SINGAPORE, June 27 — A district judge has rejected a bid by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to place a nine‑month‑old boy in foster care, ruling instead that the child should be returned to his mother under statutory supervision.  

According to The Straits Times, in written grounds released on June 22, District Judge Chua Wei Yuan agreed that the infant required protection but found that fostering was not the most suitable arrangement. He noted that while the boy’s parents had a history of violent conflict, each was individually capable of caring for the child. The key risk, he said, arose only when both parents were together.

The child, who turns one in August 2026, had been removed from the family home after a series of altercations involving both parents and extended family members. In one incident, the father allegedly slapped the mother and blamed her for the boy’s club‑foot condition. In another, the mother allegedly struck the father while he was holding the child. A later dispute escalated into a scuffle involving both sets of grandparents, during which the maternal grandmother suffered a fractured nasal bone.

Both parents subsequently filed personal protection orders against each other. During an unannounced visit in October 2025, the father refused a safety plan requiring him to move out and repeatedly returned to the home, at times jamming door locks or cutting electricity. A confrontation in which he barricaded himself and the child inside the flat ended with both parents being arrested for breaching their protection orders.

MSF had sought a one‑year foster‑care order, citing risks of ill‑treatment, emotional harm and medical neglect. The judge accepted that the child had been exposed to violence and that this could have long‑term developmental consequences. He also noted concerns about the father’s handling of the boy’s medical needs — the infant’s prescribed leg brace was worn for only four days after fitting, with each parent blaming the other.

However, the judge found that the mother had complied with medical treatment after the father left the home. He also rejected MSF’s argument that returning the child to one parent could reinforce negative perceptions of the other, saying the boy was too young to form such impressions.

State intervention, especially removing a child from the home, should be a last resort, the judge said. In this case, placing the boy with one parent at a time was sufficient to ensure his safety. The father’s access will be subject to the approval of a supervising welfare officer.

The father has filed an appeal against the decision.