About 80 selected agencies to manage child abuse from May 1, after Megan Khung case review

SINGAPORE - Only agencies with relevant expertise will be allowed to manage child abuse cases from May 1, following recommendations from a review of the events leading up to the death of four-year-old Megan Khung.

About 80 newly designated child protection case management (CPCM) agencies will take the lead in handling such cases.

A new independent panel of experts will also resolve disagreements between agencies over how best to protect a child, including when they differ over the level of risk the child faces.

Known as the Triage Assessment Panel (TAP), it will determine whether the appropriate agency has been assigned to a case, and make a final decision within six working days of getting the referral.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) announced these two new moves on April 30, following an October 2025 report by an independent review panel into Megan’s case.

Megan suffered prolonged abuse by her mother and the latter’s boyfriend for over a year before she died in 2020, in a case that drew public scrutiny and numerous questions in Parliament.

The report had found that the authorities and agencies involved could have done more to prevent her death.

Among the gaps identified was that some agencies working with children, but lacking child protection expertise, faced challenges in managing child abuse cases.

Megan’s injuries were first noticed by her pre-school. Its parent social service agency, Beyond Social Services, flagged the case to child protection specialist centre Heart@Fei Yue and Child Protective Service (CPS), which was a division at the MSF.

But Heart@Fei Yue did not take up the case, while CPS did not log the call, according to processes.

MSF started a disciplinary investigation into the CPS officer’s actions. When asked for an update, MSF told The Straits Times on April 30 that investigations are ongoing.

A spokeswoman added that the ministry is aware of public interest in this matter and will take follow-up action if any misconduct is found.

The October report concluded that child abuse cases should be handled by professionals working in agencies with the right competencies and experience.

In a statement, Minister of State for Social and Family Development Goh Pei Ming said MSF has designated the CPCM agencies to provide more specialised support to families and children, following consultation with the sector.

“Further, when there are differences in triage, the newly established Triage Assessment Panel will allow more effective and decisive intervention in child abuse cases.

“It gives greater confidence in how the system will provide support to families and children.”

Clearer processes

Child abuse cases have risen in Singapore, with new high-risk cases increasing 14.5 per cent from 2,011 in 2023 to 2,303 in 2024. New lower-risk cases also climbed by 18 per cent.

MSF has yet to release figures for 2025, but noted an uptick in new high-risk abuse cases in the initial weeks following the release of the review panel report in late October.

Going forward, CPCM agencies will take the lead in child protection cases.

The 82 designated agencies include family service centres (FSCs), child protection specialist centres, children’s homes and fostering agencies.

Anyone who suspects abuse can call the 24-hour National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH).

If NAVH determines there are child protection concerns, including abuse, the case will be transferred to a CPCM agency, which will gather information to verify concerns, do risk assessments and develop safety plans.

Non-CPCM agencies such as pre-schools and youth service providers that report the abuse do not handle the abuse aspects of the case. Instead, they will continue to support the family in areas such as parenting skills and caregiving.

If there are no child protection concerns, the non-CPCM agency will continue working with the family and alert NAVH if new concerns arise.

Responsibilities and decision-making processes will be clearer with this move, said Mr Martin Chok, deputy director of family and community services at Care Corner Singapore. Care Corner runs FSCs and a protection specialist centre, which are CPCM agencies.

“Previously, multiple agencies might be involved with a family, but responsibilities could sometimes feel fragmented,” said Mr Chok.

For example, a pre-school may observe the child is happy in school, but the child may be experiencing difficulties at home that another agency working with the family hears about. Having a lead agency coordinate this information will paint a fuller picture of what is actually happening, he said.

Noting that CPCM agencies may face more cases, the review panel had previously recommended that MSF ensure they get the resources they need.

Mr Chok said support for case workers could include “smaller and more realistic” caseloads.

MSF told ST that caseloads are expected to remain “relatively stable” as the threshold for abuse remains unchanged.

Between 2022 and 2024, the average caseload hovered at between 18 and 21 cases per worker at CPCM agencies. The MSF spokeswoman said it is aware that the caseload is higher in certain centres and is working with them to address the issue.

“We will continue to monitor caseloads closely and review resourcing needs where necessary,” she said.

Resolving disagreements

The panel’s report had also recommended an appeals mechanism to resolve differences between agencies and the MSF’s Protective Service (PSV) on handling child abuse cases.

The PSV, established in May 2025 by integrating CPS and other protective services, provides state intervention for high-risk abuse cases involving children and vulnerable adults.

An example of disagreement is when an FSC considers referring a case to PSV as it feels the child’s safety risks are serious enough for state intervention, while MSF may assess that the situation can still be managed with community support, said Montfort Care’s director of Integrated Family Service Kevin See.

He said: “In such situations, TAP can serve as a neutral platform to bring the different perspectives together, review the information collectively and assess whether a higher level of intervention is indeed necessary.”

Each TAP meeting will be co-chaired by a representative from MSF’s Professional Services Group and one independent professional, and will include two independent members. All members have experience working with families or have expertise in child protection.

MSF has implemented several recommendations from the review panel report, such as the Protection Practitioners’ Care Fund to better support professionals handling domestic violence cases.

Other plans, like a new social services coordination centre to better identify and coordinate child abuse cases, will be completed by end-2026.