Some cases become complicated not because the law is unclear, but because the behaviour of a party makes the process unpredictable. XUH v XUI [2025] SGFC 127 shows how the Family Justice Courts approach a litigant who appears to be struggling with mental health issues, while being either unaware of it or perhaps pretending not to be aware of it, and how the Court balances empathy with the need to reach a conclusion for the family.
The Background
The Mother filed for divorce. She started as a self represented party. Later she appointed lawyers. After some time, those lawyers discharged themselves because the relationship had broken down and they had experienced a serious loss of confidence in their ability to act for her. When they stepped away, she returned to self representation. Her actions had caused a significant delay and once she was alone again, the Court and the Registry had to manage the proceedings with extra care.
Her conduct contributed heavily to the unpredictability. She wrote directly to the Court in ways that were improper, even after repeated reminders that she had to copy both sides. Some of her emails copied relatives and former lawyers. The Court noted that this breached the privacy protections that govern family proceedings.
She also made allegations of violence against my client which she ultimately could not substantiate. In truth, it was my client who received a Personal Protection Order after she physically assaulted him in an incident.
How the Court Managed the Case
As the matter progressed, it became clear to everyone except perhaps the Mother herself that she was struggling with mental health issues. She behaved as though timelines did not apply to her. She expected the Court to guide her and give directions that judges cannot give. She spoke as though her oral explanations should override written evidence, even though the Court repeatedly explained that decisions must rest on proper evidence and compliance with procedure.
Yet throughout all this, the judge treated her with extraordinary patience.
- Directions were repeated.
- Hearings were conducted slowly.
- She was encouraged to seek legal advice.
- She was guided, reminded, and given chance after chance to comply.
But patience does not stop a process from moving.
- My client complied with directions.
- He filed what he needed to file.
The matter still moved slowly because the Court needed to give her opportunity after opportunity to participate meaningfully.
Striking Out Her Claim
In the end, the Court could not wait any longer. Although she had filed for divorce, she refused to comply with even the most basic procedural steps required to support her own claim. She repeatedly ignored directions.
We applied to strike out her Statement of Claim and her Defence to Counterclaim. The Court agreed.
- Her pleadings were struck out.
- The divorce proceeded on my client’s Counterclaim.
It became one of the more unusual outcomes in my career.
- She had initiated the divorce.
- But because she refused to comply with the rules, the marriage was dissolved on my client’s terms.
The Ancillary Hearing
She did attend the ancillary hearing. Once again, the judge treated her with immense patience. He allowed her to speak. He clarified her points gently. He listened to her objections.
But the underlying issue remained unchanged.
- She continued to refuse to produce essential documents.
- She made inappropriate comments directed at the Court and at counsel.
- She relied on assertions rather than evidence.
At some point, the matter needed to reach an endpoint.
The Court proceeded based on the evidence available, most of which came from my client because he had complied with the directions give to him.
Mental Health and the Court’s Approach
One of the most important parts of the judgment comes from the Judge’s detailed analysis of her mental state. He explained that it is possible for someone to suffer from a mental health condition yet still have the mental capacity to litigate. Cognitive ability and caregiving ability are two very different things.
In other words, she understood the proceedings.
- She could argue.
- She could respond.
- She could participate.
But she could not regulate her behaviour in a way that protected her children.
- She refused medical help even when it was clear she needed it.
- She did not seem to recognise her own deterioration.
- And she had no insight into how her behaviour was affecting her children.
The Court eventually had to draw a line.
And that line was drawn not out of punishment, but because the children needed stability.
My Personal Reflections
This case was painful to watch.
It was clear to everyone that she was struggling. She behaved unpredictably. She refused to follow timelines even though she understood them. She made allegations she could not prove. She sent inappropriate emails. She spoke in a way that was sometimes openly provocative.
Through all of it, the Court responded with kindness and restraint. He gave her more time than many litigants would have received.
But patience is not infinite. The trial process cannot wait forever because delays harm the other party and, more importantly, the children.
What stayed with me most was the Judge’s final message.
- He urged her to take stock of her situation.
- He encouraged her to seek medical help.
- He said plainly that the path to reuniting with her children depended on addressing the underlying mental health concerns that had derailed the family.
This case reminded me that the Family Justice Courts are compassionate, especially when mental health issues are involved. They give time. They give space. They guide gently.
But they also understand that families need closure.
Children need stability.
And when a parent cannot regulate her behaviour, the Court must step in to protect the child, even when the parent cannot see the need for it herself.
In the end, the Court reached a decision based solely on the evidence before it. And that decision finally allowed the family to move forward.
