Emotional abuse claims must show real harm beyond frustration, unhappiness: Singapore courts

SINGAPORE – Claims of emotional and psychological abuse as a form of family violence must show that the abuse resulted in “demonstrable harm”, beyond mere frustration and unhappiness arising from everyday domestic conflicts, according to two judgments released in the past week.

The judgments shed light on what constitutes emotional and psychological abuse, after these were recognised as family violence when amendments to the Women’s Charter took effect in January 2025.

In the first judgment, released on March 12, District Judge Goh Kiat Yi dismissed an application for a personal protection order (PPO) filed by a woman on behalf of her 15-year-old daughter against her father-in-law.

A PPO is a court order restraining a person from committing family violence.

The woman alleged that the 80-year-old man was emotionally abusive. 

In one incident, he scolded the girl for not tidying a study table and told her to leave the house in the presence of her friend. The elderly man and his wife had lived with the girl’s family since she was born, and helped to care for her and her younger sister.

In another instance, he behaved aggressively by slamming his cup, placing items forcefully on the table and staring at the girl while she was having lunch.

In his defence, the man said he raised his voice to discipline the girl and told her to leave only after she shouted: “This is my house, not your house.”

Judge Goh said the threshold of acts deemed as family violence must be “sufficiently serious”, noting that a person can be fined, jailed or both for breaching a PPO.

The courts must therefore consider the degree of harm the victim suffered.

Judge Goh found that the two incidents did not amount to family violence, and noted that the girl and her grandfather had a close relationship until her parents began divorce proceedings.

The judge stated: “There must be demonstrable emotional, psychological or mental harm suffered by the victim as a result of the perpetrator’s actions for there to be a finding of emotional or psychological abuse.

“Such harm must go beyond ordinary feelings of frustration, indignation, annoyance and unhappiness inherent in everyday life.”

Woman alleged that husband was controlling and had spread false rumours

In the second case, a woman applied for a PPO and a domestic exclusion order against her husband for herself and their youngest child, 11.

A domestic exclusion order restricts the perpetrator from entering the applicant’s house or parts of the house.

The couple, who have been married for 28 years, are also divorcing.

The woman cited multiple incidents of alleged abusive and controlling behaviour, including the husband monitoring her call logs, threatening her with a knife and spreading false accusations about her.

In the judgment released on March 16, District Judge Chua Wei Yuan dismissed her application.

Judge Chua said the woman had failed to provide sufficient particulars of her claims. 

For example, she did not provide details about how her husband had allegedly exerted control over her call logs or messages, or unfriended her contacts on Facebook. There was also no reliable evidence that these incidents had occurred.

The act that came closest to family violence was when the husband allegedly told the couple’s god-sister that the wife was “overly wild and social”, and was unfaithful. The god-sister claimed that the husband later admitted these accusations were false.

The judge questioned the reliability of the god-sister’s statement as it was written in English, a language she does not understand. 

The statement was also interpreted by the woman’s older children, who could be biased, as the husband claimed.

The judge also noted that the god-sister’s statement was not taken before a commissioner for oaths.

Judge Chua said the evidence showed that the husband had voiced his concerns only to the god-sister, and not multiple people.  

He also noted that the photographs provided by the husband merely showed his wife in ordinary social settings, such that no reasonable person would believe are proof of infidelity. The god-sister, who saw the photos, did not believe the wife was unfaithful.

The judge said that a significant part of the distress that comes from falsehoods being spread is not so much the falsehood said, but that the listener believes it or even repeats it.

In their judgments, both judges referred to examples of coercive control that were cited as emotional and psychological abuse during the second reading of the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in Parliament.

Coercive control is controlling behaviour aimed at instilling fear. Examples include threatening to withhold financial support, constantly monitoring a victim’s movements and isolating the victim from family and friends.

Mr Ivan Cheong, head of the Singapore Family Team at law firm Withers KhattarWong, said the judgments clarify when the legal threshold for emotional and psychological abuse is met, and provide guidance on how the courts interpret the law in line with the legislative intent behind the law

The courts also require applicants to provide specific details and credible evidence – rather than broad allegations – when substantiating claims of non-physical abuse, said Mr Mohamed Baiross, a partner at IRB Law.

He added that allegations cannot be proven without specific details.

For example, since the woman had claimed that her husband was exerting control over her call logs and message records, she would have had to provide details of how, when and how often he controlled her communication records, and how she was affected by his actions.

Lawyers say applicants can submit evidence collected through text messages, e-mails, photographs, videos, CCTV footage and voice recordings detailing the abuse.

Ms Chong Xin Yi, head of dispute resolution at law firm Gloria James-Civetta & Co, noted that proving that family violence has occurred is the first of two legal requirements to get a PPO. The second is that the court must find that a PPO is necessary to protect the victim.

The woman in the second case claimed that her husband threatened her with a knife in 2004, and that he threw his helmet and banged his head against the door or wall when she refused to comply with his demands.

However, Judge Chua said that even if these incidents had happened, they were isolated ones that occurred more than 20 years ago. The woman admitted that such conduct has not recurred.

The judge said a PPO is unnecessary as the husband has moved out of the house, and such behaviour is unlikely to repeat itself.

Mr Baiross said both judgments showed that distress alone does not amount to emotional and psychological abuse under the law.

He said: “The law must protect individuals from genuine emotional or psychological harm, but it must also avoid turning ordinary family disagreements or disciplinary conflicts into findings of family violence.”