It is natural for grandparents to want to see and spend time with their grandchildren. When relationships between the generations are strong, such interactions can easily take place. But when relationships turn sour, can a grandparent sue in court for a legal right to spend time with one’s grandchild? 

The answer, according to a 2004 local case in the High Court, is no. 

What Happened?  

In that case, a grandmother sought to gain legal custody and guardianship over her eight-year-old grandchild, a Primary One student, after alleging that his parents—her son and daughter-in-law—were neglecting and abusing him. She believed that their failure to provide adequate medical care had resulted in neurological issues. 

On the other hand, the parents of the child – who both had post-graduate qualifications and were business executives – claimed that the grandmother was “paranoid” about the health and welfare of their child. They accepted that their child had some problems but pointed out that they had taken concrete steps to arrest the problems. For instance, when their child showed some signs of developmental dyspraxia, they sent him for speech therapy as well as speech and drama lessons. Furthermore, when the child was diagnosed as having sensory integrative dysfunction, they enrolled him in a course to enhance his sensory processing. They also cared enough to employ a person to help him cope with kindergarten lessons. Apparently, these efforts proved fruitful as the child has made good progress in his courses and kindergarten. 

The grandmother attempted to raise her concerns through government agencies, lodging two complaints with the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS). She claimed that the parents mistreated, neglected the child leading to his alleged neurological issues. After welfare officers interviewed the parents, MCDS found no grounds for further action. 

Dissatisfied, the grandmother turned to law enforcement, lodging a police report against the parents. However, the police also conducted investigations and concluded that no further action was warranted due to a lack of evidence supporting her claims. 

Grandmother’s Lawsuits 

Despite these setbacks, the grandmother escalated the matter by commencing lawsuits in the Singapore courts.  

In August 2003, the grandmother escalated the matter by filing for a protection order on behalf of the child against his parents. However, the court dismissed her application after hearing her case two months later.  

Around half a year later, the grandmother started another lawsuit in the District Court, where she sought legal guardianship, custody, and control over the child. Additionally, she requested a court order mandating a medical examination on the child to confirm her concerns about his alleged neurological issues.  

However, District Judge Regina Ow-Chang Yee Lin ruled against her, rejecting her application for guardianship and a medical examination of the child. 

Decision of the High Court 

Dissatisfied, the grandmother appealed to the High Court, where the case was heard by Justice Tan Lee Meng.  

In her appeal, the grandmother abandoned her initial claim for guardianship and instead sought legal access rights to see and spend time with her grandchild. She requested rights to see and spend time with the child for three hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, as well as three hours on Saturdays and Sundays from 6–9 p.m. She argued that she had a close, loving relationship with her grandchild and that the sudden loss of contact since November must have bewildered and upset him.  

However, the parents opposed her request, arguing that granting her visitation would not be in the child’s best interests as the disadvantages of having the grandmother contact their child outweigh the advantages. They feared that if legal access was granted to the grandmother, she would take the opportunity to bring him to see doctors unnecessarily and turn him against them. At the very least, they thought that the grandmother could “cause confusion and fear in the mind of this young child”. 

The views of Dr. Ho Kee Hang, a neurosurgeon the grandmother had initially consulted, undermined the grandmother’s claims. He confirmed in writing during the High Court hearing that the child had no previous or current head injury or neurological issues. Based on his professional evaluation, there was no medical justification for further examinations or treatment. 

In a decision delivered on 24 September 2004, Justice Tan Lee Meng dismissed the grandmother’s request for legal access rights to see and spend time with her grandchild. 

In the judge’s view, “a grandmother is, without more, not entitled to apply for an order for access to her grandchild”. He drew a distinction between this case and a 2003 case where a paternal grandmother was granted limited access to her grandchild after the child’s mother was murdered by the father, who was subsequently incarcerated. The court emphasised that the circumstances of the present case were “totally different”, as this child was in the custody of “loving and caring parents”. 

Thus, Justice Tan dismissed the grandmother’s appeal and ordered her to pay legal costs to the parents. 

At the same time, Justice Tan noted that the child’s grandfather was not a party to the legal proceedings and was “able to see his grandson without difficulty”. The judge expressed hope that, “in the future, sense will prevail and the relationship between the parties will improve to such an extent that the child can have the benefit of a grandmother’s love and attention without the tensions resulting from the dispute between her and his parents over his health and upbringing”. 

Parents Have Primary Responsibility 

In a 2005 commentary on the case, Associate Professor Debbie Ong—who later became a High Court judge—observed that the law distinguishes between parents and non-parents, emphasising that “parents have the primary responsibility and authority over the child.” 

She agreed with the High Court’s decision, adding that “unless there are compelling reasons which positively demand displacement of the natural parents’ authority over the child, the welfare of the child includes the right to have his or her natural ties to his or her parents preserved. It is right that the law should not intervene unnecessarily in familial relationships.” 

This case reaffirmed the principle that legal intervention in parental authority should only occur in exceptional circumstances where a child’s safety or well-being is demonstrably at risk. In the absence of such compelling evidence, the law prioritises maintaining the child’s relationship with their natural parents while discouraging unnecessary disruptions to their care and upbringing.