SINGAPORE - The Family Justice Courts (FJC) is making it easier for parents to take their recalcitrant ex-spouse who deny them access to their child after the divorce or separation to task.

Presiding Judge Debbie Ong spoke about plans to address the "very challenging issue" of enforcing child custody and access orders during the presentation of FJC's Work Plan 2022 on Friday (March 18).

Access orders are court orders that give the parent who does not live with the child time to spend with his or her offspring after a divorce.

The FJC is introducing a new simplified filing and show-cause procedure in the Family Justice Rules for breaches of custody and access orders as an alternative to the current committal regime, which seeks to punish a person for not complying with a court order.

Lawyer June Lim explained that the new simplified procedure makes it much easier and faster for the complainant to take the errant parent to task.

Currently, the onus is on the complainant to show how the offending parent wilfully breached the court order.

But under the new procedure, the burden of proof falls on the offending parent, who has to explain to the court why he or she breached the order.

Lawyers say it is common to hear of divorced parents being denied access to their child for various reasons, including to get back at the ex-spouse, and it is an onerous court process to take the recalcitrant parent to task.

Judge Ong noted that the proposed change complements the recent amendments to the Women's Charter in January, which gives the FJC broader powers to order make-up access, impose fines, forfeit bonds and order imprisonment against a recalcitrant parent.

Lawyer Dorothy Tan said: "With simplified filing and increased range of enforcement mechanisms, it is hopeful that parents being denied their rights will find it easier to take steps against recalcitrant parents and increase compliance of the orders."

The FJC is also collaborating with the Community Justice Centre (CJC) to develop a co-parenting app to make it easier for divorced parents to communicate regarding parenting matters, Judge Ong said.

Among other functions, the app could also allow people to pay maintenance and schedule time to spend with the child.

Mr Leonard Lee, the CJC's executive director, told The Straits Times the app enables both parents to place on record and monitor if the other party paid maintenance or complied with access orders.

Mr Lee said: "Some parents play punk and block access, and it is very tedious for the other parent to prove that access was denied. It's a he-says-she-says situation.

"But with the app, they can upload the child's schedule on it and put on record if access did or did not take place. This log of record serves as evidence that can be tendered in court if there is a dispute."

Besides announcing efforts to make court processes "simpler and friendlier", Judge Ong shared plans on making it more convenient to use the court's services.

For example, the FJC is working on a pilot project with the Public Service Centre to allow individuals to file maintenance enforcement applications from various locations in the heartland, besides filing it at the FJC or authorised community agencies.

From the middle of May, people can file such applications at the Public Service Centre@Our Tampines Hub.

And signalling that the FJC frowns on couples waging war on each other over their divorce, Judge Ong said: "Ultimately, therapeutic, justice-orientated, problem-solving family practice will not go unnoticed, while adversarial and aggressive practices that undermine therapeutic justice will have consequences."

She pointed out that Rule 854 of the Family Justice Rules directs the court, in assessing costs, to consider the parties' conduct generally and in relation to any attempt at resolving the matter by mediation or any other means of dispute resolution.

The FJC has been promoting therapeutic justice, which is a non-adversarial process that seeks to solve problems and help parents to learn to manage their conflicts and engage in co-parenting.

This is in contrast to the traditional adversarial approach, where each party pursues his interests single-mindedly.

Lawyer Ivan Cheong said of Judge Ong's statement: "The signal is that divorcing couples should not engage in senseless and bitter litigation in a no-holds-barred kind of slug fest."

He explained that the FJC has the power to penalise the adversarial and aggressive practices Judge Ong mentioned, such as by ordering the offending party to pay for part of the other party's legal costs.