In the lead-up to the revision of the Women’s Charter, lawyers noted that while the number of acrimonious divorces has not risen, the intensity of bitterness has deepened. Over 10 individuals shared with TODAY the devastating effects of their acrimonious divorces, recounting experiences such as false police reports and “swatting”. Parents involved spoke of incidents of parental alienation and child abduction, with some unable to see their children for extended periods amid contentious legal battles. Despite stable divorce rates involving accusatory partners, lawyers observed a worsening acrimony.
Legislative amendments took effect 1 July 2024 which now permit divorce by mutual agreement, aimed at reducing hostility, although experts suggest further actions are necessary.
Months after a protracted legal struggle to secure custody of his daughter, a father, Leonard, remains cautious, carrying recording equipment and legal documents to protect against potential false accusations by his ex-wife. Leonard expressed an ongoing fear that his ex-wife might again involve the police to remove their daughter from his care. Following their 2016 divorce, they attempted co-parenting to no avail. In 2021, his ex-wife filed multiple police reports, resulting in temporary custody pending investigation. Despite investigations being dropped due to insufficient evidence, his access to his daughter was restricted until he regained custody in November 2023. Leonard emotionally described the toll of disproving accusations and the anxiety caused by “swatting” incidents on his daughter.
Under family law, “care and control” refers to the parent with whom the child resides and who makes daily decisions for them. “Custody,” meanwhile, involves major decisions like education and healthcare. A parent with sole custody can make these decisions independently, while joint custody requires mutual agreement.
To mitigate acrimony in divorces, legislative amendments now provide mutual consent as grounds for divorce, previously requiring fault-based reasons like adultery or unreasonable behaviour. Against this legal backdrop, affected individuals share the bitter tactics employed by ex-spouses, such as parental alienation and child abduction.
Experts and professionals agree that no one wins in acrimonious divorces, which often devolve into zero-sum battles as emotions escalate. Real-life stories, such as that of Ms. Narita, highlight the personal costs. Ms. Narita admitted to initially engaging in parental alienation post-divorce due to resentment, but then faced her alienation of her son by her ex-husband after he gained custody. Such experiences highlight the emotional and psychological toll on children, with lasting impacts on their well-being.
Moreover, individuals interviewed by TODAY shared how they were affected by acrimonious divorces such as the emotional toll coupled with stigma and social isolation. In Arjun’s case, where cross-border disputes with his wife led to limited access to his children due to international legal complexities, illustrates further challenges faced by families. For Andrea, harassment by her ex-husband during divorce proceedings exacerbated her emotional distress, even to the point of contemplating suicide.
The mental health implications of acrimonious divorces are pervasive among those interviewed but many are reluctant to seek professional help, fearing repercussions in ongoing legal battles. These experiences reflect a broader societal issue, with implications for familial and social relationships, as well as broader mental health concerns.
TODAY reached out to several legal experts and professionals for their views and amongst them, Mr. Clement Yong, a lawyer from Beyond Legal LLC, said that “acrimony can become more intense when children and cross-broader arrangements are involved”. Mr. Yong, who is also a former district judge, added: “This is made worse where the children are young, as technology (such as video calls) cannot adequately compensate for the lack of physical bonding between the left-behind parent and the children”. Mr. Yong also said that the courts are moving wards a therapeutic justice approach to focus on problem-solving, rather than having a “winner takes all mentality” in divorces.
Legal professionals advocate for a therapeutic justice approach, prioritising problem-solving over adversarial tactics, to foster more collaborative and constructive divorce processes. The courts are also moving towards a therapeutic justice approach to focus on problem-solving, rather than having a “winner takes all mentality” in divorces, Mr Yong said. Ms. Theresa Pong from The Relationship Room advocates for couples’ therapy to foster mutual understanding and emotional healing amid divorce. Additionally, awareness campaigns aimed at destigmatising divorce and reframing it as a solution to irreconcilable differences could promote healthier attitudes and outcomes.
