S'pore couple fights each other while holding baby, man allegedly threatens to kill baby & wife, judge denies bid for baby to be placed in foster care

A court has ordered that an infant boy, who was nine-months-old at the time of the hearing, be placed under the supervision of an Approved Welfare Officer (AWO) while remaining in his mother's care.

This comes after the court found that repeated domestic violence between his parents placed him in need of care and protection.

Under the order, the child's contact with his father will be subject to the AWO's approval.

The decision, published in a judgement on Jun. 22, followed a series of violent confrontations between the married couple after the birth of their son in August 2025, as well as concerns over the child's medical care.

The father has appealed against the decision.

Relationship marked by recurring physical altercations

According to the judgment, the couple's relationship had been marked by recurring physical altercations from the outset.

The Protective Service (PSV) submitted that the father's violence escalated after the mother became pregnant, though he disputed this.

In one incident, the father had allegedly said he intended to go to East Coast Park to take his own life, and did not return home for several days.

During his absence, the mother stood in front of a closed-circuit television camera holding a knife in an attempt to prompt his return.

The timing of the incident was contested.

While PSV dated it to August 2025, the mother said it occurred during her pregnancy and that nobody was harmed.

Meanwhile, the father claimed it took place the following month, and that he had been locked out of the home, rather than having left voluntarily.

Assaulted each other while father was holding the baby

On Sep. 18, 2025, the parents became involved in a physical brawl after the father accused the mother of conspiring with others to take their son away from him.

The mother had pulled the father's shirt, punched his shoulder and slapped his face while he was carrying the baby.

The father also allegedly made suicidal and homicidal threats, including saying, "I will kill you and the baby" and "I want to kill myself."

Before police arrived, the father allegedly pinned the mother against a couch, covered her mouth and choked her until she lost consciousness.

The infant was asleep in a bassinet throughout the incident.

The father denied choking the mother, saying the allegation stemmed solely from her application for a Personal Protection Order (PPO).

Multiple family members involved

Five days later, another dispute broke out after the father allegedly ignored the mother's repeated requests to lower the volume of music he was playing in the kitchen.

The mother threw the speaker outside, prompting the father to leave before returning with his parents.

A physical altercation then ensued.

According to the judgment, the father's mother tried to pull the baby away from the maternal grandmother, while his father grabbed the maternal grandmother by the face.

The father then took the child from the maternal grandmother.

The mother suffered injuries to her face and arms while attempting to de-escalate the situation.

The court noted that the infant was physically handled by several people during the confrontation.

Following the incident, the father voluntarily moved out of the matrimonial home.

Around the same period, both parties started filing PPO applications against each other and were granted expedited orders (EOs).

Jammed the locks to prevent wife and son from leaving

The father returned to the home unannounced on Oct. 6, 2025 to stay.

He also disagreed with PSV's proposed safety plan that required him to move out.

On Oct. 11, 2025, after discovering that the mother had changed the locks, he allegedly jammed them to prevent the mother and child from leaving the flat.

The father disputed this account, claiming the key became stuck because the mother held the internal latch, and that he broke the key only while trying to remove himself from the situation.

Five days later, he returned again and switched off the electricity supply while the mother and child were inside the flat in an attempt to gain entry.

He eventually left the matrimonial home for good after that incident.

About a month later, however, he returned to the home again and changed the locks.

When his wife and mother-in-law returned home with his son, the father allegedly tried to remove the infant from his pram.

His mother-in-law intervened, leading to another physical confrontation while she was carrying the infant.

She alleged that the father elbowed her and punched her twice in the left eye, causing a laceration to her eyelid and a fractured nose.

The father denied assaulting her, saying he acted in self-defence to protect him and his son.

The father then barricaded himself inside the home with the child, leaving the mother locked outside overnight despite PSV's advice for her to disengage.

The father alleged that during the standoff, the mother had cut off the flat's electricity and water supply for about an hour and played loud noises outside.

Both parents were arrested at about 7:15am the following morning for breaching their respective EOs.

Their son was said to have remained asleep throughout the overnight incident.

Son had a medical condition

According to the judgement paper, the boy was born with a clubbed left foot and was prescribed a corrective leg brace, which doctors instructed should be worn for 23 hours a day until he turned four.

They warned that failing to follow the treatment plan could result in recurrence of the condition and permanent deformity requiring corrective surgery.

The brace was first fitted on Sep. 4, 2025, but was removed after four days.

The child went without it for about two weeks prior to his follow-up appointment, where doctors observed that the condition had recurred.

Each parent blamed the other for this.

The mother said the father rejected the diagnosis and wanted doctors to stop treatment because he did not believe their son had a clubbed foot.

On the other hand, the father claimed the mother had removed the brace because of caregiver stress and fatigue.

PSV ultimately accepted that the mother had faced legitimate practical difficulties caring for the infant alone after the father left the matrimonial home, particularly before her own mother arrived to assist.

During that period, the brace repeatedly slipped off and she managed only about 12 hours of daily compliance.

As a result, PSV's allegation of medical neglect was directed solely at the father.

Judge's decision

In her judgment, the judge accepted PSV's submission that exposing a child to repeated domestic violence could have serious long-term effects on the child's emotional, cognitive and neurological development, even if those consequences emerged only later.

The judge also found, more likely than not, that the father had deliberately discontinued the child's prescribed use of the leg brace without medical justification or obtaining a second medical opinion, amounting to medical neglect.

Although PSV had sought to remove the child from the family home, the judge concluded that fostering was not the most appropriate arrangement.

She found that each parent was individually capable of caring for the child, and that the primary concern was the danger posed by their conflict when together.

"The real concern was that the parents’ relationship was so acrimonious that it would endanger [the infant's] safety to place him around both parents at the same time. Accordingly, care must be taken before ruling out the possibility of placing the child under statutory supervision under the care of one parent."

The judge also noted that the mother preferred fostering over effectively sharing care with the father, and the father said he would rather the child remain in the mother's sole care than be placed in foster care.

"I therefore proceeded on the basis that there was common ground between both parties, i.e., that in terms of ordinal preferences, both parties ranked placing [the infant] under the mother’s care ahead of fostering [the infant]," she said.

Taking these factors into account, the judge ruled that it was in the child's best interests to remain with his mother under statutory supervision by an AWO, with the father's access to be determined by the AWO.

The father has since appealed the decision.