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.

 All your friends tell you that their divorce took them only 3 months.

Is this correct?
The truth is:

• probably not.

• The Women's Charter does not allow the Court to immediately grant you a Final Judgment for Divorce.
• It requires the Court to initially ("in the first instance") issue you with an Interim Judgment.
• Not only that, the Women's Charter also prohibits the Court from granting you the Final Judgment "before the expiration of 3 months" from the date of the Interim Judgment unless the Court fixes a shorter time period. In other words, the Court can grant you the Final Judgment only 3 months after the Interim Judgment -- unless there are sufficient reasons for the Court to fix a shorter time period.
• Sufficient reasons for the Court to fix a time period shorter than 3 months include:
• the wife is pregnant with a third party's child and they are in a hurry for the divorce to be completed in order get married before the child is born; or
• a third party is pregnant with the husband' child and they are in a hurry for the divorce to be completed in order get married before the child is born.
• Based on the above reasons, Lam & Co. has managed, in the appropriate cases, to persuade the Court to reduce the 3 month period to just a week or a month.
• The following is unlikely to be a sufficient reason for the Court to fix a significantly shorter time period:
• you and your spouse have already separated for more than 3 years (or more) and there is no likelihood of reconciliation and so, there is no reason to wait.

Under the Women's Charter, you can divorce based on the fact that:

• the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ and the defendant consents to a judgment being granted.

Before 1 March 2010, if your relative were become mentally incapable of taking care of his (or her) own affairs, you would apply for the Appointment of a Committee. 

From 1 March 2010 onward, in such a situation, you would apply for the Appointment of a Deputy.
Although there are some similarities between these two processes, there are a lot more differences and these differences are significant.
The differences include the following:

• Before, there was no public authority specifically put in charge of supervising Committees appointed for mentally incapable persons. Now, the Office of the Public Guardian has been set up, among other things, to supervise Deputies and also to deal with complaints about how a Deputy is exercising his (or her) powers.
• Before, there was no need for the Committee to report to anyone. Now, every Deputy must file an annual report with the Office of Public Guardian.
• Before, the Court would usually grant very broad powers to the Committee so that the Committee would never have to go back to the Court. Now, the Court will grant the minimum powers required and later, if there is any need for further powers, the Deputy is expected to apply to Court again at a subsequent date.
• (For example, it is now fairly common for the Court to grant the power to rent out the Patient's HDB flat. Later, if there is a need to sell the HDB flat for the benefit of the Patient, only subsequently, when the Deputy is able to justify this need for this, would the Court grant the power to sell the Patient's HDB flat.)
• Now, there has been a change in definition of mental incapacity to whether a person is able to make decisions for himself.
• Now, a form has prescribed to be used as the basis for the Medical Report from the doctor on the Patient's mental condition.

When am I required to get a Home Study Report prepared?
You are required to do so if you wish to adopt a foreign-born child or if you wish to adopt a child from the MSF (Ministry of Social & Family Development) Fostering Scheme.

Should I get a Home Study Report done before or after I start looking for the child that I wish to adopt?
You should get the Home Study Report done before you start looking. You need a favourable Home Study Report before you are allowed to agree to adopt any child from any agency or individual or to start any application to Court for legal adoption.

What is a Home Study Report?
A Home Study Report is a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the adoption and your family circumstances, including an assessment as to whether you and your spouse are allowed by law and also ready to adopt a child.

Who is able to prepare the Home Study Report?
Only professional social service staff from voluntary welfare organizations that have been accredited by the MSF can prepare Home Study Reports.

How much does it cost for a Home Study Report to be prepared?
It usually costs S$1,500/- but this may change from time to time and it is best to check with the relevant voluntary welfare organization.

What is the validity period of a Home Study Report?
Two years. After that, you will have to apply for a fresh Home Study Report.

What usually goes into a Home Study Report?
Usually, a Home Study Report will include, among other items, the adoptive parents' particulars, a list of the official contacts between the Assessor (who prepared the report) and the adoptive parents, who requested the preparation of the report (usually this will be the adoptive parents), the adoptive parents' motivation for adopting, their detailed background information, including their personality, general appearance, family background, education and employment history, marital relationship, religious beliefs, health condition, finances, their home and its neighbourhood, the results of background checks on them, their (character) references and their parenting skills and attitudes.

If you have any further 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.

 If you have been married for more than 3 years and you now wish to divorce your spouse, Unreasonable Behaviour is one of the facts that can support your application. But what is Unreasonable Behaviour?

First of all, the Women's Charter says:

• The court hearing any proceedings for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the plaintiff satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts:
• (b) that the defendant has behaved in such a way that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant.

• pure incompatibility in characters. This means that if the only issue in your marriage is that your character and your spouse's character are not compatible, this will not be accepted. Ie, you did nothing wrong and your spouse did nothing wrong and you two cannot get along simply because your characters are different -- this will not work. This is not the type of Unresaonable Behaviour that the Court can accept.
• pure incompatibility in lifestyles. The above also applies to different lifestyles. If the only issue in your marriage is that your character and your spouse's lifestyles are not compatible, this will not be accepted. Again, you did nothing wrong and your spouse did nothing wrong and you two cannot get along simply because your characters are different -- this will not work.

​Let's say your relative is suffering from dementia and you have already gotten the doctor to prepare the Medical Report even before you went to see Lam & Co. (that is, before we are able to provide any guidance). 

Can the Court reject the Medical Report?
The short and sharp answer is:

• Yes, if certain requirements are not satisfied.

• handwritten reports; or
• Medical Reports that are not in the prescribed form.

You wish to adopt a child. The child's Birth Certificate does not show the natural father's name. In the spaces for the natural father's name, NRIC number, race, everything, there are only dashes ("-").
The question is whether you can apply to Court to adopt the child without the natural father's Consent.
The answer is:

• It depends.

Third, the exceptions include situations where

• the natural father has abandoned, neglected, persistently ill-treated the child or cannot be found and reasonable notice of the application for adoption has been given to him where he can be found;
• the natural father is unfit due to any physical or mental incapacity to have the care and control of the child, the unfitness is likely to continue indefinitely and reasonable notice of the application for an adoption order has been given to him; or
• in all the circumstances of the case, the natural father's consent ought to be dispensed with (that is, done away with).

So the question is:

• If I and my spouse agree fully and cooperate completely in applying for our divorce, will the Judge definitely grant the divorce order?

First, understand what an Appointment of Deputy is.
When someone is mentally capable of handling his (or her) own affairs, that person can buy or sell or give away his or her assets as he or she wishes. There is a problem once that person is unable to decide matters concerning his (or her) own personal welfare and property and affairs because his (or her) mind or brain is not working properly. The bank, the HDB, etc., cannot follow the instructions of such a person. (In the Court documents, this person is usually referred to as, "P".)

Second, understand how an Appointment of Deputy will solve the problem.

In the Appointment of Deputy Court Order, the Court will state clearly who is authorized to handle (sell or transfer, etc) P's assets. With the Deputy Order, the bank, the HDB, etc., will be able to look at the Court Order and see that you are the person authorized to handle P's assets. In this way, they can safely follow your instructions.
Third, understand what can go wrong if you do not get an Appointment of Deputy Order?

If the bank or the HDB or other authority asks you to get a Deputy Order and you do not do so, you will not be able to handle (or do anything with) P's assets. If the assets are time sensitive, for example, stocks and shares, it is best to apply for a Deputy Order as soon as possible. Any delay may prevent you from selling time sensitive assets at the best time.

Fourth, do NOT get a Medical Report prepared first. There have been cases where the Medical Report was rejected for various reasons. For example, the client approached their Doctor before coming to see Lam & Co. and their Doctor used the old form, or their Doctor filled in the correct form but with his handwriting instead of having it typewritten, or the client delayed until too late and the Medical Report become "stale" (there is a timeline within which the Medical Report must be used).

Contact Lam & Co. early and we will guide you so that the risk that the Medical Report is rejected by the Judge is minimized.

Fifth, with the LamnCo Deputy Process, we will process your application in a fast and efficient way and usually,

• you do not need to attend Court.
• we will use our template which we have perfected with the benefit of more than 25 years of legal experience.
• we will prepare the appropriate documents (on the spot) at our first meeting.
• we will write to the hospital enclosing the correct form for the doctor to fill in.
• we will share in our letter to the hospital what the Court requires. This is so that the doctor can follow the Court's requirements and avoid any unnecessary delay and cost. (The Court has, in the past, rejected medical reports for being in the wrong form, for having details which were handwritten and for not complying with the Court's other requirements.)

What should you do now?
Call us now at 6535 1800 so that your application can proceed smoothly and quickly.

First of all, it is important to note that in the appropriate circumstances, it is indeed easy to get an Adoption done. However, any adoption is very challenging and a serious responsibility. You (and/or your spouse) should carefully consider before adopting. This is because any adoption will require a lot of commitment which will substantially change your life, the child's life and your family life.

Second, once you (and/or your spouse) have decided that adoption is for you, you will have to attend a Pre-Adoption Briefing. Lam & Co. can help you register for this. Just call us at 6535 1800. This briefing is compulsory and you (and where applicable, your spouse) should must attend it. It is a 2.5 hour, one-off session and is conducted in English, Mandarin and Malay. The briefing will cover:

• the adoption process, including the eligibility criteria for adoption
• your rights and responsibilities once you become an adoptive parent
• the needs of an adopted child; and
• sources of support for you and your adopted child.

• 1. Natural parent(s) of child;
• 2. Guardian of child;
• 3. Person having actual custody of child;
• 4. Person liable to contribute to the support of the infant; or
• 5. Natural maternal and paternal grandparents of the child, where the natural parent(s) are below 21 years of age.

A Prenuptial Agreement an agreement made between a couple before they marry stating who will get what part of their respective assets if their marriage should fail.

Whether or not you should get a Prenuptial Agreement signed with your spouse and whether or not the Court will enforce it will depend your particular circumstances.

For advice on this, call Lam & Co. at 6535 1800. They can help you.

In the meantime, you should be aware of the case of Wong Kien Keong v Khoo Hoon Eng (See here and here.). Even though that case dealt with a Separation Deed, similar principles apply to Prenuptial Agreements. Under the Separation Deed in that case, the wife would get a certain share of the assets. However, she later applied to Court to set aside (cancel) the Separation Deed. 

Her lawyer argued that she was coerced (forced), abused and/or threatened into signing the agreement. Her lawyer also argued that she was suffering from depression at the time such that she did not fully understand the consequences and risks of signing the agreement, and that she had signed the agreement in the hope of reconciling with her husband. 

The Court after hearing both sides ruled against the wife and rejected all the above arguments and dismissed her application to set aside (cancel) the Separation Deed.

Under the agreement, the wife was supposed to get 34 per cent of the assets. However, she later applied for 60 per cent. The Court decided that even though the Separation Deed was valid and binding, the couple's circumstances were such that the wife was entitled to 40 per cent of the assets.

Thus, it can be seen that even though the Separation Deed was found to be valid and binding, the Court still exercised its power to increase the wife's share of the assets.

Call Lam & Co. now at 6535 1800 for immediate help analyzing your particular situation.

​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.

There is some talk of Collaborative Divorce on the internet but what exactly is this?

If you Google for:

• site:familyjusticecourts.gov.sg "collaborative divorce"

• No results found for site:familyjusticecourts.gov.sg "collaborative divorce".

• They say both parties MUST hire lawyers.
• They say that it is less time consuming than court litigation divorces.
• They say the process is shorter.
• They say it is less stressful.
• They say it is less costly.

Certain HDB flats are subject to a Minimum Occupation Period before they can be sold. (See here and here.) Because of this, sometimes couples prefer to separate and later divorce only after the MOP has expired (instead of divorcing immediately and surrender the HDB flat at a loss).

The parties can sign a Separation Deed that states how they are to divide the flat when the divorce later. But, is this safe? What if your spouse later applies to Court to ask for more than what was agreed in the Separation Deed?
In the case of Wong Kien Keong v Khoo Hoon Eng (See here and here.), the couple signed a Separation Deed. Under this agreement, the wife would get a certain share of the assets. 

However, she later applied to Court to set aside (cancel) the Separation Deed. Her lawyer argued that she was coerced (forced), abused and/or threatened into signing the agreement. Her lawyer also argued that she was suffering from depression at the time such that she did not fully understand the consequences and risks of signing the agreement, and that she had signed the agreement in the hope of reconciling with her husband. 

The Court after hearing both sides ruled against the wife and rejected all the above arguments and dismissed her application to set aside (cancel) the Separation Deed.

Under the agreement, the wife was supposed to get 34 per cent of the assets. However, she later applied for 60 per cent. The Court decided that even though the Separation Deed was valid and binding, the couple's circumstances were such that the wife was entitled to 40 per cent of the assets.

Thus, it can be seen that even though the Separation Deed was found to be valid and binding, the Court still exercised its power to increase the wife's share of the assets.
Call Lam & Co. now at 6535 1800 for immediate help analyzing your particular situation.

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.