SINGAPORE: A family court has thrown out an application for a personal protection order for a 15-year-old girl against her 80-year-old paternal grandfather, sought by her mother.
According to a judgment made available over the weekend, the court found that there had been no proven acts of violence by the grandfather and said it was "plainly unnecessary" to issue a personal protection order.
The girl's mother is embroiled in divorce proceedings with the child's father. The paternal grandparents have been living with the family and helping to care for the grandchildren since both parents were working.
THE CASE
In November 2025, the girl's mother initiated the application for a personal protection order for her daughter, identified in the judgment only as C. This was on the basis of an incident in October 2025, with a second incident in November that year added to her case later.
The mother alleged that the grandfather had reprimanded C on Oct 29, 2025, when C was about to go downstairs to throw some rubbish away. This was because he wanted C to finish tidying up a table in the study.
When C said she would continue tidying up later, the grandfather purportedly raised his voice and told C to leave the house, in front of C's friend.
When C returned, her grandfather asked why she had come back. C then said that the house was not his and walked away.
In the second incident, C's mother alleged that when C was having lunch on Nov 26, 2025, the grandfather sat down to have his meal. He behaved aggressively and slammed his cup onto the table.
He also allegedly placed other items on the table with force and stared at C.
The grandfather resisted the application, saying that he and his wife had been staying with the family to care for the grandchildren. He said his relationship with C's mother had deteriorated since divorce proceedings between her and his son commenced.
The elderly man said he and his wife used to accompany C and her younger sister to school and the playground. They used to eat together and talk to each other, but the girls have since been instructed to ignore them.
For the incident in October 2025, the grandfather said he noticed that C was cleaning her study table and creating a huge mess. Instead of cleaning it up, she appeared to be leaving with her friend.
To get her attention, he raised his voice to ask her to clean up. He said C then shouted: "This is my house, not your house."
This shocked him and he asked C to get out of the house. He said he then walked back to his room and stayed there without any further interaction with C. He said he had raised his voice to discipline C and was shocked at her response.
As for the November incident, he said he was 80 and would drop things from time to time. He said it was not easy for him to hold onto a hot plate, and that he had placed it on the table. He denied staring at C.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
District Judge Goh Kiat Yi said he accepted C's version of events of the October incident. The teenage girl had accepted that what her grandfather did was basically to discipline her because he did not want his wife, the child's grandmother, to clean up the mess for her.
She also agreed that she had the "courage" to speak back to her grandfather to defend herself by saying to him that "this is not your house".
In contrast, the grandfather's oral evidence at trial was inconsistent with his written affidavit, in which he had said he did raise his voice and asked C to get out of the house. The judge said it may well be that the elderly man had memory lapses and was not being dishonest. However, the inconsistencies made his testimony less reliable.
For the November incident, Judge Goh found the grandfather's explanation reasonable. It was also unchallenged by C's mother.
Both C and her mother confirmed that the grandfather has never been physically violent to C in the past 14 years living with them. The claim rested solely on an allegation of emotional and psychological abuse.
Judge Goh found that the grandfather's conduct did not amount to such abuse. There were no vulgarities or abusive language used.
C also accepted that she had the courage to defend herself by telling her grandfather "this is not your house".
"One could view this as a rather disrespectful retort from a granddaughter to a grandfather which could be hurtful to him," said the judge.
He said C also recalled the close relationship she had with her grandfather, especially when she was young. She testified about how he would take her to the playground, cycle and spend time together, and how they used to engage in small talk on a daily basis.
"She notably choked up when expressing regret over the change in the relationship between herself and the respondent," said the judge.
He ordered C's mother to pay costs to the grandfather after dismissing the application.
Judge Goh noted that the mother had commenced proceedings after doing "some research" about personal protection orders, and she did not consider any other alternatives to address the incident in October 2025.
"While I found that there was no malicious intent or collateral purpose on the applicant's part, the application itself was largely misconceived. The respondent had to defend himself and incurred costs and expenses in doing so," said Judge Goh.
"Whilst the statutory definition of family violence has rightly been expanded to address all forms of family violence, including emotional and psychological abuse, this does not mean that the court will readily grant a PPO, especially in circumstances where it is unnecessary to do so."
He noted that C appeared to be a child caught in divorce proceedings between her parents which have affected the relationships between extended family members.
"During the trial, she appeared visibly emotional when she spoke about the deteriorating relationship with her grandfather. The respondent testified that he regards C and her sister as his 'bao bei' or treasure," said the judge.
He urged both sides of the family to exercise restraint in their dealings with each other and seek therapeutic services such as counselling, saying the relationship between C and her grandfather is not irremediable.
"Ties of love and affection built up over years of familial relationship can endure beyond the immediate fog of acrimony and unhappiness," he said.
