S'pore court rejects mum's application for protection order for girl, 15, against grandfather, 80

Singapore's Family Justice Courts rejected an application for a personal protection order (PPO) for a girl against her paternal grandfather.

The order was sought by the girl's mother and the case was heard on Mar. 12.

According to the written judgement, the court found that the allegations did not establish family violence by the grandfather.

It also stated that the paternal grandparents have been living with the family and helping to care for the grandchildren while both parents were working.

The girl's mother is currently in the midst of divorce proceedings with the girl's father.

Two alleged incidents

In November 2025, the girl's mother applied for a PPO for her daughter, referred to in the judgement only as C.

The application was initially based on an incident in October 2025, but a second incident in November the same year was added later.

According to the mother's account, the October incident occurred when C was preparing to go downstairs to dispose of rubbish.

Her grandfather allegedly reprimanded her and told her to finish tidying her study table first.

C told him she would continue to do so later, but the grandfather raised his voice at her, in the presence of her friend, and told her to leave the house.

When she returned, he questioned why she had come back.

C then responded that the house was "not his" before walking away.

In the second incident, which was said to have taken place on Nov. 26, 2025, C was having lunch at the dining table when the grandfather sat down to have his meal.

He was alleged to have behaved in an aggressive manner by slamming his cup onto the table, forcefully placing other items down and staring at C.

Grandfather disputed the allegations

The grandfather resisted the application, saying he and his wife have been staying with the family to care for the grandchildren.

He said his relationship with his daughter-in-law had deteriorated after divorce proceedings began between her and his son.

According to him, he and his wife previously accompanied the grandchildren to school and the playground, and the family often ate meals together.

However, he said the grandchildren have recently been instructed to ignore them.

Regarding the incident in October 2025, the grandfather said C had made a mess while clearing her study table and appeared to be leaving the house with her friend without cleaning it up.

He said he therefore raised his voice to get her attention and asked her to tidy the area.

C allegedly responded by shouting: "This is my house, not your house."

Shocked by her response, the grandfather said he told her to leave the house before returning to his room and having no further interaction with her.

He claimed he had only raised his voice to discipline C.

For the incident in November 2025, the grandfather said he was 80 years old and occasionally dropped or set down items abruptly due to difficulty handling hot plates.

He also denied staring at C.

Judge's findings

The judge said the court must first be satisfied that the respondent had committed or was likely to commit family violence before granting a PPO.

The court must also find that issuing the order is necessary to protect the family member's safety.

The judge said he accepted C's account of the October 2025 incident but noted that she acknowledged her grandfather had been attempting to discipline her because he did not want his wife, C's grandmother, to clean up the mess for her.

C also agreed that she had the "courage" to speak back to her grandfather to defend herself by telling him that "this is not your house".

"One could view this as a rather disrespectful retort from a granddaughter to a grandfather which could be hurtful to him," said the judge. "It is unlikely that C’s retort would be considered emotional or psychological abuse."

While the grandfather's testimony of this particular incident contained inconsistencies with his earlier written statement, the judge said these could have been due to memory lapses rather than dishonesty, though they made his evidence less reliable.

For the subsequent incident, the judge found the grandfather's explanation reasonable and noted it was not challenged by the girl's mother.

No evidence of family violence

Both the mother and C confirmed that the grandfather had never been physically violent toward her during the 14 years he has lived with the family, said the judge, adding that the application rested solely on allegations of "emotional and psychological abuse".

The judge found that the grandfather's conduct did not amount to such abuse.

C also testified that she previously shared a close relationship with her grandfather when she was younger, recalling how he would bring her to the playground, cycle with her and spend time together.

She became emotional in court when speaking about the deterioration of their relationship, the judge noted.

PPO rejected

The judge ordered the mother to pay legal costs to the grandfather after dismissing the application.

While the mother had conducted "some research" before filing the PPO application, the judge said she had not considered other ways to address the single incident which happened in October 2025.

Although he noted that there was no malicious intent, he described the application as "largely misconceived", and that the grandfather had to defend himself and incurred legal expenses doing so.

The judge added that while the legal definition of family violence has expanded to include emotional and psychological abuse, courts will not grant protection orders unless the legal threshold is met.

"On the other hand, where the legal requirements are met, the Court will not hesitate to step in to order a PPO for the protection or personal safety of victims," he said.

He also noted that the girl appeared to be caught in the middle of her parents' divorce, which has strained relationships within the extended family.

The grandfather had also testified that he regards C and her sister as his "bao-bei", or treasures.

The judge said he did not believe the relationship between C and her grandfather was beyond repair and urged both sides of the family to exercise restraint and consider counselling if necessary.

"Ties of love and affection built up over years of familial relationship can endure beyond the immediate fog of acrimony and unhappiness," the judge said.

Top photo from Google Maps