Protection order application dismissed: Not every act causing distress is emotional abuse, says judge

SINGAPORE – A woman who claimed her husband was emotionally and psychologically abusive had her applications for personal protection orders (PPOs) against him dismissed by a judge.

She alleged that her husband had threatened to call the police on their 14-year-old daughter, threatened to cut her off from using electricity and gas at home, and made hurtful remarks about her while speaking to his brother, among other claims.

However, District Judge Janice Chia found the woman failed to prove that the husband had committed family violence, and dismissed her applications for PPOs and additional orders for herself and her daughter.

A PPO is a court order that restrains a person from committing family violence. The additional orders the woman sought included one that bars the husband from visiting or communicating with her and her daughter.

The couple are in the midst of divorce proceedings.

The case is among the first few reported judgments involving emotional and psychological abuse since January, when such abuse was recognised as family violence under the law, said lawyer Dorothy Tan. Ms Tan is a senior associate director of the family law and probate department at PKWA Law Practice.

In a judgment released on Dec 15, the judge said the case’s “central issue” is how emotional and psychological abuse in the Women’s Charter should be interpreted, as determining what constitutes such abuse is subjective and open to various interpretations.

She said that “not every action causing distress will constitute emotional abuse”.

“Significantly, the statute uses ‘emotional abuse’ rather than ‘emotional distress’, suggesting the victim must suffer some level of emotional harm beyond mere unhappiness,” District Judge Chia added.

The judge noted that an “overly liberal” interpretation of the law may lead to outcomes that are inconsistent with the intent lawmakers had in passing the law to include emotional and psychological abuse to be recognised as family violence.

She referred to the second reading of the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in 2023, when former minister of state for Social and Family Development Sun Xueling highlighted examples of emotional and psychological abuse. Ms Sun is now Senior Minister of State for National Development and Transport.

These examples include

the perpetrator threatening to withhold monthly allowances,

constantly monitoring the victim’s whereabouts, and isolating the victim from family and friends.

Such examples and the parliamentary readings provide crucial insights into the behaviour the law seeks to address, the judge said.

The common thread among the examples is controlling behaviour that instils fear – this is known as coercive control.

The amendments, which took effect in January 2025, expanded the definition of family violence beyond physical violence to include emotional, psychological and sexual abuse.

District Judge Chia said: “A PPO is not intended to punish the aggressor or pass judgment on their social interactions or parenting style…

“While the Court will not hesitate to grant PPOs in deserving cases, we should be cautious about granting applications where the facts fall short of demonstrating emotional or psychological harm.”

The couple in the case have two teenage children, the elder of whom is a daughter, while the gender of the younger one was not specified in the judgment.

The woman said her husband was not physically violent, but she charged that he had a “sustained pattern” of emotional and psychological abuse towards their elder child.

In one key incident she cited, the woman alleged that the husband told their daughter to “get out”, threatened to call the police and put the girl away, as well as threatened to send her for counselling to correct her behaviour, among other claims.

As a result, the girl suffered emotional harm as she felt she would be thrown out of the house and sent to an “asylum”, the mother said.

The father said he made those remarks when he was trying to contain an argument between his children.

The judge called the father’s choice of words, such as “that is why you have become a problem in life” and “convict-blood”, thoughtless.

But she pointed out that the girl spoke up against her father, remained “spirited throughout” the exchange, and showed no signs of emotional distress.

The judge also pointed out that the transcript provided showed the father later clarified to the girl that he intended to send her for counselling, not to call the police.

The woman argued that the damage had already been done as the girl perceived the remarks as a threat.

District Judge Chia rejected this line of argument.

The woman also charged that her husband made “deeply distressing and hurtful remarks” about her while talking to his brother over the phone, within earshot of the children, the domestic helper and herself.

She claimed he was referring to her when he spoke about a promiscuous individual, among other things.

The man denied he was referring to his wife, and the woman did not dispute his claim that he never mentioned her name in that particular conversation.

The judge said: “Even if the mother was correct in that the father was gossiping about her, only an individual personally aware of the mother’s history would suspect that (the) father was referring to her.

“In other words, only the mother would have felt offended.”

The woman also claimed she became more distressed as the children could hear the conversation, but the man countered that he spoke mostly in Hindi, which the children do not understand.

The judge also noted that the children would not suspect he was referring to their mother, as they do not know about her past.

From the transcript of the conversation, District Judge Chia said the various references the mother found offensive were disjointed and did not suggest a coherent account of a single person.

The woman also accused the husband of threatening to bar her from using necessities such as electricity and gas in the house.

While the judge said some of the man’s comments in this aspect were “uncalled for and retaliatory in nature”, they were not threats as he did not try to stop the woman and the domestic helper from using the gas and electricity or take any action to cut off these necessities.

District Judge Chia urged both parents to try to keep the peace at home for their children’s well-being.

She said: “Provocative behaviour and veiled hostility in verbal exchanges would only lead to retaliatory conduct and increased animosity.

“It was evident that both children had been affected by the stressful and negative home environment.”

The woman has filed an appeal against the judgment.

Lawyer Ivan Cheong, head of the Singapore family team at Withers KhattarWong, has handled three cases so far where his clients applied for a PPO citing emotional or psychological abuse.

They include a woman who was granted a PPO against her former mother-in-law who made a host of false accusations against her, such as claiming she was unfaithful and that she is a lesbian.

The older woman also sent voice notes to his client and his client’s son accusing his client of being morally bankrupt, and she told the couple’s son to choose to live with his father, instead of his mother.

His client was granted a PPO for herself and the boy against the ex-mother-in-law, whose actions distressed both of them, he said.

Lawyer June Lim, managing director of Eden Law Corporation, said that while one-off incidents can be considered emotional or psychological abuse, the focus of the law is on conduct that suggests a pattern of abusive behaviour.

To bolster their case, Ms Lim said those applying for a PPO citing emotional and psychological abuse can collect text, e-mail messages, audio and video recordings that show such abusive conduct.

The lawyers interviewed were not involved in the case.

Read Full Article At Source