|
[N]otions of emotional and psychological abuse are hard to establish. What
constitutes emotional abuse? Or psychological abuse? If a parent overindulges her child—does that constitute abuse?…when it comes to a debate on the wellbeing
of children, it is necessarily a difficult one because parenthood in itself is
a learned process. As meanings of childhood and responsibilities of parenthood
evolve, as our society matures, we must have in place consistent messages and
processes to aid parents and empower them to be effective guardians…the first
reaction should be to help families help themselves. We should only remove the
child from the family as a very last resort.29
This author submitted feedback30 during the public consultation on the draft Bill
in 2010, suggesting a more nuanced definition of ill-treatment in the CYPA, which
is one of the main submissions in this article, set out at parts V and VI below. The
suggestionwas not taken up.31 Areviewremains necessary due to the potential of the
current CYPA to allow greater, even excessive, intervention in family relationships.
The case in the next section highlights the need for review.
III. ABV v. CHILD PROTECTOR32
In ABV v. Child Protector, a seven-year-old child, E, was taken into the custody
of the Child Protection Services (“CPS”), a division of the Ministry of Community
Development,Youth and Sports. CPS officers took E from school and placed her in
a children’s home. CPS alleged this was necessary to protect E from ill-treatment
by E’s mother.
According to the Juvenile Court, the childwas in need of care and protection under
section 4(d) of the Children andYoung Persons Act (“CYPA”) for being or is at risk
of ill-treatment by her parent pursuant to a complaint laid by the Child Protection
Services (“CPS”).33
The evidence on which the judge relied in making the care order was summarised
as follows:
Disturbing facts were disclosed about the Mother by the Child’s schools, who
informed the CPS that they were concerned over the Mother’s insight and ability to meet the Child’s developmental needs. For example, whilst in pre-school the
Mother disallowed teachers from changing the Child’s diapers even if itwas soiled
but was also against the idea of toilet-training the Child, who was then already 5
years old. They were not allowed to change the Child’s school uniform even if it
was very wet or dirty. This controlling behaviour continued even after the Child
went to primary school and she was still made to wear diapers in primary two.
But when questioned by the doctor who examined her during the school health
screening exercise, the Mother said that there was no medical reason for her to
continue wearing diapers.
Schools which the Child attended repeatedly complained that the Mother would
harass and question teachers over minute details regarding the Child. This caused
a lot of frustration, distress and even fear amongst the school staff, including the
canteen vendor and members of the parents’ support group. When unhappy, the
Mother would write letters of complaint to the Ministry of Education, Ministry
of Finance, the Prime Minister’s Office and the press …
The Child has an unhealthy fear of the Mother, even though they shared a close
relationship. She seemed constantly worried that the Mother would interrogate
her over what happened in school…The Child follows the Mother’s instructions
to a T but ostentatiously out of fear. According to the CPS, this restricted the
Child’s developmental potential and ability to be spontaneous and free in her
learning and interaction with her peers.
The Mother’s difficult personality and demanding attitude had made it necessary
for the Child to change schools frequently and this is detrimental at a stage when
the Child needed stability, continuity and predictability in her life. The Mother’s
antagonistic and adversarialways also make it a challenge for various communitybased
professionals to work with her.
The Juvenile Court’s interim orders included an order that the child be committed
to a place of safety, The Salvation Army Gracehaven, under section 49(1)(c) of the
CYPA for three months and that the child and the parents receive counselling and
psychological services. The parents of the child appealed against the interim orders
made by the Juvenile Court. This authorwas appointed amicus curiae in proceedings
arising from an appeal to the High Court34 in which the parents sought to reverse the
Juvenile Court’s order of removal of the child from them.
The High Court ordered that the child be returned to her parents. Its orders also
included one that counselling and psychological assessment should continue to be
carried out and that the case be reviewed by the High Court in two months’ time.
The High Court’s decision was reported in The Straits Times:35
A mother who had her child taken away because she was deemed to be too controlling
was reunited with the seven-year-old girl yesterday after the High Court
overturned the decision of a lower court. It ordered the Child Protection Services (CPS), an agency of the Ministry of Community Development,Youth and Sports,
to return the child, who was removed two months ago after the authorities complained
to the Juvenile Court that the mother’s domineering behaviour might have
a negative impact.
Her parents, a 40-year-old housewife and a 42-year-old production worker,
appealed to the High Court for her return.
Yesterday, Justice V. K. Rajah acknowledged that the mother was an ‘obsessive’ parent and ‘difficult’ person. But he noted: ‘The removal of a child from the
parents is a very drastic remedy that should be resorted to only when there is a
real fear of imminent physical or psychological danger.’ In this case, he said, the child was not physically abused. Rather, the CPS was
concerned over the medium- and long-term psychological impact that her mother
would have on her.
The High Court reversed the order of removal given by the Juvenile Court, thereby
disagreeing with the lower court that the factswarranted the intervention. The mother
might have poor parenting skills and required some assistance byway of counselling,
but this did not amount to a finding that there was ill-treatment or a risk of it which
called for a removal of the child from her parents.
The Juvenile Court did not elaborate on the definition of “being or is at risk of
being ill-treated” and no reference was made to section 5 of the CYPA identifying the
applicable definition. It may be deduced from the judgment that the Juvenile Court
considered section 5(2)(b)(iii) to be the most relevant subsection, that is, the parents’ behaviour is likely to cause the child “injury to his health or development”.
The judge relied on “the Case Summary” furnished by CPS which was not made
available to the parent in reaching its decision. This “Case Summary” contained
allegations of acts amounting to ill-treatment argued to justify the removal of E from
her parents. The amicus curiae’s submissions highlighted that: |
|
|
29. Sing., Parliamentary Debates, vol. 87 (10 January 2010) (Associate Professor Paulin Tay Straughan).
30. The organisation collecting public feedback does so via the online portal at http://www.reach.gov.sg/.
31. The response to feedback on the definition of ill-treatment, child abuse and neglect was as follows:
MCYS has also reviewed comments on the definitions of child abuse and neglect. The current
definitions allow for timely intervention in cases of abuse and neglect. We should ensure that there
are sufficient legal avenues that continue to protect children from abuse and actions that lead to
psychological and emotional harm to the child. With regard to calls to raise penalties for sexual
exploitation, MCYS notes there are available penalties that deter the exploitation of children in the
Penal Code. Together, the CYPA and Penal Code allow for a range of provisions and penalties to
protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse. Child sexual abuse is taken very seriously and
MCYS works closely with Police and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) in the prosecution
of such cases.
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, “Public Consultation on Draft Children and
Young Persons (Amendment) Bill: Response to Feedback” (22 November 2010), online: REACH <http://app.reach.gov.sg/olcp/asp/ocp/ocp01d1.asp?id=6303>.
32. [2009] SGJC 4 [ABV]. There are no written grounds for the High Court decision.
33. Ibid. at para. 1.
34. The High Court gave an oral judgment. As there are no written reports, the facts and holding are
presented by the author based on the oral judgment delivered, the reports in The Straits Times and her
involvement as amicus curiae in the proceedings.
35. Selina Lum, “Child ordered to be returned to her mother” The Straits Times (6 October 2009). |
|
|
|
