HE USES SON'S NAME FOR ONLINE SEX CHATS - Singapore's Online Community

**sgelite** · 30-07-2007, 04:01 PM

Expat director in S'pore divorce case picks up lovers in chatrooms. So judge gives custody of 3 kids to ex-wife as she's 'better role model'

HE had a habit of going online to chat up women for flings all over Asia.

And this company director used his son's first name to hide his real identity.

His online trysts eventually caught up with him.

When he was fighting for custody of his children, the Singapore High Court decided his online habit made him a less than exemplary role model.

His ex-wife won custody of the three children after a long-drawn court battle. The oldest is a teenager.

The expatriate has a master's degree and a good job as a director of a group of companies.

Despite his cyber fetish, the man was there for his children.

When his wife, who is in her 40s, left after their marriage broke down, he took care of the children himself, with the help of a maid.

But High Court judge Choo Han Teck ruled that he was not as good a role model for his children as his wife.

The reason: His secret hobby of trawling the Internet to check out potential female partners as 'occasional lovers' or to have 'discreet relations' with them.

Under the law, the parties cannot be named in order to protect the identity of their children.

In a judgment published last week, Justice Choo said the man was engaged in Internet sex chats with other women as early as February 2003, even before his wife left him.

USED SON'S FIRST NAME

The man signed up under the first name of his son and left a series of messages and phone calls with women from Indonesia and Philippines to China.

He described himself differently, with his height varying between 5ft 7inches and 5ft 9inches (1.70m to 1.75m) and his weight, between 80 and 150lbs (36kg to 68kg).

After chatting with them via e-mail, he would arrange to meet the women in their country.

A few even visited him in Singapore, where they would meet in hotels.

The judge said the relationships he sought 'did not appear to be for long term or of a deep nature as the recorded conversations showed that they were of a superficial rather than intellectual nature'.

He added: 'It is uncertain what the ages of the women were, but from the conversations, they were not very mature ones.'

The woman's lawyer, Ms Foo Siew Fong from Harry Elias Partnership, claimed they were young girls.

LOOKING FOR LOVE

The man's lawyer, Senior Counsel Quek Mong Hua and Tan Siew Kim from Lee & Lee, said his client was 'merely looking for love'.

And that it was not the court's business to express approval, or even attempt to regulate what an adult could or should do with his private romantic life.

Justice Choo said: 'The (husband's) amorous correspondence on the Internet may not be illegal and may not be harmful to the children if they were kept out of it.'

He added: 'I have no criticism for the respondent even if he prefers a physical, rather than metaphysical, relationship with women.

But he had to consider this factor in deciding who would be more suitable in providing the care and attention that is best for the three young children.

As such, said Justice Choo, the wife 'appears to be a better role model'.

As for the division of their matrimonial property, the judge allowed the couple to stick to the terms of their pre-nuptial agreement.

This is believed to be the first reported judgment by a Singapore court, upholding a pre-nuptial agreement.

About two weeks before the couple got married in the early 1990s in Europe, they signed a pre-nuptial agreement before a notary public.

In it, they said they were each to keep their own assets if they split up.

The man and his family moved here in the late 1990s when he was posted here.

About six years later, their marriage broke down.

In 2003, the wife - a Singapore permanent resident - left him and rented her own flat.

She filed for divorce in March the next year.

The judge said the three kids seem attached to both parents, and they get along with one another extremely well.

The man wanted his children back in his home country as his parents are there and they can look after them while he is at work.

Education for them there is also free, as they are citizens. Whereas in Singapore, they have to pay a total of about $45,000 a year, he argued.

The man claims that his wife is not a caring parent because when she left him in 2004, she also left the children in the care of the maid.

However, the wife argued that after a short absence from the home, she came back in the evenings to look after them.

Ms Foo said that her client continued to take her youngest child to school, have dinner with all of them, help them with their schoolwork and put them to bed.

She was also the primary caregiver of the children for much of her elder son's early years.

She didn't have a full-time job until 2002.

Her five-day-week job also does not require her to travel, unlike her husband who has to travel frequently.

Also, the wife argued, the children have been in Singapore from a young age and they have friends here.

She pointed out out that apart from his Internet chats, her husband also has been in breach of seven court orders between April and October 2005.

He also had his security bond of $50,000 forfeited when he failed to return them to Singapore after taking the children overseas for a holiday.

That was in 2005, when he was having interim custody of the kids.

She eventually got the children back in Singapore after she got a court order.

Justice Choo noted that the issue of custody, care and control of children in a divorce case must be made in the best interests of children.

He said: 'What would be their best interests is a complex question that differs from family to family.'

He said that even though their oldest son has told the court and the child psychologist that he wants to return to his home country, one must not place too much weight on the personal preference of the teenage boy 'mature as he might appear to be'.

The judge decided against splitting the three kids - the boy with the husband and the girls with the wife - as it wouldn't be unfair to the woman who would have a more difficult role due to the needs of the younger girl.

The children being close to one another was a 'strong reason to keep them together', said Justice Choo, in ruling that the wife should be given custody of her three children.

As for their maintenance, he ordered that the father contributes $1,200 per month to each of the children, and to pay a lump sum of $150,000 to his wife.

When approached for comment, MsFoo told The New Paper on Sunday: 'My client is very happy that the judge has awarded her care and control of the child.

'She is very satisfied that the judiciary in Singapore places the welfare of the children as its paramount consideration.'

Case believed to be first here to uphold pre-nuptial agreement.
:rock:

**mrleech** · 30-07-2007, 04:05 PM

OMG!

This is really *cant find the word for it*.
Use his son's name. Want to have fun, but no balls to use his own name? Sigh.

**Spade** · 30-07-2007, 04:08 PM

moral of the story? once u get married you chained married

**everburn** · 30-07-2007, 04:14 PM

Why use his son's name, there's are so many other names...

**killtheblackkat** · 30-07-2007, 04:17 PM

he deserves it totally.

**uyen** · 30-07-2007, 08:27 PM

he is too much,.losing respect from his family too.

akiechan · 30-07-2007, 09:43 PM

Master degrees director doing such things:speechless: Aren't their knowledge supposed to "guide" them?

**genzo2106** · 30-07-2007, 09:56 PM

the man is simply horrible.Hw could he have implicted his son into his outrageous acts of infidelity???

**mendy** · 30-07-2007, 10:14 PM

TS:
if by stating "HE USES SON'S NAME FOR ONLINE SEX CHATS"
it should be a case that's a dad been using his son's name for online chats and the "main" points wasn't just on that too but ... also custody of the three children...

	Quote:
	As for their maintenance, he ordered that the father contributes $1,200 per month to each of the children, and to pay a lump sum of $150,000 to his wife.

this bitch is really going to be the ****ing rich bitch after getting 150,000$ every month from her "ex" husband...
and i think that's a huge sum of money to stuff in that woman's mouth,,,

-----
as for the judge case.
as least he did split the child in the end...
if not he'll going be swear by me.
firstly by visiting these women.
for me personally i don't find that's a "wrong doings" etc...
rich guys are normally like that,,,
and why the hell did he does that?
maybe the marriage between his and his ex wife that period of time wasn't good and she's demanding etc...
so what can he do to get "love" etc?
of cause find another woman...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

**burtonho1990** · 30-07-2007, 10:38 PM

kinda desperate :love4:

**KaLeen** · 31-07-2007, 01:01 AM

crazy father...his son should lose reapect to him

**diggingforbucks** · 31-07-2007, 01:06 AM

I think he is stupid. Want to hide identity also use a non-existing name. Why use his son's?? He wan to spoil his son's reputation?