Interview with Mr Yap Teong Liang and Mr Raymond Yeo, Co-Chairpersons of the Family Law Practice Committee 2015

Mr Yap Teong Liang                                                                  Mr Raymond Yeo

1.  The concept of appointing Child Representatives in Singapore is new, although this process is already in place in leading jurisdictions such as Australia. For cases where appointment of the Child Representative is appropriate, how would you see this concept benefitting the families in disputes and minimising the negative impacts of family proceedings on the children from these families?

The concept of appointing Child Representative is not exactly new in Singapore. Previously, we had the concept of Court Appointed Counsel as well as appointments of Amicus Curiae which has morphed into what we have today, which is the Child Representatives. Under the child Representative Scheme, there is now greater clarity in the role and scope of the work of the Child Representative through the Family Justice Rules and the Family Justice Courts Practice Directions.

At present, in addition to the appointment of Child Representatives, the Family Justice Courts has at its disposal other alternative means to assist the Judges in making custody care and control orders as well as access orders. In addition, we also have Social Welfare Reports which are prepared by Ministry of Social and Family Development ("MFSD") as well as Custody Evaluation Reports and Access Evaluation Reports which are prepared by the Court Counsellors from the Counselling and Psychological Services (“CAPS”).

This concept of appointment of Child Representatives has and will benefit the families in distress and will minimise the negative impact of family proceedings involving children. The disputing parties may feel comforted that their child’s wishes are taken into consideration. It allows the child to put forward his/her views and opinions in an independent manner. This allows the parents to understand the child’s thought processes in the matter through the Child Representative. It reduces acrimony as the disputing parents can do away with or reduce the voluminous affidavits that are usually filed for proceedings that are litigated.  

2. The Family Justice Courts has now put in place mandatory mediation and counselling as part of the Courts’ processes for certain types of applications. What outcomes have you observed so far since the implementation of these processes as compared to previous cases where they were not mandatory?

As the process is mandatory and usually set in the early stages of proceedings, disputing parties are able to attempt negotiations as early as possible. It allows parties to resolve matters amicably and this would obviate the need for what would have been a protracted proceeding.

Mandatory mediation and counselling sessions conducted by the Child Focused Resolution Centre starts off with a counselling session conducted by a trained counsellor. This allows the counsellors to assist disputing parties in dealing with their emotive issues. It also allows parameters to be set and for the mediation Judge to define and narrow the issues in dispute.

Mediation sessions both in the Family Justice Courts and at the CFRC have been largely successful not just in resolving disputed issues in its entirety but at least narrowing and restricting the issues that has to be determined by the Courts if no positive outcome is yielded.

3. With the newly implemented rule on Judicial Case Management, how do you see the positive effects that would assist the Court in expediting the management of ongoing family proceedings, as well as for solicitors having conduct of the matters?

One positive effect seen thus far is the expeditious disposal of applications in the Family Justice Courts. Applications can be consolidated with specific directions issued by the Court on the disclosure of information, documents and details. Affidavits are, therefore, focused and stream-lined, highlighting the specific issue in dispute.

With the consolidation of applications, counsel would only need to attend a restricted number of Case Conferences instead of attending in Court on separate occasions to deal with separate applications and matters.

Also with the consolidation of applications, hearings of various applications can take place before one single Judge at one sitting. Previously, one application may be held in abeyance pending the outcome of another.  

4. A new Practice Direction on the Court Friends Scheme has been introduced. Do you see this as a channel which could expedite the Court litigation processes and/or ease the communications between the unrepresented litigant and the other party’s solicitor?

Yes, this would indeed expedite the Court litigation process especially for litigants in persons.  

The unrepresented litigant will be assisted to navigate the Court process which will include the preparation of Court documents such as affidavits and collating relevant documents as well as the filing of Court documents.

In fact, the Family Justice Courts have always been exploring different ways to assist the litigants in person. The Family Justice Courts have established a HELP Centre to assist litigants in person in understanding the Court processes.  

5. The new Practice Direction on judicial communications is now in force for child-related cases that span across jurisdictions. Do you foresee that there will be an increase for this type of applications by parties? Why or why not?

We do not think that there will be an increase for this type of applications simply because of the new Practice Directions. What is comforting to note is that the Family Court Judges in Singapore now have a direct communication with Judges sitting in other jurisdictions who can then facilitate and assist the Family Court Judges in Singapore to make appropriate orders and possibly vice versa.  

It seems more likely that the process of direct judicial communication would apply in child abduction cases where Singapore may be the country either receiving the child or sending the child back to the country of residence.

With a better understanding of the reciprocating country, Judges can make appropriate orders to protect the child.   

6. As part of the Family Justice Courts’ work plan, efforts will be made to improve access to justice for vulnerable individuals. How do you foresee these efforts in aiding litigants as compared to before?

Access to justice is an important cornerstone of the legal profession. If vulnerable individuals are able to gain access to justice in a simpler, less complicated manner, it will allow them to navigate the Court processes without fear or finding it a hassle.

7. The Family Justice Courts will work with various stakeholders to strengthen the use of Collaborative Family Practice (“CFP”) in the pre-writ space. As CFP is a relatively new concept in Singapore, do you foresee its use will become increasingly popular? How do you think it will aid parties when the proceedings enter the Courts’ system? 

Yes, this will be indeed useful for the Family Justice Courts to work with various stakeholders to strengthen the use of CFP.  

What is important is for there to be public awareness and for potential parties to fully understand that the CFP process is a form of alternative dispute resolution.  

It will aid parties if parties are able to resolve all matters prior to the commencement of proceedings in the Family Justice Courts. The proceedings can then be uncontested and the Family Justice Courts have already put in place a mechanism for the filing of Simple Writ where all issues have been resolved and where the proceedings will be uncontested.

► Representation and Law Reform Department
     The Law Society of Singapore