In a divorce, often, an important question is how the matrimonial assets are divided between the parties.

How exactly does the court go about deciding how to divide the matrimonial assets?

Broad brush approach

The court will adopt a broad brush approach. This means that the court will not spend a lot of time trying to find out exactly how much was spent by each of the parties over the years of their marriage.

Structured approach

Instead, the court will adopt the structured approach.

Under this approach, the judge will:

- identify all the matrimonial assets (not only properties and bank accounts in joint names) and deduct all liabilities to get the net value.

- identify each party's direct financial contributions towards the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial assets. (Examples of direct financial contributions include paying for the housing loan using cash and/or CPF funds.)

- determine the ratio of direct contributions between the parties.

- identify each party's indirect contributions (both financial and non-financial indirect contributions) towards the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial assets. (Examples of indirect financial contributions include paying for the household expenses, etc. Examples of indirect non-financial contributions include taking care of the children, washing the toilet bowl, mopping the floor, sending the children to and from school, reading them to bed, etc.)

- determine the ratio of indirect contributions between the parties.

- take the average (or some other weightage, depending on the circumstances) of the two ratios to arrive at a final ratio.

The judge may give more or less weight to each type of contribution depending on the circumstances of the case. He (or she) may also adjust the final ratio to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

​An example​

For example, even if the husband came up with 100% of direct financial contributions and the wife came up with 0%, if the husband and the wife were then found to have put in equal indirect contributions: 50% : 50%, then the average of these 2 ratios would yield a result of 75% of the net value to the husband and 25% to the wife.

Length of marriage

It should also be note that:

- for short marriages (3 years and less), the courts have given almost all the weight to the parties' ratio of direct contributions and given little or no weight to the parties' ratio of indirect contributions.

- for long marriages (30 years and above), the courts have given significantly less weight to the parties' direct contributions and much more weight to the parties' ratio of indirect contributions.

In a divorce, often, an important question is how the matrimonial assets are divided between the parties.

What exactly are the matrimonial assets? Are they limited to just the matrimonial home that is in both parties' names? Or, are they limited to the matrimonial home, regardless of whether owned by both parties or just one of the parties? Do matrimonial assets extend beyond the matrimonial home? Do they include funds in one parties' bank account that he or she had worked for on his or her own?

Women's Charter, Section 112(10)

In Singapore, the words, "matrimonial assets" are defined in Section 112(10) of the Women's Charter.

Matrimonial assets include:

- any asset acquired during the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage,

- any asset acquired before the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage that is:

* ordinarily used or enjoyed by both parties or one or more of their children while the parties are residing together for shelter or transportation or for household, education, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes; or

* which has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage

- includes any asset that has been acquired by one party at any time by gift or inheritance and that has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage.

Matrimonial assets do not include:

- any asset (not being a matrimonial home) that has been acquired by one party at any time by gift or inheritance and that has not been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage.

Any asset acquired during the marriage by one party

Matrimonial assets include the funds in one parties' bank account that he or she had worked for on his or her own during the marriage.

Matrimonial assets are not limited to the matrimonial home.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors): An International and Singapore divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move forward.

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

If 2 Singaporeans who are married to each other and later agree and cooperate to divorce, of course, they can apply for a divorce in Singapore -- even if they were married abroad.

One Singaporean and the other Expat: Can they apply for a divorce in Singapore?

But, what if one of them is not a Singaporean citizen, can they still apply for a divorce in Singapore?

The short answer is: Yes, they can.

The Singapore court can accept the case provided at least one of the parties is a Singapore citizen.

What if neither are Singaporean citizens or both are Expats:  

Can they apply for a divorce in Singapore?

The law says that a couple can apply to divorce in Singapore provided:

- at least one of them is a Singapore citizen; or

- at least one of them has been habitually resident in Singapore for the
most recent 3 years leading up to the divorce application.

In other words, if neither of the couple is a Singapore citizen and neither of them has been habitually resident in Singapore for the most recent 3 years, then the couple cannot apply to divorce in Singapore.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors): An International and Singapore
divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move
forward. 

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sometimes, during the marriage, your spouse may not tell you anything about his or her assets.

In such a situation, how can you get the court to divide the matrimonial assets fairly if you not know what assets your spouse has?

Discovery & Interrogatories

You can apply to court for discovery and interrogatories.

In discovery, the judge may order your spouse to produce documents that are relevant to the case. These may include:

- both parties' IRAS Notices of Assessment for three years.

- both parties' pay slips for six months.

- both parties' bank statements for three months.

In interrogatories, the judge may order your spouse to give answer to
specific questions.

What if Your Spouse Does Not Give Discovery or Interrogatories?

Unfortunately, if your spouse ignores the court order to produce documents or to give answers, the court will not order your spouse's bank or his employer or the Inland Revenue Authority to produce the documents and give the answers.

Instead, the court has the power to draw an adverse inference against your spouse.

This means that the court can assume that your spouse has more assets than he or she has declared (even if you are not able to prove what assets he or she has).

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors): An International and Singapore divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move forward. For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, or
email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Even if you have been married for more than 3 years, the court still requires a reason for your divorce.

In Singapore, there is no such thing as "no reason" divorce. In other words, when you apply for a divorce, you must state a reason and it must be one of the following reasons:

• - 3-year separation and the other side agrees to the divorce.
• - 4-year separation.
• - unreasonable behaviour.
• - adultery.
• - 2-year desertion. (This means abandoning the home and refusing to
• come home for at least 2 years.)

3-year Separation

Usually, if the couple has been separated for 3 years and they agree to the divorce, they would use this as the reason for the divorce. This because they do not need to say anything bad about the other side.

What if you have not been separated for 3 years?

If the couple has not been separated for 3 years, they would often use unreasonable behaviour as the reason for the divorce.

This will involve saying bad things about the other side. However, there is no need to say that the other side had committed family violence or anything as serious as that.

Unreasonable behaviour includes things like:

- ignoring the spouse / giving him or her the cold shoulder.

- not taking of the spouse when he or she is ill.

- not showing care and concern for the spouse.

- not supportive of the spouse's dreams and aspirations.

- staying out late and coming home drunk.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) is an International and Singapore
divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move forward. 

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sometimes the person applying for a divorce has some evidence that the other party has committed adultery. The applicant then wants to use this evidence in the case.

Is it a good idea to apply for a divorce based on adultery?

What is Adultery, exactly?

In Singapore, it is important to note that the following is not necessarily adultery:

- an improper association with a third party.

- holding hands with a third party.

- inappropriate messages to and from a third party.

- going out with a third party.

In Singapore, the law is that adultery involves sexual penetration with another party who is not the spouse (ie, with a third party).

Evidence of Adultery

Because of the above, evidence of the following is not necessarily evidence of adultery and the other side can still deny the allegation of adultery.

- an improper association with a third party.

- holding hands with a third party.

- inappropriate messages to and from a third party.

- going out with a third party.

Thus, it is often quite difficult and very rare to get clear evidence of adultery.

Conclusion

You should not apply for a divorce based on adultery unless you have clear evidence of sexual penetration.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) is an International and Singapore
divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move
forward.

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In Singapore, you cannot apply for a "no reason" divorce. In other words, when you apply for a divorce, you must state a reason.

Actually, you must choose one of the following reasons:

- 3-year separation and the other side agrees to the divorce.

- 4-year separation.

- unreasonable behaviour.

- adultery.

- 2-year desertion. (This means abandoning the home and refusing to come home for at least 2 years.)

What does The Law Say?

The law in Singapore includes the Women's Charter, the Rules and Practice Directions of the Family Court and also case law. Case law is the written reasons given by judges for their decisions.

The Women's Charter and the Rules and the Practice Directions do not say whether or not you should get more assets or maintenance if you apply for a divorce based on adultery.

Case Law

The case law also does not say whether or not you should get more assets or maintenance if you apply for a divorce based on adultery.

However, most of the case law involving adultery, order maintenance and divide the matrimonial assets without increasing or reducing the amounts due to the adultery.

On the other hand, there does not appear to be any case law where one party had argued that the other party had committed adultery and so the other party should pay more or get less assets. (And, therefore, there does not appear to be any case law where this argument has been expressly rejected by the court.)

Conclusion

The law is not crystal clear.

However, currently, it appears that judges usually do not order more maintenance or more assets just because it is an adultery case.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors): An International and Singapore
divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move
forward.

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Divorce can be a traumatic experience. There is already a lot to worry about.

Do you also have to worry about the judge order your children to live apart after the divorce?

What is The Law

The law is that when the judge decides on the children's arrangements, the children's welfare must be the most important factor. (The Women's Charter calls it the "paramount consideration".)

There is no law that says the judge should not split up the children.

However, the judge would usually be reluctant to split up the children. This is because the judge would normally want the children to continue to have their bonding and relationship with each other as they grow up.

So, even though the judge has the power to split up the children, the judge will not do so unless there is very good reasons to do so.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors): An International and Singapore divorce law firm.

We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move
forward. For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

When deciding on who should get the children (to live with him or her) after the divorce, the judge will treat the children's welfare as the "paramount consideration" (ie, most important factor). However, these words (like children's welfare, paramount consideration, most important factor, etc.) do not indicate what the judge will take into account when making this decision.

Primary Caregiver

When deciding on who should get the children after the divorce, the judge will take into account who the primary caregiver is (ie, who the main caregiver is).

If the children are healthy and doing well and already living with the primary caregiver, then, the judge is likely to order the children to continue living with that person.

Because of this, it is important for you to gather evidence to show that you are the primary caregiver of the children (if, indeed, you are their primary caregiver).

Evidence of Being Primary Caregiver

This evidence may be crucial if you want the children to follow you after the divorce.

Call us for a No Obligation discussion on how to gather such evidence for your case.  Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors): An International and Singapore divorce law firm. We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move forward.

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Sometimes, despite our best efforts, a marriage can still breakdown.

What can you do? How do you go about getting a divorce?

First of All, Ask whether There Is Any Future to the Marriage

Before giving up on the marriage, you should take some time and think about whether or not there is any future to the marriage.

After thinking for some time, you will usually come to one of 3 answers:

-Yes, actually, there is a future to the marriage. These are some of the things I can do to save the marriage: A, B and C.

-No. I am sure there is no future to the marriage. I have already done everything I can to save the marriage.I want to get out.

-I am not sure whether there is a future to the marriage.

If You are Sure There Is A Future OR If You are Not Sure

You should make every effort to try and save your marriage. This is
because moving towards divorce can be very damaging to the marriage. It can cause irreversible damage.

In trying to save your marriage, you may consider:

-turning over a new leaf, accepting your spouse for who he or she is and accommodating to his or her wishes.

-going for counseling, on your own first and then, later, if your spouse agrees, together.

What You should do If You are Sure There Is No Future to Your Marriage

You should reach out to a qualified lawyer to understand the law and identify the specific actions and steps you should take to prepare for the divorce.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) handle international and Singapore divorces.

We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move forward.

For a no obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email lamnco@lamnco.com 

Often, during the marriage, the mother is the one who takes care of the children. She thinks that after a divorce, the father will not be interested in taking over the role of taking care of them.

However, sometimes, this thinking is wrong. Some fathers claim care and control over the children.

A mother who goes for a divorce, totally unprepared for the father's claim runs a grave risk of losing the children.

Reasons Why more Fathers are Claiming Children

There can be many reasons why a father would want to claim the children.

These include:

-The father genuinely loves the children and the children loves him.

-The father wants to have the children because the father's parents want to spend a lot of time with their grandchildren.

-The father does not want to pay any child maintenance.

-The father wants the mother to pay child maintenance to him.

No Rule of Law that Children must follow Mother

What You should do

In this way, you will be better prepared if the father tries to claim the children.

Lam & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) handle international and Singapore divorces.

We can help by addressing your questions and speaking about how to move forward.

For a no-obligation discussion, call +65 6535 1800, email lamnco@lamnco.com

Of the people who've advised me to just marry a rich man instead of slave away to earn money, there have been close friends, superiors at work and even complete strangers here in sunny Singapore. At least half have concluded with a triumphant, "even better, get a divorce and take half his money!"

Fortunately or unfortunately, while maintenance payments are often made out to ex-wives, it's a myth that divorce automatically entitles her to half the ex-husband's money.

LEGAL REASONS FOR PAYING MAINTENANCE AFTER DIVORCE

If you're planning to serve divorce papers on a soon-to-be-ex spouse, it's important to know why maintenance is even ordered. The court isn't going to just order one party to pay the other because he cheated or stopped putting in effort after 10 years.

In addition, you have to bear in mind that the court often orders division of property as well, which will affect the amount of maintenance that must be paid.

There are two reasons maintenance is ordered:

1. Child maintenance:

One of the biggest decisions the court will be making is which parent gets custody, as well as care and control of the child. Once it is decided who the child will live with, the court can order any or both of the parents to pay maintenance for the child. The parent who has custody, care and control of the child can also receive maintenance from the remaining parent. This maintenance is usually payable only until the child turns 21.

2. Maintenance for ex-wife:

This is the kind of maintenance people tend to find the most interesting, and the most scandalous. The idea is that the court will try to let the ex-wife enjoy the same standard of living as they would have if their marriage hadn't flopped. This is usually supposed to continue till one of them dies, or the wife remarries. In practice, the actual amount tends to be lower than people imagine.

SO HOW MUCH DOES AN EX-WIFE USUALLY GET AFTER DIVORCE?

Nadia, a lawyer at Kalco Law who handles divorce matters, says the ways in which assets are divided and orders to pay maintenance are made can differ wildly depending on the circumstances of the marriage.

However, guys can rest assured that in practice, it is highly unlikely the court will order the husband to divide half his assets AND pay half his salary to the wife for the rest of his life in a divorce in Singapore.

Nadia says, "The division of assets (including the HDB flat) depends on each party's contribution to the assets over the course of the marriage. The contribution can also be non-monetary e.g. tending to household chores. However, if there is little or no contribution by the wife to a short-term and childless marriage, then the chances of her obtaining a share of the assets are slim."

Many factors are considered when deciding on the amount to be paid, and it is quite difficult to predict beforehand exactly how much one will get. Some of the factors the judge will consider include:

Financial standing and earning capacity of both parties: A very wealth ex-husband is likely to pay more in maintenance to his ex-wife than a very poor one, all other factors being equal. Conversely, a very wealthy ex-wife with a high paying career is likely to get less than a housewife without higher educational qualifications, all other factors being equal.

Standard of living enjoyed by both parties during the marriage: If you lived a very modest lifestyle when you were married, don't expect to transform into Cinderella after finding her glass slipper once you're divorced.

Ages of the parties: If the ex-wife is older, the court is more likely to order higher maintenance payments.

Duration of the marriage: If you've only been married for a year, don't expect to get much, if anything at all, especially if no kids are involved. Nadia says, "The longer the marriage, the higher the chances of the ex-wife obtaining a higher share of the matrimonial assets. This is because more often than not, an individual's contribution (direct or indirect, financial or non-financial) is greater the longer the marriage."'

Contributions made to the family: Generally, the more a party has contributed to the family, the more favourably the court will look upon them. Contributions can include paying for the family home and looking after the children.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET NOTHING?

The short answer is that yes, in some instances an ex-wife can get nothing in a divorce in Singapore.

"If the marriage was a short and childless one and/or she is more than able to support herself on her monthly income, it is possible for the ex-wife to get no maintenance," Nadia says.

Husbands can forget about claiming maintenance even if they marry the richest woman on the island, as Singapore law does not allow it. Sorry, guys.

So the next time you hear someone talking about marrying rich men, you have another reason to shut them up.

This article was first published in Money Smart.SG

Since 1980, the divorce rate in Singapore has roughly doubled from 3.8 per 1,000 married resident males (or 3.8 per 1,000 married resident females) to 6.9 per 1,000 married resident males in 2017 (or 6.5 per 1,000 married resident females). This trend isn't limited to Singapore: studies have shown that divorce rates have doubled globally between 1970 and 2008.

One of the biggest contributors to this change was culture, where individual happiness became more important than "traditional" values. As such, the stigma around the separation of spouses became less commonplace, especially when the marriage is clearly not working out for either party.

Divorce Rates Declining for Younger Couples, but Increasing for Older Ones

After hitting its peak in 2007, the divorce rate in Singapore has been steadily declining. Interestingly, a huge driving force behind this trend was millennials. In contrast to older generations, younger couples have been getting divorced a lot less than they were in 2007.

For example, the divorce rate of males aged between 20 to 34 has declined by 20-30% from 2007 to 2017. It has also declined similarly for females in the same age group, though to a less extent for the youngest group in the 20-24 years of age.

Millennials Are Marrying Later

One of the reasons why millennials are divorcing less might be because they are taking more time to get married, as shown in the chart below. In other words, millennials taking more time to get married could be helping them be more cautious and selective in picking their partners (and sometimes even cohabiting before marriage), ultimately leading to more stable unions.

On the flipside, it could also mean that they are able to have more stable marriages because they have more time to prepare themselves for it, financially, emotionally or in any other ways.

Financial Burdens of Marriage and Being Single

Last on our list of potential reasons why millennials are divorcing less is the rising financial burdens of separation. First, weddings themselves have gotten very expensive, costing about S$40,000 on average.

The rising cost of living and wedding means that millennials may need to wait longer to get married (as we explored above), and economic scale advantages of a married couple may produce additional incentive to stay together.

But, Singaporean Millennials Are Still Divorcing More Than Their Parents

One big caveat of our findings is that millennials are still divorcing more than their parents. For example, the divorce rate of those aged 45 or more, though rising, remain below 10 divorces per 1,000 married residents, at least 40% lower than that of millennials.

Still, that divorce rate for younger couples has declined so dramatically is indeed a positive sign. No matter how bad the marriage had been, resetting your life after separating from your spouse can bring a lot of upheavals in your life.

Divorces can also be financially painful, with uncontested divorce costing about S$2,500 to contested ones costing about S$24,000 in Singapore. That more and more millennials are avoiding this emotionally and financially costly mistake sounds like a good reason to celebrate.

 Introduction

• Usually, in every Adoption application to court, the Judge will appoint a Guardian In Adoption ("GIA") and this person will prepare a GIA Report.
  • Who is the GIA?
  • What is the GIA Report?
  • What goes into a GIA Report?

• The GIA is the person appointed by the Judge to:
  • ensure and safeguard the child's legal interests in the Adoption application before the Court
  • investigate the circumstances surrounding the Adoption; and
  • report his (or her) findings to the Court.
• Typically, the person appointed will be the Director of Social Welfare and he (or she) will nominate an officer from the Ministry of Social & Family Development ("MSF") to conduct the investigation and report the findings to the Court.

• For the investigation, the officer (nominated to conduct the GIA investigation) will often:
  • interview the Applicant(s)
  • do a home visit
  • check that the information in the Adoption Statement are true
  • check whether there is any evidence of any monetary transaction regarding the Adoption
  • investigate and determine the findings necessary to prepare the GIA Report

• The GIA Report to the Court will normally be in the form of an Affidavit (sworn or affirmed statement).
• It will contain the MSF officer's findings.

• A GIA Report will usually include:
  • the MSF officer's name, NRIC number, and official position in MSF
  • an express finding whether the information in the Adoption Statement are true
  • an express finding whether there is any evidence of any monetary transaction regarding the Adoption
  • the child's background and current residence
  • the Applicants' reasons and motivations for adopting the child
  • the Applicants' background and current residence
  • if there was any previous marriage, details of this will be determined and stated
  • the Applicants' relationship and their perceptions of each other
  • the Applicants' financial situation
  • the Applicants' extended family background and whether they are aware of the Adoption and supportive of it
  • the condition of the home
  • the child's condition
  • how the child interacted with the Applicants
  • the child's current educational situation
  • the child's attitude toward the Adoption
  • details about the child's sibling(s), if any
  • recommendations, including whether the Adoption will be in the best interest of the child.

• Here, we seek to appreciate and understand your situation and put your aims and objective first. We will use our tried and tested Lamnco Method (developed over more than 25 years of successful legal experience) and strive for the best possible outcome for you.

Introduction

• When a relative suffers from mental incapacity, the other family member(s) may have to apply for the Appointment of Deputy in order to manage that relative's property and affairs (and/or personal welfare). To do this, a Medical Report will be required.
• The following are the most important things to note about that Medical Report.

• It is important NOT to get the doctor (or hospital) to prepare the Medical Report BEFORE you engage us.
• The reasons for this is because we have encountered:
  • Medical Report prepared using the wrong (old) form. (This will be rejected by the Court.)
  • Medical Report filled in using handwriting. (This will also be rejected by the Court.)
  • Medical Report filled in without enough details. (This will also be rejected by the Court.)
• For the above reasons, we recommend that our clients engage us
  • and then we write to the doctor (or hospital) highlighting what to avoid
  • and only then the Medical Report is prepared.

• On the other hand, it is also important to check with your doctor (or hospital) that your relative in fact suffers from mental incapacity such that he (or she) is
  • unable to make decisions regarding his (or her) property and affairs and/or
  • unable to make decisions regarding his (or her) personal welfare.
• If your relative does NOT suffer from such mental incapacity, you do NOT need to apply for an Appointment of Deputy.

• The Medical Report MUST be prepared in the correct, most current form.
• We will handle this by writing to the doctor (or hospital) in advance, providing the link to the most current form.

• The Medical Report MUST be typewritten.
• Again, we will handle this by writing to the doctor (or hospital) in advance, highlighting the above to avoid any error.

• The Medical Report MUST provide the details required by the Court.
• We will also handle this by writing to the doctor (or hospital) in advance, highlighting the required details to avoid any error.

About Lam & Co.

• Here, we seek to appreciate and understand your situation and put your aims and objective first. We will use our tried and tested Lamnco Method (developed over more than 25 years of successful legal experience) and strive for the best possible outcome for you.

Introduction

• All couples who wish to adopt a child have to undergo a Pre-Adoption Briefing. At this briefing, they will be informed whether they have to get a Home Study Report done or whether they are able to apply for a waiver.
• If a Home Study Report is required, it usually covers the following:

Typical Headings

• The Home Study Report will often have the following (or similar) headings:
  • Identifying Information
  • Motivation to Adopt
  • Background Information
  • Marital Relationship
  • Previous Marriage (if relevant)
  • Health Condition
  • Others Living in the Home
  • Finances
  • Religious Beliefs
  • Criminal, Immigration & Abuse Background Check
  • Description of Home
  • Description of Neighbourhood
  • References
  • Parenting
  • Guardianship
  • Child Preferences
  • Home Study History
  • Recommendation

The Applicants' Identifying Information

• This includes the usual details such as:
  • name
  • age, date of birth
  • NRIC no., etc

The Applicants' Motivation to Adopt

• This will include:
  • the background and the reasons why they have chosen the adoption route
  • their attitude towards adoption

Background Information on the Applicants

• This includes:
  • the Applicants' citizenship
  • place and circumstances of birth
  • upbringing
  • immediate and extended family background
  • academic and employment history

The Applicants' Marital Relationship

• This includes:
  • how they met
  • how long they dated
  • their attitude towards each other
  • the nature of their current relationship and
  • how they manage their relationship
• If there was a previous marriage, this would also be gone into.

Others Living in the Home (with the Applicants)

• This will cover:
  • all the persons living in the same home
  • their identity and usual particulars
  • background to how they came to be living together
  • relationship between the various persons and the Applicants
  • whether these persons are supportive of the intention to adopt

Health Condition of the Applicants

• This is self explanatory

Finances

• This will, of course include:
  • income
  • expenses
  • assets
  • liabilities

Religious Beliefs

• This is self explanatory

Criminal, Immigration & Abuse Background Check

• This is self explanatory

Description of Home

• This is self explanatory

Description of Neighbourhood

• This is self explanatory

References

• This can include
  • reference letter(s) from or
  • telephone interview(s) with
  • friend(s) and/or relative(s) who know the Applicant(s)
  • including whether the reference(s) support the proposed adoption

Parenting

• This includes
  • any prior experience and
  • current attitudes towards parenting
  • views on how the child should be disciplined
  • who the main care giver would be
  • openness to learning more about effective parenting techniques
  • awareness of potential challenges

Guardianship

• This includes
  • the identity of person who will be the guardian in the event of the Applicants' death or incapacity

Child Preferences

• This includes, if any, in relation to the intended child for adoption
  • gender
  • race
  • age
  • origin

Home Study History

• This states whether there was any previous history of
  • unfavourable home study report or
  • ever being found unsuitable to adopt.

Recommendation

• This will state whether the Applicants are recommended for adoption or not.

If you have any questions or need any assistance with an adoption, please call us at 6535 1800.

About Lam & Co.

• Here, we seek to appreciate and understand your situation and put your aims and objective first. We will use our tried and tested Lamnco Method (developed over more than 25 years of successful legal experience) and strive for the best possible outcome for you.

Introduction

• Every month, you put all your salary into a joint account with your spouse. Either one of you can go to the bank & draw out the money. But recently, your relationship has soured. What should you do?
• Singapore Divorce Lawyer Recommends the following:

• We recommend you call Lam & Co. as soon as you can at 6535 1800.
• We have come across such situations and we are able to help you.

• Unfortunately, the law on this (as to who the funds in a joint bank account belong to) is less clear that the law on joint tenancy of property.
• (For joint tenancy of property, it is clear that if one party passes away, the survivor becomes the owner of the deceased's half.)
• This will depend on the evidence, including:
  • whether there was any express agreement (whether in writing or verbal) between you and your spouse.
  • whether there was any implied agreement between the two of you.
  • the prior conduct of the both of you, for example, the funds were used:
  • only for family purposes.
  • also for purely personal things such as a computer game for one of you only.
  • whether both parties knew of the way of the funds were used.

• One possible option is for you to check with your lawyer and then
  • withdraw all the money by way of funds transfer into your sole account
  • and then have your lawyer notify your spouse and
  • offer to place the all the money into a new joint account that can only be operated with both parties' approval.
• However, before proceeding with this option, it is important you check with us first so we can understand your particular situation thoroughly before proceeding.

If you do not do what the Divorce Court directs you to do (including paying maintenance to your spouse), you can be sent to prison.
In the UK case of Hart v Hart, an 83 year old, cancer-striken, property tycoon, Mr Hart, who had a GBP9.375 million fortune, was given 14 months' jail.
The court had divided 38%, about GBP3.5 million, to Mrs Hart. As part of that, Mr Hart was also to transfer the shares in a company to her. Mr Hart did effect this transfer.
Mr Hart had also undertaken (agreed) to provide information and documentation to Mrs Hart so that she would be able to efficiently and effectively manage the company. However, when Mr Hart and his staff left the company premises, they took along all the company's management records and left behind only two bank statements and some current licences and leases.
The court then directed Mr Hart to hand over to Mrs Hart documentation and information for the efficient and effective management of the company. This, Mr Hart failed to do.
For breaches of his undertaking and the court's directions, the court imposed a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment on Mr Hart.

In a Singapore case, the husband had concealed assets and had also acted in wilful defiance of the court's judgments and orders. He was given an 8 months' jail term.
Even before he was sent to prison, the husband had earlier committed various breaches of court orders.

• First, the husband, in breach of a court injunction, had further mortgaged a piece of property.
• Secondly, the husband, in breach of a court order to discharge all mortgages and encumbrances on that property at his cost and transfer the property to the wife, not only did not do as ordered but instead, stopped making repayments on the mortgage which caused the property to be repossessed by the mortgagee and the wife to be evicted from the property.
• Thirdly, the husband, in breach of a court order to pay the wife S$8,000 per month, made only sporadic payments.
• Fourthly, the wife had to file a summons to force the husband to pay the maintenance arrears. Although the husband initially complied with the enforcement order, he subsequently stopped making further payment and instead filed an application for variation of the maintenance payments.
• Fifthly, the husband failed to comply with a court order for him to pay the wife S$7,048,828.67 and balance of lump sum maintenance amounting to S$1,136,800.

If you have any question about the above two cases or need any help, please call Lam & Co. at 6535 1800.
About Lam & Co.

Here, we seek to appreciate and understand your situation and put your aims and objective first. We will use our tried and tested Lamnco Method(developed over more than 25 years of successful legal experience) and strive for the best possible outcome for you. 

Introduction

Mrs Tini Owens applied to the UK courts for a divorce. She testified that her marriage made her feel "unloved, isolated and alone" (para 83).
Why did the UK courts refuse her application and leave her "locked into a loveless and desperately unhappy marriage" (para 83)?
Applicable UK Law
First of all, it is vital to understand what the applicable UK law says. On this, the relevant part of UK Law says:

• for Mrs Owen to get her divorce, she must prove to the Judge's satisfaction that
• her husband "has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]."
• (Section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973).

• the Judge has to evaluate what is proved to have happened
• (i) in the context of this marriage,
• (ii) looking at this wife (Mrs Owen) and this husband (Mr Owen),
• (iii) in the light of all the circumstances and
• (iv) having regard to the cumulative effect of all of Mr Owen's conduct, AND
• given all the above, ask the question: has her husband (Mr Owen) behaved in such a way that Mrs Owen cannot reasonably be expected to live with Mr Owen? (para 37)

• We have indicated, and my client (Mrs Owen) in her statement accepts, that taken in isolation, of course, some of the allegations made would not of and in themselves seem particularly serious. The husband (Mr Owen) categorises them as very much the stuff of everyday married life, and I suspect there is some force in that. What we say is that taken cumulatively, as your Honour should view them, the effect upon my client has been to wear her down. She variously says in her statement that she has been unhappy, she has been embarrassed, and she has felt that she could no longer continue living with the respondent.

• I can say straight away I do not propose, unless your Honour wishes me to do so, to go through each and every one of the 27 allegations.

• I was going to ask if there is any measure of agreement as to the approach we should adopt to that? … I am asking about the forensic approach to 27 separate allegations, some older than others.

• I simply propose to focus upon one or two of them, or three or four of them. My client in her statement has confirmed the veracity of her petition and I will ask her to confirm that, and that will stand as her case to the extent it is supplemented in her witness statement which your Honour will, of course, have in due course.

• JUDGE TOLSON: Well, gentlemen, shall we get on, we have an awful lot of allegations to cover at some point in the next hour and a quarter.
• MR. DUNLOP: Quite so. Your Honour, as to that, may I deal with two matters. The first is you asked my learned friend during the course of his opening how should your Honour approach the question of the particulars? In my submission there is going to be a need for you to look at certainly the majority of the particulars and their findings. Unless your Honour directs me to I do not intend to cross-examine on all of them, but I recognise I need to give your Honour a flavour of my approach.
• JUDGE TOLSON: Well, Mr. Dunlop, in your shoes I would have selected a few and cross-examined on them.
• MR. DUNLOP: Yes, that is what I intend to do.
• JUDGE TOLSON: It is a question for you how you spend the available time.

• The agreed approach at the trial was not to investigate each and every allegation, but through examination and cross-examination of the history of the marriage and selected allegations to give the overall flavour or complexion of the case and of how personal perspective might have altered reality in terms of the pleaded matters. I shall adopt the same approach in this judgment.

• First Allegation (the Airport Incident):
• The Respondent (Mr Owen) told the Petitioner (Mrs Owen) that he had seen a suitable present for their housekeeper, in the departure lounge of Cancun airport. The Petitioner went over to see what the Respondent was referring to but could not find it and, so instead decided to purchase a silver tortoise necklace which the Petitioner knew she would like. When the Respondent found out that the Petitioner had ignored his suggestion, he lost his temper. He raised his voice so that those around them could hear him berating the Petitioner and he snapped "why did you not listen to me?" and demanded "why did you not buy what I told you to?" This caused the Petitioner extreme embarrassment as he was visibly chastising her in front of numerous strangers. The Respondent then stormed off. Later, when they were in the queue to board the plane the Respondent continued to audibly criticise the Petitioner and would not let the matter drop, causing her much further unhappiness and embarrassment. The Petitioner asked the Respondent to lower his voice but he nevertheless continued to berate her at the same level. Once they entered the plane, the Petitioner was forced to ignore the Respondent in order that the argument did not continue.
• Husband's Answer (to the Airport Incident):
• The Respondent did see a suitable present for the parties' housekeeper. He mentioned this to the Petitioner. She returned with another item which the Respondent found perplexing. He asked why the Petitioner had not purchased what he had suggested but the Petitioner's version of this exchange is exaggerated and inaccurate.
• Second Allegation (Restaurant Allegation):
• The Petitioner organised for the Respondent and the Petitioner to have dinner with a male friend ("F"). During the course of the dinner, the Respondent made stinging remarks about the Petitioner which made her and F feel visibly uneasy. The Petitioner spoke to the waiter to comment on the excellent quality of the food. The Petitioner then turned back to the Respondent and F to rejoin the conversation and asked where the conversation had reached. The Respondent snapped at the Petitioner "you missed out by thinking it necessary to talk to the waiter" upsetting and embarrassing the Petitioner in front of F. F rushed to the Petitioner's defence as he clearly agreed that the Respondent's critical remarks were unjustified.
• Husband's Answer (to the Restaurant Allegation):
• Whilst dining with the friend, F, the Respondent believed that the Petitioner had been rude by calling over and engaging with the waiter whilst F was talking to the two of them. The Respondent felt that the Petitioner was ignoring what F was saying and sought to catch her attention to indicate that F was in the course of speaking to them. Any embarrassment that may have been caused by the Petitioner was of her own making.
• Third Allegation (the Pub Incident):
• The Petitioner asked the Respondent if they could have supper at the local pub to save her cooking as she was preparing for a dinner party the next day. The Respondent said that he would "rather not". The Respondent later walked into the kitchen visibly irritated and told the Petitioner that he would book a table because otherwise he would "never hear the end of it". The parties had supper at the pub and for much of the time the Respondent sat silently and often with his head resting in his hands and his eyes closed. The Petitioner felt embarrassed and upset by his conduct and such an overt demonstration to all those around that he did not want to be there with her.
• Husband's Answer (to the Pub Incident):
• The Respondent recalls a discussion about having supper at the local pub. He had had a tiring day in the garden and indicated that he would prefer not to eat out. In deference to the Petitioner's wishes, however, he made arrangements for the meal. The Respondent denies that he caused any embarrassment to the Petitioner during the meal. He accepts that he was tired and that there was little conversation. It is generally the Respondent who initiates conversations between the parties. The implication is that the Respondent was sulking. He was not. He was simply tired.
• Fourth Allegation (the Housekeeper Incident):
• The Respondent entered the kitchen at the former matrimonial home where the Petitioner was with their housekeeper. The Respondent criticised the Petitioner in front of the housekeeper for putting cardboard in the skip incorrectly. He reprimanded the Respondent saying, "can I say something without you flying off the handle? I have said this before that when you put cardboard in the skip, do it properly and not without any thought about what will happen to it. It was all over the yard. I have picked up the big pieces but I want you to clear the rest from the shrubbery". The Petitioner felt like she was being chastised like a child and she was extremely embarrassed that she was spoken to in this manner in front of their housekeeper. When the Petitioner went outside to clear up "the mess", she and her housekeeper found only four small pieces of cardboard.
• Husband's Answer (to the Housekeeper Incident):
• Again the Petitioner misinterprets the Respondent's reasonable request as a reprimand. He was simply seeking to point out to the Petitioner that cardboard put into the skip should be weighted down in order to avoid it being blown around in the wind. The Respondent accepts that since this topic had been raised before his frustration may have shown but any embarrassment caused over this incident was because it was the Petitioner who "flew off the handle" in a manner which was unwarranted.
• There were only a few pieces of cardboard to be stowed when the Petitioner went outside because the Respondent had already cleared most of it up. It was a very windy day.

• Q Then … in the airport, you accept that he had said to you: "I've seen something over there in the airport shop that I think we should get for our housekeeper"?
• A Mmhuh.
• Q And directed you in the direction of getting it?
• A Yes.
• Q You say you went to find it, but then bought something else?
• A I couldn't find it.
• Q And then you say he got angry with you for that?
• A And I bought a lovely little silver tortoise and a chain and I knew she would love that.
• Q But he did not get angry with you, did he?
• A Oh yes.
• Q He just expressed irritation?
• A No, this was full on embarrassment, I'm sorry.

• Q … I am going to ask you about the incident when you came home through the airport. Now, the cause of whatever passed between you is your wife had done something that was not in accordance with your instructions to her. You told her: "Go and buy that present" and she had bought a different one?
• A I certainly didn't say: "Go and buy that present". I suggested that she went – because there was a very good, I have forgotten what it was now, but there was a very good offer on something which I thought would suit our housekeeper …
• …
• Q … 13th November you are coming back from Mexico. You have had a lovely holiday?
• A Yes.
• Q You have been there for a wedding. You agree with what your wife has said about the reason why you went to Mexico for the wedding, etc. etc, yes? Long planned, that sort of thing, yes?
• A Yes.
• Q And coming back, just to return to my point, you had told her: "Go and buy that", and she had bought something else, yes?
• A As I say, I didn't say: "Go and buy that". I said, I suggested she went over to where I'd seen this special offer on some item which I can't remember what it was, and she came back with something else which I thought wasn't as nice as the one I suggested.
• Q Yes.
• A And I----
• Q Your answer says: "She had ignored your suggestion for a present". You asked her why she had not acquired what you suggested and you say that was it. That was the extent of the disagreement between you. She had not done something you suggested and you asked her why not? Yes?
• A Yes.
• Q Do you want to look at your answer?
• A Yes. I'm trying to understand what you are getting at. I was surprised that she hadn't looked at what I had suggested. If she'd said: "Yes, I've looked at it, but I think this is better", but she didn't, and I was surprised.
• Q You lost your temper according to her. You raised your voice so that those around you could hear you berating her, and snapped at her: "Why did you not listen to me? Why did you not buy what I told you to?" and you embarrassed her. Again, we've all walked through airports, and we've seen these arguments between married couples, one shouting at the other, the other looking embarrassed wishing the ground would open up and swallow them up. You are smiling at me?
• A Because I think it's a complete exaggeration of what happened.
• Q So she is lying about this?
• A She is exaggerating, yes.
• Q Did you raise your voice?
• A Not to the extent that it might be overheard by other people, or embarrass her, no.
• Q Clearly, do you accept she was embarrassed?
• A Well, she didn't tell me she was embarrassed.
• Q Could you see she was embarrassed?
• A No, it was, again, it was over and done within a couple of minutes.
• Q Visibly chastising her in front of numerous strangers?
• A Oh no, I don't agree with that.
• Q "Stormed off" – is she making that up or did you storm off?
• A Stormed off?
• Q Stormed off?
• A No, I don't believe I did storm off.
• Q I see. You continued to criticise her even when----
• JUDGE TOLSON: Can we just – because I am quite interested in this, and quite interested in the restaurant one.
• MR. MARSHALL: Sorry?
• JUDGE TOLSON: I am quite interested in this allegation and the restaurant one, because of the suggestion that it involves embarrassment because those around are aware of what is going on, okay?
• MR. MARSHALL: Yes.
• JUDGE TOLSON: And that is what this has in common with the restaurant. (To the witness) So could I ask you to concentrate on that? Did you draw attention to yourselves in the airport in Cancún?
• A My wife and my son and daughter all tell me that I talk too loudly in public places, so whether it's nice things or not so nice, I have a tendency to project my voice, shall we say, but I wouldn't have been shouting. I would not have been aware that other people were listening in to our conversation.
• MR. MARSHALL: Not being aware and not caring are quite close, are they not, really?
• A No, I don't think so. I would have cared about it embarrassing – it would've embarrassed me. My wife has not got the monopoly on embarrassment. I would not have wanted a public disagreement under any situation.
• Q You see, if she is telling the truth, I mean you can agree with me, that this would be very embarrassing in a public place, in a foreign country?
• A My wife might think that I am talking in a loud voice and in that case she might think she is telling the truth. Whether I am deliberately doing it to embarrass her is what I contend.
• Q Did you storm off? You were hesitating between saying "yes" or "no" about that?
• A Well, because I am trying to remember storming off. I don't know where I would have stormed off to. We were sitting in the departure lounge, I don't think I stormed off.
• Q All right. You continued audibly to criticise her when you were in the queue to board the plane, is that right? You would not let the matter drop, just would not let it go. She had not done what you had told her to do and you would not let it go. Is she lying about that?
• A I don't remember enough of it to be able to give you a truthful answer. I don't believe it was a one-sided conversation. If we were talking about it, it wouldn't have been an argument, and I don't believe I was berating her, or whatever she said.
• Q Indeed, she says she asked you to lower your voice, but you continued to berate her, you ignored her and continued to berate her at the same level?
• A My wife often told me to lower my voice on lots of occasions.
• Q And you often ignore her?
• A It's my tendency to be aware of how loudly I'm speaking.
• Q Even if somebody tells you: "Please don't, lower your voice, you're embarrassing me"?
• A Well, she'd often say that in a restaurant, and I'd look around and I would say: "Nobody is listening to us, Tini" – we could be discussing anything, politics, religion, anything and she'd say: "Lower your voice".
• Q So, there it is, so all of these things they are all out of context, all explanation, she is wrong about this, she is wrong about that; a happy marriage all the time? Not unhappy?
• A I think she had an ulterior motive for collecting all these, what, to my mind was a collection of molehills which she felt suited her purpose to build up into mountains because she had aspirations outside of our marriage.

• It is plain from his judgment that Judge Tolson was unimpressed by the wife's petition. He variously described it as "hopeless" (judgment, paragraph 2), "anodyne" (paragraph 7), and "scraping the barrel" (paragraph 13). He said it "lacked beef because there was none" (paragraph 7). He described paragraphs 3 and 4 as "the only 2 grounds which … might in context have provided grounds for divorce." He said the allegations "are at best flimsy" (paragraph 12).
• The judge was, and, as it seems to me, with every justification, scathing about paragraph 1:

• "… it is instructive to examine the first ground upon which the husband's behaviour is said to have been unreasonable. It reads [and he set it out]. During cross-examination the wife readily admitted that in fact the husband had been retired, or effectively so, for many years. When he had been working it had been building up a successful business which leaves the couple wealthy. No complaint seems to have been made about this at the time. The idea that the lifestyle, whatever it may have been, now contributes to the breakdown of the marriage is fanciful. The ground is no more than a conventional form of words with no application to the present or the breakdown of the marriage at all."

• Describing the 27 allegations set out in the particulars of paragraphs 3 and 4, the judge said this:

• "… the wife relied upon events described in a diary she had been keeping … On 11 November 2015 the petition was amended to include 27 allegations taken from the diary … The wife contends that they are examples of behaviour which was more widespread. I do not accept that. The simple reality of this case is that the 27 pleaded allegations of unreasonable behaviour are the best the wife can come up with. It is these allegations which I must examine." (underlining added)

• The judge directed himself as follows:

• "In the present context, the law permits me to grant a decree of divorce only if I can find on a balance of probabilities that "the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent" (see sub-section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973). Only then could I hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably (if it has). In determining the question whether this Respondent has behaved in such a way I apply an objective test – what would the hypothetical reasonable observer make of the allegations – but with subjective elements. I have to take into account the individual circumstances of the spouses and the marriage: "would any right-thinking person come to the conclusion that this husband has behaved in such a way that this wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him taking into account the whole of the circumstances and the characters and personalities of the parties?" (emphasis in original)"
• Mr Marshall submitted that this was muddled. With respect, I do not agree. The judge's self-direction was entirely adequate, correctly drawing attention to both the objective test and the subjective elements. Importantly, given one of Mr Marshall's key grounds of appeal, Judge Tolson recognised that he had to take into account "the whole of the circumstances."

• The judge expressed his conclusion in these words:

• "In reality I find that the allegations of alleged unreasonable behaviour in this petition – all of them – are at best flimsy. I would not have found unreasonable behaviour on the wife's pleaded case. As it is, having heard both parties give evidence, I am satisfied that the wife has exaggerated the context and seriousness of the allegations to a significant extent. They are all at most minor altercations of a kind to be expected in a marriage. Some are not even that." (underlining added)
• He then proceeded to explain why.

• This part of his judgment falls into three sections. I shall take them in turn. In the first, Judge Tolson said this:

• "My conclusion is at its starkest when considering the batch of allegations which can be categorised as "the husband's reaction to the affair". The first allegation in time is dated January 2013. It is an allegation under Ground 4 above. As pleaded the wife's case reads:
• "When the Petitioner was in France, the Respondent telephoned her to tell her that a letter had arrived for her and to query whether he should open it. The Petitioner said it could wait as she was not expecting anything. The Respondent became suspicious and told the Petitioner in an unpleasant manner that this was the difference between her and him: he did not have anything to hide."
• It will be recalled that at this point in time, the wife had just served a draft petition for divorce upon the husband. He had responded by querying whether there was someone else. The wife had denied it. She now accepts that during this very month – January 2013 – after briefly calling off the affair she had been having since November the previous year, she resumed it. It is not clear to me whether this occurred during the same trip to France pleaded in the allegation (the parties have a second home in France), but it matters not. At this point in time the husband did not know of the affair, but was clearly suspicious. The wife did have something to hide and she had hidden it. During the evidence I interrupted the cross-examination of the wife (which was perhaps inevitably hitting the mark) to ask her whether or not she could see that such a reaction by the husband might in context be said to be "fair enough". I suspect that she did see this."

• In the second section, the judge said this:

• "Any other example from this same batch of allegations might be taken. I shall choose one dated February 2014:
• "The Petitioner took 9 pictures to the picture framers which was time consuming. On her return, the Respondent told her in an accusatory and unpleasant manner that she had taken her time and sarcastically commented that "he must have been an interesting framer.""
• Again, in my judgment the objective observer can scarcely criticise the husband, especially as the remark was made only 6 months after the husband first knew of the affair and less than 4 months after he had first taxed the wife with it. The wife claims that the iniquity in this behaviour lies in the extent to which it continued over time: the husband could not come to terms with the affair. This is not so. It is instructive that the wife in her statement claims that the husband's comments in respect of the affair increased after July 2014 … but as the wife accepted in cross-examination she has not pleaded and cannot recall a single incident on that subject after that date – which is only 11 months after the husband first knew of the affair. The wife's case in this respect lacks any substance. In my judgment the very fact that these allegations form a part of the wife's pleaded case demonstrates the weakness of that case. It is an exercise in scraping the barrel."

• In the third section, Judge Tolson dealt with the airport incident, the restaurant incident and the pub incident:

• "During closing submissions I invited leading counsel for the wife to rank his top 3 allegations – ie in terms of seriousness. They were as follows: the 'airport incident' … the 'restaurant incident' … and the 'pub incident' … I will not overburden this judgment by setting out the pleaded allegations in full. This, the wife's best case, skilfully argued by leading counsel, proceeds by emphasising what he submits is her increased sensitivity to the husband's old-school controlling behaviour. It is, so it is argued, not acceptable that he makes an exhibition of the couple's differences by arguing in public. The airport and restaurant incidents are examples of 2 arguments in public which allegedly show the husband being domineering; and the pub incident is an evening of obvious silence over dinner. This case might have found favour if I had been satisfied both that the incidents were examples of a consistent and persistent course of conduct and took place as the wife described. I do not so find. Having seen him, I hope the husband will forgive me for describing him as somewhat old-school. I can also find the wife to be more sensitive than most wives. It matters not. The reality remains that these were in my judgment isolated incidents consisting of minor disputes. In the case of the pub incident, if they sat in silence whenever they went out for a meal, the wife would have told me so and pleaded other examples. The husband claimed that he had been tired on this particular evening and I accept that evidence. The wife has cherry-picked one unsuccessful evening and entered it in her diary. It is an illustration of her approach and the weakness of her case. The airport incident was a minor dispute at the end of what it is common ground was a successful holiday (taking place as late as November 2014). In my judgment these 'top 3' instances are merely examples of events in a marriage which scarcely attract criticism of one party over the other. Much the same can be said in respect of all other allegations and the wife's case generally." (underlining added)

• Judge Tolson concluded with this:

• "I have not found this a difficult case to determine. I find no behaviour such that the wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with the husband. The fact that she does not live with the husband has other causes. The petition will be dismissed."
• He recognised that the effect of his decision was to "leave them stymied in lives neither of them wish to lead." He ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs.

• a) failed to make essential (core) findings of fact (1) as to what the husband had actually done in relation to the 27 pleaded allegations and (2) as to the impact of that conduct on the wife;
• b) failed to undertake any proper assessment of the wife's subjective characteristics;
• c) failed to undertake any assessment of the cumulative impact and effect on the wife of the husband's behaviour – a point on which Mr Marshall places particular emphasis; and
• d) failed to apply the law properly to the facts.

• in the absence of some other identifiable error, such as (without attempting an exhaustive account) a material error of law, or the making of a critical finding of fact which has no basis in the evidence, or a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant evidence, or a demonstrable failure to consider relevant evidence, an appellate court will interfere with the findings of fact made by a trial judge only if it is satisfied that his decision cannot reasonably be explained or justified.
• When deciding that a judge at first instance who has heard the evidence has gone "plainly wrong", the appeal court must be satisfied that the judge could not reasonably have reached the decision under appeal.

• The rationale of the legal requirement of appellate restraint on issues of fact is not just the advantages which the first instance judge has in assessing the credibility of witnesses. It is the first instance judge who is assigned the task of determining the facts, not the appeal court. The re-opening of all questions of fact for redetermination on appeal would expose parties to great cost and divert judicial resources for what would often be negligible benefit in terms of factual accuracy. It is likely that the judge who has heard the evidence over an extended period will have a greater familiarity with the evidence and a deeper insight in reaching conclusions of fact than an appeal court whose perception may be narrowed or even distorted by the focused challenge to particular parts of the evidence."

• ... I note some important findings of fact made by Judge Tolson.
• First ..., he specifically rejected the wife's case that the pleaded 27 allegations were "examples of behaviour which was more widespread." His finding was clear: "I do not accept that." He made the same point ... in relation to the airport and restaurant incidents. He said that the wife's case might have found favour if "both that the incidents were examples of a consistent and persistent course of conduct and took place as the wife described." Again, his finding was clear: "I do not so find."
• Second ..., he found that the wife's case in relation to the husband's reaction to her affair "lacks any substance" and "demonstrates the weakness of [her] case."
• Third ..., he accepted the husband's evidence in relation to the pub incident.
• Fourth ..., and more generally, he found that "the wife has exaggerated the context and seriousness of the allegations to a significant extent."
• These, in my judgment, were all findings which were plainly open to the judge and with which we cannot possibly interfere.

If you have any questions about this case, please call Lam & Co. at 6535 1800.
About Lam & Co.
Here, we seek to appreciate and understand your situation and put your aims and objective first. We will use our tried and tested Lamnco Method(developed over more than 25 years of successful legal experience) and strive for the best possible outcome for you.

If you wish to adopt a child and the Natural Father cannot be found, the Court may order you (and your spouse) to place an advertisement in order to try to locate the Natural Father.

In what situations is the Court more likely to order an advertisement?

In what situations is the Court less likely to do so?

It is best to consider a few possible situations:

If the Natural Father did not know about the pregnancy, the Court is likely to want the Natural Father's input before deciding on whether or not to grant the Adoption. So, in this situation, the Court is likely to order that an advertisement be placed.

If the Natural Father knew about the pregnancy and the delivery of the child but the Natural Mother moved away without any forwarding contact, the Court is likely to order advertising.

If the Natural Father knew about the pregnancy, the delivery of the child and how to contact the Natural Mother but the Natural Father decided to have nothing to do with the child and also advertising would not be effective in bringing the Adoption proceedings to the Natural Father's notice, the Court is likely to say there is no need to advertise.

The Court will also consider:
details of your (and your spouse's) last contact with the Natural Father such as the date of last contact, mode of contact, whether a face to face meeting, correspondence via letter, email, SMS or WhatsApp, etc, speaking over the phone, etc, and the contents of such communication;

what attempts you (and your spouse) have made to try to located the Natural Father, whether directly, or through his relatives, friends and/or employers;
details of what is known of the Natural Father's relatives, friends and/or employers, such as their names, addresses and how they are connected to the Natural Father; the Natural Father's nationality; and whether advertising would be effective in bringing the Adoption proceedings to the Natural Father's notice.

If you have any questions, please call Lam & Co. now at 6535 1800.

About Lam & Co.
We seek to appreciate and understand your situation and put your aims and objective first. We will use our tried and tested Lamnco Method (developed over more than 25 years of successful legal experience) and strive for the best possible outcome for you.