https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...o-porn-under-her-care-loses-high-court-appeal
A district judge ruled that the girls should be sent to a place of safety for 12 months. ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO
A mother, whose two daughters were exposed to pornography under her care, lost an appeal against a court order that requires them to be sent to a place of safety for 12 months. Finding that the two girls, now aged 14 and 11, needed care and protection, a district judge made the order in the Youth Court under the [Children and Young Persons Act], allowing for a review after six months.
While the judge found that both girls had faced “moral danger” due to their exposure to pornography while in their mother’s care, he rejected the argument by child protection services that the elder daughter had been ill-treated or was at risk of ill-treatment. In a judgment dated Sept 3 which considered the mother’s appeal, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck said that the district judge appeared to have considered the evidence comprehensively, and the attitude and behaviour of the woman had convinced him utterly that there was no merit in her appeal.
“It was clear to me that the daughters would be better off at their respective places of safety,” he said.
The father of the two girls, who is divorced from the woman, did not object to the initial court order. According to the district court judgment, the younger daughter was five when she was exposed to pornography by her sister. Said the judge: “The mother neglected to steer the daughters away from pornographic content and instead deflected blame to the father for buying laptops, mobile phones and large computer screens for the daughters.”
The district judge also found that the two girls were likely to harm themselves and others. They had cut themselves and injured each other and their brother during fights, with the mother believed to have done little to address their behaviour. “The mother even endorsed violence – when the elder daughter told the mother that she was being bullied at school, the mother encouraged her to bring a penknife to school,” noted the judge.
The district judge also found that the mother had abused the younger daughter by using degrading language and throwing salt at her while saying “go away demon”. Relying on the report from the elder daughter’s school, child protection services claimed that the mother had dragged the girl by the hair across their home and hit her on the head repeatedly.
But, according to the judgment, the father said that he did not perceive that his former wife had mistreated the child. The district judge had believed the father because he was familiar with his daughter through regular access sessions, and gave the impression that he was a concerned parent who cared for her well-being. The district judge also noted that a psychological report found that the elder daughter did not present with clinically significant trauma or depressive symptoms.
In her appeal, the mother said that the district judge’s decision was based on hearsay evidence given by a school counsellor, whom the mother said was an unreliable witness and was “Satan”. The mother also claimed that following the intervention from child protection services, her daughters were worse off physically, mentally and academically, adding that there were no factors in the family that would affect the daughter’s academic performance. While she showed that some of their test scores had lowered, Justice Choo said they may have simply been adjusting to their new environment.
Justice Choo said that in any event, the district judge’s findings had indicated that the mother is presently unable to properly care for or supervise her daughters, and noted that the mother had declared at the hearing that she would not attend counselling because her questions regarding her daughters were not being answered.
“Her defiant response revealed that she had yet to reflect on her own dismal parenting methods, let alone think about how to be a better parent,” said Justice Choo, adding that the younger daughter had also threatened to commit suicide if she were sent back home. Justice Choo said that after he had dismissed the appeal, the mother lost her composure and delivered “a diatribe”, claiming that her own mother had died six months ago and that in six months, her daughters would be next if they were left with child protection services. She loudly insisted that she was here “not for fun, but to save lives”,
The judge said: “Her concerns were irrational. It is crucial for her to attend the parenting counselling sessions organised by the child protection services, so that when her daughters return home, they can remain for good.”
-----------------
Mother whose 2 daughters were exposed to porn under her care loses High Court appeal
A district judge ruled that the girls should be sent to a place of safety for 12 months. ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO
A mother, whose two daughters were exposed to pornography under her care, lost an appeal against a court order that requires them to be sent to a place of safety for 12 months. Finding that the two girls, now aged 14 and 11, needed care and protection, a district judge made the order in the Youth Court under the [Children and Young Persons Act], allowing for a review after six months.
While the judge found that both girls had faced “moral danger” due to their exposure to pornography while in their mother’s care, he rejected the argument by child protection services that the elder daughter had been ill-treated or was at risk of ill-treatment. In a judgment dated Sept 3 which considered the mother’s appeal, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck said that the district judge appeared to have considered the evidence comprehensively, and the attitude and behaviour of the woman had convinced him utterly that there was no merit in her appeal.
“It was clear to me that the daughters would be better off at their respective places of safety,” he said.
The father of the two girls, who is divorced from the woman, did not object to the initial court order. According to the district court judgment, the younger daughter was five when she was exposed to pornography by her sister. Said the judge: “The mother neglected to steer the daughters away from pornographic content and instead deflected blame to the father for buying laptops, mobile phones and large computer screens for the daughters.”
The district judge also found that the two girls were likely to harm themselves and others. They had cut themselves and injured each other and their brother during fights, with the mother believed to have done little to address their behaviour. “The mother even endorsed violence – when the elder daughter told the mother that she was being bullied at school, the mother encouraged her to bring a penknife to school,” noted the judge.
The district judge also found that the mother had abused the younger daughter by using degrading language and throwing salt at her while saying “go away demon”. Relying on the report from the elder daughter’s school, child protection services claimed that the mother had dragged the girl by the hair across their home and hit her on the head repeatedly.
But, according to the judgment, the father said that he did not perceive that his former wife had mistreated the child. The district judge had believed the father because he was familiar with his daughter through regular access sessions, and gave the impression that he was a concerned parent who cared for her well-being. The district judge also noted that a psychological report found that the elder daughter did not present with clinically significant trauma or depressive symptoms.
In her appeal, the mother said that the district judge’s decision was based on hearsay evidence given by a school counsellor, whom the mother said was an unreliable witness and was “Satan”. The mother also claimed that following the intervention from child protection services, her daughters were worse off physically, mentally and academically, adding that there were no factors in the family that would affect the daughter’s academic performance. While she showed that some of their test scores had lowered, Justice Choo said they may have simply been adjusting to their new environment.
Justice Choo said that in any event, the district judge’s findings had indicated that the mother is presently unable to properly care for or supervise her daughters, and noted that the mother had declared at the hearing that she would not attend counselling because her questions regarding her daughters were not being answered.
“Her defiant response revealed that she had yet to reflect on her own dismal parenting methods, let alone think about how to be a better parent,” said Justice Choo, adding that the younger daughter had also threatened to commit suicide if she were sent back home. Justice Choo said that after he had dismissed the appeal, the mother lost her composure and delivered “a diatribe”, claiming that her own mother had died six months ago and that in six months, her daughters would be next if they were left with child protection services. She loudly insisted that she was here “not for fun, but to save lives”,
The judge said: “Her concerns were irrational. It is crucial for her to attend the parenting counselling sessions organised by the child protection services, so that when her daughters return home, they can remain for good.”
-----------------
