Court, there may be several case conferences where time can be given for a party to engage a lawyer or apply for legal aid, file reply affidavits, file cross applications and take hearing dates, at which further hearing dates on the same issue can be given one to two months away due to the Judge's schedule.

These steps serve legitimate purposes. Both parents must have a fair opportunity to be heard. Judges need evidence before making difficult decisions. Legal aid applicants need representation. Disputed facts need examination. But taken as a whole, this causes delay. The cumulative effect of these Court processes can lead to months of separation. What safeguards the child's interests during those months?

While those steps are taking place, what is happening to the child? If an existing order allows contact and there is no safety reason to stop it, how do we prevent that contact from being blocked while enforcement is pending?

Even if a Court finds that an Order was breached, it is of limited comfort to the parent because, by then, the child could have become more distant, anxious or resistant to meeting the other parent. By then, no amount of make-up access can make up for the lost time and repair the lasting damage. It cannot give the child back a missed birthday or all the ordinary moments through which a parent and a child stay close.

The second situation is much more difficult. This is when there is no existing Court Order in place. One parent may leave with the child, refuse to disclose arrangements or stop contact all together. The other parent must then initiate Court proceedings.

In some cases, the legal dispute over access can become entangled with divorce and personal protection order (PPO) proceedings and become further delayed if the Court directs for a custody evaluation report. Some cases have taken nine months to one year before resolution. Due to privacy reasons, I can only provide the case data privately to the Ministry if requested. Those matters may need careful investigation. But the child's relationship with a parent also needs attention during this time.

We should guard against a situation where one parent creates a prolonged separation and the distance that develops is then used to argue against restoring contact. Therefore, early Court intervention can help prevent families from reaching that painful point.

Mr Speaker, I have raised these concerns before.

In October 2025, I have asked whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) tracks cases where one parent unilaterally withheld or removed a child, whether studies would be commissioned, and whether an expedited process would be considered. The Minister referred to mediation, counselling, co-parenting programmes and the enforcement measures introduced in January 2025. He said there were no immediate plans for further changes.

Those measures have value but respectfully, the answer did not resolve the practical problem I am raising. It described what parents could apply for without explaining how quickly they could obtain effective and immediate relief.

The Minister's reply did mention that parents can apply for access or apply to enforce an access order if it is breached. But this answer does not answer what happens during the intervening months before the case is formally heard by a Court. A parent whose child has just been taken away needs better answers and avenues.

At this year's Committee of Supply debate, the Minister again referred to mediation, access applications and enforcement, and encouraged couples to seek help early. I support that encouragement. But seeking help early must lead to help also arriving early.

I recognise that the Family Justice Courts already have a general process to deal with urgent hearings. But to my understanding, when one child has been taken away from the other parent in domestic cases, the Courts have no established rules for placing such abduction cases on an urgent hearing track. I am therefore asking for an urgent hearing track to exist for such cases.

For example, this already exists under the personal protection order regime, where a Court can issue an expedited order, including before the respondent has been heard if the Court is satisfied there is imminent risk of family violence. This provides interim protection pending the main hearing of the PPO matter. This shows that where family violence is involved, the Court is prepared to act quickly, sometimes on the same day of the application. However, this same urgency is not given to cases of domestic child abduction.

To give another example, Singapore's Hague Convention framework for international child abduction requires proceedings in the Family Court to be expedited. However, this does not apply to domestic child abduction cases.

Here lies the inconsistency. We need to prevent a child's separation from the other parent being entrenched, whether or not the abduction is domestic or overseas. A child can lose contact with a loving parent without crossing a border and the emotional harm can be just as real. Why should we not have a comparably clear framework for urgent domestic child abduction relief?

I propose six areas for consideration.

First, it can be legislated that the Court should establish a dedicated and urgent track for cases involving domestic child abduction. This will include cases involving unilateral removal or retention, concealment or a substantial interruption of an established relationship between a child and the other parent without apparent lawful justification. I propose that an initial judicial screening takes place within two working days, and where an urgent case is brought to the Court's attention, there should ordinarily be a hearing on interim arrangements within seven days of the filing.

The Court should consider what can safely happen during the interim hearing, such as the return of the child where appropriate, disclosure of the child's whereabouts to the Court, supervised contact or supported telephone and video calls. The initial hearing should produce a decision on interim protection and contact or clear reasons why that decision must await a further hearing or further evidence. It should not lead to a series of case conferences while the central issue remains unattended to. Where safe contact with a parent cannot be allowed, the Court should still fix a review date and activate the social service agencies early to make recommendations.

Second, make sure that applications for legal aid do not unnecessarily delay urgent decisions about a child. Section 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act provides for a 14-day stay after the relevant notification is filed. It also allows the Court to order otherwise, shorten the period and make certain urgent orders. I ask the Government to review whether these existing policies to ensure access to justice can potentially be abused by a non-compliant parent to entrench the status quo and to ringfence any attempts by the other parent to urgently restore contact with the child.

Legal aid is essential. A parent who cannot afford a lawyer must have a fair chance to put their case. At the same time, the child's immediate needs should still be considered promptly while legal aid representation is being arranged.

Third, to consider involving the Government or social agencies early on in the proceedings, as soon as possible, after the initial application is being filed, as opposed to calling for these only at the hearing stage. Families involved in such cases will benefit from having early intervention and support from social agencies whilst proceedings continue in Court. A social worker could be empowered early on to coordinate referrals, such as to therapists or counsellors, counsel the parents, and arrange support for the child and distressed parent.

The value of having a social worker's involvement in the early stages is that he or she could write interim neutral reports for the Court's consideration so that by the time the Court conducts the first hearing, it will already have a neutral and professional set of recommendations before it to help in its decision for the child.

Fourth, to review and consider whether deliberate and wrongful removal or retention of a child by one parent should be a specifically defined criminal offence. We should be prepared to consider criminalising serious conduct intended to deprive the other parent of a lawful relationship with the child. The fact that the person responsible is a parent should not by itself place the conduct beyond criminal scrutiny. To this end, section 361 of the Penal Code can be amended to make clear that the law specifically will also apply to parents who remove a child from the other lawful guardian and that unless otherwise by a Court, both the child's parents shall be presumed to be his or her lawful guardian under this section.

That said, criminal proceedings would not themselves restore a relationship quickly. But the threat of criminal proceedings is a very important signal that should be sent to parents thinking of cutting off the other parent from the child. I, therefore, urge the Government to undertake this review to give holistic protection to both the parents and the child.

Fifth, provide stronger safeguards against parents who knowingly fabricate allegations to justify obstructive behaviours. Sexual abuse and family violence allegations must, at all times, be taken seriously. Where protection is needed, it must be provided. At the same time, deliberately inventing such allegations to exclude a parent can cause profound harm.

In a particular Court of Appeal case, the Court found that there was a deliberate action by one parent to damage a child's relationship with the other parent, involving unfounded allegations of abuse and neglect. These allegations were later held to be unfounded. However, by the time of the hearing, the child's relationship with the other parent had already been damaged.

When such an allegation is raised, there is a need for a clear assessment process by the Court or social workers on an urgent basis so that such information can be shared between authorised agencies and the Court. If the allegations are true and one parent is indeed posing danger to the child, the Court should rightly impose restricted or supervised access for the child's safety. However, an unresolved allegation should not become an indefinite barrier for one parent to see the child without regular and timely scrutiny by the Court.

If the Court finds that one parent is fabricating allegations, it needs to promptly consider how to restore contact and access with the other parent, making the appropriate costs orders and even referring these matters to the Police for investigation – for providing false information to a public servant. Therefore, parents reporting genuine concerns in good faith need not have anything to fear.

Sixth, to collect and publish data that measures, for cases with and cases without existing Court Orders, how many of such cases involve one parent removing the child from the other parent or matrimonial home and how long it takes from the time of first application to the time the first order is made.

I note that the Minister has said in a September 2026 reply to a Parliamentary Question that there are 53 applications under section 126B as at 31 July 2026, since the enforcement access regime began. So, some data does exist. But why are applications for enforcement of custody or care and control orders not being counted? And more importantly, do we know how long each of these 53 parents had to wait before they got to see their children again?

Whilst the Minister has previously explained that the Government does not track data on how many parental alienation cases there are in Singapore due to the difficulties in defining such cases, it certainly should not be a problem for the authorities to count the number of removal cases before any Court orders are made.

I wish to suggest for MSF to work with the Judiciary and relevant agencies to report the time from application to first interim decision, the duration of substantial loss of contact, delays in assessments, repeated breaches and whether safe contact is actually being restored.

Mr Speaker, I realise this is a difficult problem faced by our Family Court Judges and the social service team that is supporting them. If the problem is one of manpower, we can consider expanding hiring for the relevant roles. If the problem is systemic, then this is my call to equip the system to act at the pace that these cases require.

The parent waiting for a call and the child wondering why a parent has disappeared from his daily life, cannot recover that time later. We need prompt decisions, careful protection and effective enforcement on whether or not proceedings have already begun.

As a mother and as a Member of Parliament, I ask the Government to close this practical gap – help families protect, safeguard parent-child relationships while proceedings continue, before the distance becomes harder to repair. Putting children first must also mean acting in time for them.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua.

7.47 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for raising this important issue and for giving voice to the concerns of children and parents who may be navigating painful and difficult experiences in their lives.

First, we agree with the Member's fundamental point that children should not be caught in conflicts between parents. Where it is safe and appropriate, they should be able to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. Where one parent unjustifiably prevents a child from having contact with the other parent, the consequences can be distressing for everyone involved.

We recognise the Member's concern that sustained parental conflict and prolonged loss of contact can potentially damage the parent-child relationship. Our priority has been to intervene early in the divorce process before conflict escalates to persistent withholding of access. We have progressively strengthened support in line with therapeutic justice principles, to help parents better manage their conflicts, reduce acrimony and focus on their children's best interests.

Since July 2024, parents with minor children filing for divorce have been required to attend a Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme to help them understand the impact of divorce on their children and work towards cooperative co-parenting. Where arrangements relating to children remain disputed, divorcing parties undergo mandatory mediation and counselling in the Family Justice Courts.

Most families can move forward without such serious disputes, but some highly acrimonious cases remain particularly difficult for the children involved. There are already remedies and processes for such situations, including recent legislative enhancements to strengthen the enforcement of child access orders.

First, where a child access order has been breached, we strengthened the law from January 2025 by introducing a simpler process for commencing enforcement proceedings and broadening the measures available to the Court. These include make-up access, mediation, counselling, family support programmes and compliance bonds.

Second, where there is no child access order, and one parent unilaterally withholds or removes a child from the other, the affected parent may apply to the Family Justice Courts for orders concerning the child, including access.

Third, the Court process already allows urgent child issues to be brought forward. A party can request an urgent hearing before the Duty Judge, including in cases of extreme urgency and, where necessary, before the underlying application has formally been filed. For complex cases, the Court may also call for an early child assessment or deal with urgent child issues ahead of the other matters in the case.

Nevertheless, we recognise the Member's core concern. There may be difficult cases where disruption to the parent-child relationship continues while proceedings are ongoing.

These cases are often not so straightforward. Parents may give conflicting accounts and allegations of violence or abuse must be taken seriously. The consequences of getting this wrong can be serious in either direction. If intervention comes too late and there is prolonged and unjustified loss of contact, the child's relationship with the parent may deteriorate. But directing the immediate return of a child or resumption of access without properly assessing a genuine safety concern might also expose the child to harm.

The Member referred to expedited orders in family violence cases and also the Hague Convention Framework for International Child Abduction. These regimes serve different purposes. An expedited order in a family violence case protects someone from an immediate risk of violence while the main case is being heard. It protects the applicant in the interim before the Court hearing, and the Court hearing will determine longer-term care or access arrangements.

The Hague Convention deals with children wrongfully taken across international borders and whether they should be returned to the country where custody issues should be decided. In a domestic dispute, our Courts may themselves have to decide what arrangements are in the child's best interests. The situations are therefore different.

The Member's concerns are important, and she has put forward a number of suggestions, including improving timeliness of proceedings, changes to legal aid procedures, criminalising certain conduct and further data collection.

We agree that timely action is important. We will study these suggestions with the relevant partners, including the Family Justice Courts, to see whether the current process can be improved, especially in identifying serious cases that need earlier intervention, keeping in mind the need to always safeguard the interest of the child.

The Member also raised the 14-day pause that may apply in ongoing Court proceedings when a party applies for legal aid. The Court can shorten this period. It can also make any order it considers necessary to prevent an injustice that cannot later be put right.

We also note the Member’s concern about “child abduction”. We should be careful about automatically treating disputes between parents over contact with the child as “child abduction”, especially where there is no existing order governing the child’s care arrangements. The circumstances of each case can be very different.

Deliberate and unjustified obstruction of a child's relationship with the other parent can have serious consequences. But criminalising such conduct is not necessarily the most effective way to restore that relationship. Criminal proceedings could in itself, deepen parental conflict and make it harder to rebuild cooperation around the child.

The Member also raised concerns about fabricated allegations. Genuine concerns about abuse or family violence must always be taken seriously and properly assessed. At the same time, we should distinguish between an allegation that cannot be ultimately substantiated versus one that is knowingly fabricated. The Courts can take a party's conduct and credibility into account, and existing criminal laws may apply where false information is knowingly given, and the relevant legal requirements are met.

On data, we understand the Member’s interest in knowing not only how many applications are made, but whether intervention is timely and effective. We will consider with the Family Justice Courts what useful information can practicably be drawn from existing Court data.

Ultimately, the Member, the Government and the Courts share the same goal – and that is to protect children from prolonged parental conflict, and to ensure that serious access difficulties are dealt with in a timely fashion, with the child's welfare at the centre. Parents themselves also have the responsibility to put their children’s interests ahead of their own differences. After all, the end of a marriage should not mean that a child must lose a parent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 7.56 pm.