\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE – A woman who abused all but one of the five children she and her husband adopted has been awarded 5.1 per cent of nearly $10.9 million in matrimonial assets in the couple\u2019s divorce.<\/p>\n
In a written judgment on Nov 18, a High Court judge said the wife did not make significant contributions to the family, both directly or indirectly. <\/p>\n
\u201cOn the contrary, she was the cause of its pain and suffering,\u201d said Justice Choo Han Teck.<\/p>\n
The main asset was a 50 per cent share of a $14.7 million house that was their matrimonial home. <\/p>\n
The husband and his business partner had bought the house together and registered the property in the names of their respective wives as tenants-in-common in equal shares. <\/p>\n
Justice Choo also granted to the man sole custody, and sole care and control of the children, who are now aged seven to 12.<\/p>\n
He also ordered the man to pay spousal maintenance of $6,000 a month when the woman stops receiving her monthly salary of the same amount. <\/p>\n
The Singaporean couple married in 2008. <\/p>\n
The 53-year-old man, a director of three companies, draws a monthly salary of $9,160. <\/p>\n
The 55-year-old woman receives a salary from one of these companies, which is owned by her and the business partner\u2019s wife. <\/p>\n
The couple adopted five children as they could not conceive naturally. <\/p>\n
The woman frequently abused the children except for the second-oldest, whom she liked. No details of the abuse were stated in the judgment. <\/p>\n
The abuse of the four children was so severe that the Child Protective Service (CPS) placed them in children\u2019s homes, where the man is permitted to visit them. <\/p>\n
The child she did not abuse continued to live with the couple.<\/p>\n
The man brought multiple legal applications against the woman, including an application regarding guardianship of the children and two applications for personal protection orders on behalf of the oldest child and himself. <\/p>\n
He ultimately filed for divorce, which was granted on Nov 18, 2024.<\/p>\n
Although the woman initially participated in the divorce proceedings, she has been absent since April 15, 2025, and did not submit any document giving details of her assets, income, expenses and liabilities. <\/p>\n
The man provided information of assets worth $2.8 million under his name and assets worth $8 million under her name. <\/p>\n
Before the man filed for divorce, the couple had signed a post-nuptial agreement in 2022, under which the woman agreed that she will receive none of the husband\u2019s assets or assets paid for by him, and will receive no maintenance.<\/p>\n
The man\u2019s lawyer, Mr Kelvin Lee, said that around the time the agreement was signed, the oldest child had been badly abused, and the wife\u2019s actions were known to CPS. <\/p>\n
Mr Lee said the purpose of the agreement was for the couple to agree that the future of their marriage depends on how the woman treats the child. <\/p>\n
Justice Choo said it was unsafe to divide the assets solely on the agreement.<\/p>\n
Mr Lee also asserted that the wife did not actually work. <\/p>\n
The judge said this was \u201cprobably true\u201d, but the objective evidence, such as CPF records, showed that she earned a salary. <\/p>\n
He found that while the couple had a dual income marriage, almost all the matrimonial assets were acquired by the husband\u2019s efforts. <\/p>\n
He considered that the husband became the primary caregiver of the children, with the assistance of domestic helpers, as a result of the woman\u2019s constant abuse. <\/p>\n
However, the judge recognised that the woman took care of the second-oldest child.<\/p>\n
Justice Choo ultimately divided the assets in the ratio 94.9:5.1 in favour of the husband.<\/p>\n
He ordered the wife to transfer her 50 per cent share in the house and her 50 per cent in the company to the man. <\/p>\n
In return, the man was to refund her $301,400.86, together with accrued interest, for her contribution towards the purchase of the house. <\/p>\n
The judge agreed with the man\u2019s proposal for the woman to have access to the four children only when it is allowed by the CPS, and for her to have reasonable access to the second-oldest child. <\/p>\n
Justice Choo noted that with the transfer of the matrimonial home to the husband, the man can exclude the woman from living there and bring the children back home. <\/p>\n
This was a suitable living arrangement for the children, who reportedly get along well with each other although they are not related by blood, said the judge. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n