Court orders daughters exposed to porn, self-harm to be taken from mother for their protection

SINGAPORE: A court has ordered that two young sisters, aged 11 and 14, be taken away from their mother for a year after the girls were found to be self-harming and watching pornography under her care.

Their school had reported several concerning incidents, prompting the Child Protective Service (CPS) to step in. 

Its applications for care and protection orders for the two girls were granted. However, their 11-year-old brother will not be separated from their mother, who is divorced.

In a judgment made available on Saturday (Jul 6), the judge noted that the boy "faced milder risks that stemmed from his inadequate supervision by the mother".

He was instead placed under the supervision of an approved welfare officer while remaining in his mother's care.

THE CASE

The parents of the children divorced in July 2021. They lived with their mother and saw their father frequently with his regular access sessions.

In September 2022, the daughters' school made a report to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline, claiming that the mother had dragged the older girl by the hair across their home and hit her repeatedly on the head.

The school added that the girl had taken a penknife to school and threatened her classmates. It was also reported that both girls had been exposed to pornography.

The reports were referred to CPS, which asked the school to monitor them.

In April 2023, the son's school reported that the boy had scalded himself on his thigh. A few months later, the girls' school reported that the younger girl had burnt herself while cooking, and that she had been hit with a backscratcher by her sister.

The schools expressed concern that the mother had coached the children to downplay the events.

After the boy's school reported a bruise on him, allegedly caused by his oldest sister, CPS started further investigations into the family.

Burn marks were found on the elder daughter's arm in September 2023, and the CPS admitted the three children to hospital for medical examination and temporary care. It applied to the Youth Court for care and protection orders.

While the case was pending, CPS and the parents of the children agreed on a safety plan, under which the parents were to use only safe methods of parenting.

They were to "avoid any use of physical punishment" and to attend relevant services such as co-parenting counselling and mental health assessment sessions as recommended by CPS.

In December 2023, the mother filed a police report alleging that her younger daughter - who had been returned to her care pending the court's decision - had threatened her and beaten her up.

The police went to the scene and found a scar consistent with self-harm on the girl's wrist. She was warded at the Institute of Mental Health before staying at an Interim Placement and Assessment Centre.

CPS' SUBMISSIONS

The CPS argued that the children were in need of care and protection. The elder daughter was "exposed to moral danger" as she had access to pornography and even introduced her younger sister to it.

She was also at risk of ill-treatment as her mother was using "excessive and harsh physical punishment" on her. She had cut her wrists, burnt herself while cooking without adult supervision and injured her siblings during fights.

CPS argued that the younger daughter was similarly exposed to pornography, cut herself, burnt herself while cooking and had sustained injuries from fights with her sister.

The girls' father agreed that the girls be placed under 12-month care and protection orders and taken away from their mother.

The elder daughter wanted to remain with her mother, while the younger daughter wanted to be taken away.

The children's mother objected to the orders sought and demanded that the children be returned to her. She "flatly denied the allegations" and asserted that her children were not in need of care and protection.

Instead, she alleged that the CPS' interventions had adversely affected her children's physical and mental health and academic performance.

The judge agreed that the daughters faced moral danger given their exposure to pornography while in their mother's care.

Their school reported that the elder daughter had stated she had been watching pornography for three years. 

This was corroborated by the younger girl, who said she had been introduced to porn by her older sister.

The younger girl lamented that her "childhood ended" when she was five years old when her older sister showed her pornographic websites.

The girls offered "detailed and consistent descriptions of the website addresses they had visited and of content they had seen", which often included violent and "scary" scenes like kidnapping.

The mother denied that her daughters had been exposed to porn. She claimed that she had not seen the content in question and that it could not therefore be pornographic in nature.

She said that she had in any event blocked the access of her children to pornographic websites.

The children's maternal grandmother had told CPS that the mother spent most of her time in her room and had limited involvement in her children's daily routines.

JUDGE'S FINDINGS

Thus, District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Shen said it was probable that the children had been exposed to porn while in their mother's care.

The judge said the mother "worryingly" displayed little insight into the risks faced by her daughters and showed "little desire to better supervise" them.

Instead, she blamed her ex-husband for buying them laptops, mobile phones and large computer screens.

The judge disagreed with CPS, however, on the claim that the elder daughter had been physically ill-treated by her mother. 

CPS had alleged that there were multiple incidents of physical punishment that left the older girl with bruises on her forehead and pain in her arms.

The mother denied punishing her daughter this way, saying "no child could have survived such an ordeal" and that the child "would have died on the spot".

While the judge said "such hyperbole did few favours for her credibility", he noted that the father had corroborated the woman's denials.

The judge found that the younger girl was at risk of emotional harm from her mother, who had repeatedly used degrading language on her and thrown handfuls of salt on her while saying "go away demon".

The mother again denied this, saying it was "not about throwing salt but salt cures".

Judge Tay found that the two daughters faced "grave risks" and that it would be in their best interests and welfare to be committed to places of safety for a sustained period.

During this time, CPS would be able to put in interventions necessary to support the girls and their mother, while allied professionals worked with the mother towards re-integration.

The judge noted that the girls were a danger not only to themselves but to others - their mother had encouraged the older girl to bring a penknife to school as she was being bullied.

Judge Tay found that the boy faced milder risks, which did not require him to be removed from his mother's care. However, he placed the boy under the supervision of an approved welfare officer for 12 months.

A review of the case will be made in six months, and the parents were ordered to work with CPS and other allied professionals to improve their parenting abilities.

The mother has filed an appeal against the court's decision.