fc_judgments: 3

Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources

This data as json

_id _item_id tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _commit
3 2055812cb97cf049461d86b172683e817fa2bee0 
[
    "Family Law \u2013 Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 \u2013 Guardianship \u2013 Relocation \u2013 Return of Children \u2013 Custody \u2013 Care and Control \u2013 Access \u2013 Children Maintenance"
]
 2023-12-06 Family Court Originating Summons (Guardianship) No. 8 of 2023 & Originating Summons (Guardianship) No. 40 of 2023 WSH v WSI and another matter [2023] SGFC 40 https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F30753-SSP.xml 
[
    "Father, Litigant-in-Person",
    "Mother, Litigant-in-Person"
]
 2023-12-13T16:00:00Z[GMT] Jason Gabriel Chiang <root><head><title>WSH v WSI and another matter</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WSH <em>v</em> WSI and another matter </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30753-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 40</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Originating Summons (Guardianship) No. 8 of 2023 &amp; Originating Summons (Guardianship) No. 40 of 2023</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">06 December 2023</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Jason Gabriel Chiang </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Father, Litigant-in-Person; Mother, Litigant-in-Person </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> WSH — WSI </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Guardianship of Infants Act 1934</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Guardianship</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Relocation</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Return of Children</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Custody</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Care and Control</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Access</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Children Maintenance</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">6 December 2023</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1       The breakdown of any long-term relationship can bring about significant complications. The breakdown of a union involving transnational parties has the potential to bring about even more complex issues, particularly when there are disputes over the care arrangements of young children and where they should live.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       This matter involved competing applications under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (“<b>GIA</b>”), by both the Father and the Mother, who were divorcing transnationals, in relation to two (2) young children: the 1<sup>st</sup> son aged 6 (“<b>Eldest Son</b>”) and the 2<sup>nd</sup> son aged 2 (“<b>Youngest Son</b>”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “<b>Children</b>”). The Father filed FC/OSG 8/2023 (“<b>OSG 8</b>”) and the Mother filed FC/OSG 40/2023 (“<b>OSG 40</b>”). The Father is the Plaintiff in OSG 8 and the Defendant in OSG 40 (the “<b>Father</b>”) and the Mother is the Plaintiff in OSG 40 and the Defendant in OSG 8 (the “<b>Mother</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       At the crux of this case, the Court was given the heavy task of intervening when the transnational parents could not reach a consensus on the care arrangements for their two (2) young Children, including which of two (2) countries they would reside in. Additionally, the Court also had to grapple with the issues of the custody, care and control of and access to the Children and the sharing of parental responsibilities for the maintenance of the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Facts </p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Parties </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The Father is in his early 40s. He was an Indian Citizen but acquired Singapore Citizenship in 2005 after completing his university studies in Singapore. He is, however, still considered as an Overseas Citizen of India (“<b>OCI</b>”; a form of permanent residency available to people of Indian origin and their spouses which allows them to live and work in India indefinitely).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       The Mother is in her mid-30s and is an Indian Citizen. She, however, acquired Singapore Permanent Residency (“<b>PR</b>”) Status in 2013. Her PR status was then renewed in 2018.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       Parties were married on 8 July 2012 in Singapore, and shortly thereafter, had further wedding celebrations in India. Parties only resided together in Singapore from March to December 2012 for about 9 months. Then, in 2013, the Mother relocated to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“<b>UAE</b>”) for a period of time, with the Father making regular weekend trips to visit the Mother in the UAE. In 2014, the Parties jointly relocated to Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America (“<b>USA</b>”) for the Mother’s Master of Business Administration (“<b>MBA</b>”) studies. The Father initially only found work a state away in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, in August 2014 and would do weekly commutes to be with the Mother. He then managed to find work in Boston, USA, in May 2015 and continued to work there until 2020. The Father also managed to get a USA Green Card (i.e. USA Permanent Residency Status).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       The Eldest Son was born in Boston, USA on xxx 2017. The Parties continued to reside there for another 3 years thereafter. In April 2020, the Father found a new and better job in Singapore, and the Father, the Mother and Eldest Son relocated to Singapore. This was during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Mother continued to work for her USA-based company remotely, before subsequently finding work with a Singapore multinational technology company headquartered in Singapore. In June 2021, the Parties purchased a luxury condominium at the seafront (the “<b>Matrimonial Home</b>”), which was held in the Father’s sole name as the Mother was only a Singapore PR and not a Singapore Citizen. The Father applied for Singapore Citizenship for the Eldest Son, but this was withdrawn, purportedly because the Mother did not want the Eldest Son to have Singapore citizenship. This was disputed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       In July 2021, the Eldest Son, the Father and the Mother, who was then 33 weeks’ pregnant with the Parties’ 2<sup>nd</sup> child flew to Houston, Texas, USA, for the birth of the Youngest Son on 23 August 2021. After the birth, they continued to reside there for about 3 months before returning to Singapore. It is disputed as to whose idea this was for them to have the birth of the Youngest Son in Houston, USA, but the intention was to allow the Youngest Son to have USA Citizenship, similar to the Eldest Son.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       Thus, at all material times, the Children were USA citizens and were residing in Singapore under Long-Term Visit Passes (“<b>LTVPs</b>”). The Father did eventually apply for the Children to be Singapore PRs, purportedly without the Mother’s Consent in November 2022, after they had already left for India and this Singapore PR Status was only approved in July 2023 in the middle of the contested proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Background to the dispute</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     In March 2022, Parties encountered marital issues. Both Parties accused the other of committing abuse. In any event, it is undisputed that the Mother took the Children to India. The Parties had initially been planned for a short trip of about a week, but the Mother stayed there with the Children for about 3 months. This was the Parties’ 1<sup>st</sup> separation. Parties managed to reconcile and the Mother and the Children returned to Singapore in May 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     On 20 November 2022, there was an alleged event of family violence, where the Mother claimed that the Father had, among other things, strangled her. The Father also alleged that the Mother was violent to him. These allegations were disputed. While the Mother initially filed for a personal protection order in Singapore, she did not pursue it. The Mother purportedly raised these allegations for determination in Indian proceedings. As of the reporting of this decision, there has been no court determination on these allegations either in Singapore or in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12     After this alleged event in November 2022, the Mother took the Children and left the Matrimonial Home to reside with a friend in Singapore. After a couple of days, she decided to take the Children overseas to India to be with her family. This was a few days earlier than an overseas trip that had been planned prior to the incident. The Father subsequently travelled to India to try to reconcile with the Mother but was unsuccessful and returned to Singapore by himself. The Mother and the Children then failed to return to Singapore from India in early January 2023 as previously planned.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     On 17 January 2023, the Father promptly filed for the guardianship of the Children in OSG 8 and, among other things, requested for the Children to be returned to Singapore. At the 1<sup>st</sup> Case Conference for OSG 8 on 25 January 2023, by consent, the Father was granted interim virtual access.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     Subsequently, the Father also filed for divorce in Singapore on 21 February 2023 (“<b>Divorce Proceedings</b>”). As at the time of this decision, pleadings have completed and Parties were due to proceed with a contested divorce trial. However, both parties have filed multiple interim applications, which is elaborated on subsequently in paragraph 28.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     The Mother, on 27 March 2023, also filed for the guardianship of the Children in OSG 40, which included seeking on order for the Court to allow the Children to continue residing in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     The Parties attempted Court-mandated mediation for OSG 8, OSG 40 and the Divorce Proceedings holistically, but were unable to resolve their issues.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     Overall, parties filed multiple affidavits for the contested OSG 8 and OSG 40 proceedings:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="10.56%"><col width="18.94%"><col width="70.5%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/N</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Date</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Affidavit</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(a)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">17 Jan 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Supporting Affidavit for OSG 8</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(b)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">19 Jan 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Affidavit of Service in OSG 8</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(c)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">27 Mar 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother’s Supporting Affidavit for OSG 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(d)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">24 Apr 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Reply Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(e)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">24 Apr 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">3 Affidavits in support of the Father by his elder brother, a friend and by friends jointly as a couple</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(f)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2 May 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Supplementary Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(g)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">15 May 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother’s Reply Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(h)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">15 May 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4 Affidavits in support of the Mother by her father, mother, younger sister and brother-in-law</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(i)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">19 Jun 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Supplementary Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(j)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">28 Jun 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother’s Reply Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(k)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4 Aug 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Translator’s Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(l)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">17 Aug 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mother’s Affidavit in responses to queries from the Court in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(m)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">25 Aug 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Translator’s Affidavit in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(n)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">25 Aug 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Affidavit in responses to queries from the Court in OSG 8 &amp; 40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(o)</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">25 Aug 23</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father’s Indian Lawyer’s Affidavit to update on Indian Proceedings</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18     The Mother filed her 1<sup>st</sup> Written Submissions with a Bundle of Authorities annexed on 30 June 2023 (“<b>Mother’s 1<sup>st</sup> Submissions</b>”), and the Father filed his 1<sup>st</sup> Written Submissions on 3 July 2023 (“<b>Father’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Submissions</b>”) with a separate Bundle of Authorities.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     Given the expressed urgency, this matter had been fixed for a half-day hearing for 11 July 2023. Both the Father and the Mother initially had legal representation, but by the time of this hearing, both of them had discharged their lawyers and were self-represented. The Father filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person on 20 June 2023 for OSG 8 and the Divorce Proceedings. The Mother then filed her Notice of Intention to Act in Person on 8 July 2023 for OSG 8, OSG 40 and the Divorce Proceedings, after the 1<sup>st</sup> Written Submissions had been filed by her lawyers. The Father then filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person in OSG 40 on 9 July 2023. With regard to the Mother’s initial lawyer and then, replacement lawyer, the Father made certain allegations of conflict of interest, before the Mother had discharged their services. In any event, throughout the proceedings of OSG 8 and OSG 40, both the Father and the Mother confirmed with the Court that while they did not have legal representation for the contested proceedings of OSG 8 and 40, they consulted lawyers within Singapore on various matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20     At the 1<sup>st</sup> half-day hearing on 11 July 2023 (the “<b>1<sup>st</sup> Hearing</b>”), significant issues were raised. Given the significant number of issues raised in the hearing, oral arguments could not be completed within that 1<sup>st</sup> half-day hearing. Additionally, Parties were directed to provide further written submissions and affidavits on a list of issues. As such, further urgent half-day hearings were fixed on 10 August 2023 (the “<b>2<sup>nd</sup> Hearing</b>”) for the completion of oral arguments and on 31 August 2023 (the “<b>3<sup>rd</sup> Hearing</b>”) for rebuttals, decision and costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     By consent, further interim virtual access orders were made at the 1<sup>st</sup> Hearing, which helped to clarify the Father’s and Mother’s responsibilities in facilitating such access (“<b>Interim Virtual Access Orders</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     Between the 1<sup>st</sup> Hearing and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Hearing, the Father filed FC/SUM 2355/2023 (“<b>SUM 2355</b>”) in OSG 8 on 25 July 2023 for leave to commence committal proceedings against the Mother for purported breaches of the Interim virtual access orders. However, the Father decided to withdraw SUM 2355 at the 2<sup>nd</sup> Hearing, when procedural irregularities were highlighted to him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     The Father filed his 2<sup>nd</sup> Written Submissions on 4 August 2023 (“<b>Father’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Submissions</b>”) with a supplementary bundle of authorities, and then filed a 2<sup>nd</sup> supplementary bundle of authorities on 7 August 2023. The Mother filed an Affidavit on 17 August 2023 as her written submissions on the outstanding matters (“<b>Mother’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Submissions</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24     The Parties completed their oral arguments in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Hearing. A day after, the Father filed in the Divorce Proceedings on 11 August 2023, an <em>ex parte</em> application seeking a Mareva Injunction (“<b>Mareva Injunction Proceedings</b>”). The Father was heard by a duty judge on 14 August 2023 and was directed to provide further evidence and to notify the Mother. On 21 August 2023, Mareva Injunction Proceedings was heard on an <em>ex parte</em> basis, with the Mother observing on a watching brief having been provided 2 hours prior notice of the hearing. Given the evidence provided and arguments made, a Mareva Injunction was ordered.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     At the 3<sup>rd</sup> Hearing on 31 August 2023, having carefully considered Parties’ 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Submissions and various oral arguments, I rendered my oral decision. My orders are summarized as follows (more specific terms are elaborated on below in paragraph 140):</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_25-p2_a"></a>(a)     OSG 8 was dismissed;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_25-p2_b"></a>(b)     In relation to OSG 40:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i)       parties were to share joint custody of the Children;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       the Mother was allowed to remain in Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India (“<b>Noida</b>”) for the relocation of the Children;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>(iii)       until further order or written agreement between parties, the Children’s current education arrangements in Noida, shall remain as status quo;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_iv"></a>(iv)       the Father was granted daily virtual access, and unsupervised physical access to the Children in Noida;</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_v"></a>(v)       the Father was to pay monthly Children maintenance of S$2,750.00 (being S$1,350.00 for each);</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_vi"></a>(vi)       there be no order as to costs; and</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_25-p2_b-p3_vii"></a>(vii)       liberty to apply.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     The Father being dissatisfied with my decision filed an appeal, HCF/DCA 87/2023 (“<b>DCA 87</b>”) for my decision in OSG 8 on 6 September 2023 and filed another appeal HCF/DCA 88/2023 (“<b>DCA 88</b>”) for my decision in OSG 40 on 7 September 2023. The Mother did not appeal against either of my decisions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     On 9 September 2023, the Father filed for an expedited appeal in DCA 87 and 88, which was heard on 18 and 20 October 2023 and dismissed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     Separately, since my decision in OSG 8 &amp; 40, as at the time of this reported decision, Parties have also filed other summons proceedings in the Divorce Proceedings:-</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_a"></a>(a)     the Father, on 11 September 2023, also filed an application for leave to commence committal proceedings on the basis of the Mother’s failure to make disclosure pursuant to the Mareva Injunction, which was allowed on 15 September 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_b"></a>(b)     the Mother filed an application to set aside the Mareva Injunction, among other things (“<b>Setting Aside Proceedings</b>”);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_c"></a>(c)     the Father filed an application for committal proceedings against the Mother (“<b>Committal Proceedings</b>”); and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_d"></a>(d)     the Mother filed an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of <em>forum non conveniens</em> in favour of Indian divorce proceedings which were filed after the decisions in OSG 8 and 40, but were purportedly yet to be served on the Father (“<b>Stay Proceedings</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>The Setting Aside Proceedings was dismissed on 8 November 2023 and the Mother was found to be guilty of breaching orders of disclosure in the Committal Proceedings. Stay Proceedings have yet to be determined as of the date of this reporting. Hence, contested Divorce Proceedings have not commenced pending the determination of the Stay Proceedings. It is fairly evident that matters remain fairly contentious between the Parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29     In the circumstances, the full grounds of my decision are provided below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issues to be determined </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30     Given the different positions taken by the Mother and Father, the following issues that had to be considered in this matter were:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_a"></a>(a)     Custody of the Children;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_b"></a>(b)     Whether to reverse relocation or to order the return of the Children;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_c"></a>(c)     Care and Control of the Children;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_d"></a>(d)     Education of the Children;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_e"></a>(e)     Access to the Children; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_30-p2_f"></a>(f)     Children Maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31     There were also some preliminary issues that were raised, which I have touched on briefly before delving into the key issues:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_31-p2_a"></a>(a)     Whether Singapore has the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_31-p2_b"></a>(b)     Whether OSG 40 should have been applied as a summons application in the Divorce Proceedings;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_31-p2_c"></a>(c)     Whether the Family Court has the power to direct the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority to prevent a person from leaving Singapore?</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_31-p2_d"></a>(d)     Whether the Family Court can direct that thee be Mirror Orders in Indian Proceedings?</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Preliminary Issue 1: Whether Singapore has the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32     The OSG 8 and 40 proceedings were complicated by the fact that the Mother had also simultaneously pursued Indian proceedings which include a custody petition and a domestic violence case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33     There were no concurrent personal protection order applications in Singapore on family violence, even though the purported acts occurred in Singapore, and instead, these allegations were pursued in India. In any event, the Indian domestic violence case did not significantly overlap with the subject matter of OSG 8 and 40.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34     However, the Mother’s custody proceedings in India had a clear overlap with both the OSG Proceedings and the Divorce Proceedings in Singapore, which could result in a multiplicity of proceedings with potentially different outcomes. The Father had claimed that his Indian Counsel had filed for the dismissal of the Mother’s case in India on jurisdictional issues, but such a hearing would take a further 6 to 8 months. It is unclear whether there has been any determination of this after my orders in OSG 8 and 40.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35     Both Parties admitted that the progress on the Indian custody proceedings had been slow and could take a few years if it is not dismissed on jurisdictional issues, whereas for the OSG 8 and 40, were heard within a few months from commencement and determination was rendered in a significantly shorter time frame.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36     Both Parties also acknowledged that there were mechanisms to enforce Singapore orders in India, and that deference may be given to the Singapore Orders in OSG 8 and 40 for international comity.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37     It is noteworthy that neither side had filed for a stay of Singapore OSG Proceedings or an anti-suit injunction to prevent the Indian Proceedings from moving forward. Hence, I did not have to make a determination as to whether Singapore was the most appropriate forum to adjudicate these issues in OSG 8 and 40.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38     Both the Father and the Mother submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts for the proceedings under the GIA and would be bound by the decisions reached in these proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Preliminary Issue 2: Whether OSG 40 should have been applied as a summons application in the Divorce Proceedings</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39     I move on to the next preliminary issue that was raised by the Father, of whether OSG 40 should have been a Summons Application in the Divorce Proceedings, instead.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40     When OSG 8 was commenced, there were no divorce proceedings, but when OSG 40 was commenced, the Divorce Proceedings had already been filed. The Father initially argued that this was improper, but in subsequent submissions he acknowledged that this was not a crucial issue on hindsight.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41     In this case, given that the Father filed OSG 8, the Mother was at liberty to file OSG 40, as this would be competing claims on an equal footing. If the Mother were to commence proceedings under the Divorce Proceedings the effect of any order made would have the status of being an interim order as opposed to a final order in the OSG matters. Additionally, I took the Mother’s point that if there were any withdrawal of the divorce, then that would invariably do away with her case. Hence there was valid practical effect to have it filed as OSG 40 instead.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42     Most importantly, there is no prohibition, in law, that prevents a party from commencing proceedings under the GIA, when there are divorce proceedings commenced. While there may be practical considerations for the management of such cases, the Mother was not incorrect in commencing OSG 40 when Divorce Proceedings had already been commenced.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Preliminary Issue 3: Whether the Family Court has the power to direct Immigration and Checkpoint Authority to prevent a person from leaving Singapore?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43     As part of OSG 8, the Father was initially seeking an order for the Court to direct the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority (“<b>ICA</b>”) to prevent a person from leaving Singapore and/or removing the Children from Singapore, assuming that the Court were to agree in ordering the return of the Children to Singapore. This is very different from the power of the Court to restrain a party from taking of the Children out of Singapore pursuant to section 131 of the Women’s Charter 1961, which is imposed on the parent and not the ICA. The Father subsequently acknowledged that the Court did not have the power to order the ICA to do such things and abandoned its pursuit in response to directions for further submissions on this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44     As an alternative, the Father instead sought for the Children’s travel documents to be held by him or a neutral party. The possession of the Children’s Passports is an issue that does come under the ambit of custody issues, which is dealt with subsequently in this decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Preliminary Issue 4: Whether the Family Court can direct that there be Mirror Orders in Indian proceedings?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45     In relation to the Father’s request for this Court to order that any orders made in OSG 8 and 40 be mirrored in the orders in India, I had questioned him about the legal basis for the Singapore Family Courts to make such an order to bind the Indian Courts.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46     In response, the Father had cited the high court decision of <b><em>VLI v VLJ </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26340-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGHCF 27</a></b> (“<b><em>VLI v VLJ</em></b>”) decided by Justice Debbie Ong was in relation to whether the Family Courts had the power to direct a husband to apply for a pass for the wife in divorce proceedings. While this is not the same as the Husband’s request, it is an analogous on the basic principle that the Family Court cannot go beyond the provided statutes to exercise inherent jurisdiction to make orders and also applies in relation to preliminary issue 3 above.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47     Ordering that the orders reached in Singapore be mirrored in India would be an issue of international comity. Just as our Family Courts would have to consider the foreign orders and relevant arguments before making any mirror orders in Singapore, the Family Court would not be able to insist that the Indian Couts mirror the orders made here. It would, however, be practical for the Parties to make the necessary orders to be mirrored, but the Court is in no position to impose this obligation on the Indian Courts.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Key Issue 1: Custody of the Children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48     Having addressed these preliminary issues briefly, I move on to the key issue of the custody of the 2 Children aged 6 and 2 years respectively. As explained to the Parties, this entailed a bundle of rights involving major decisions, such as relocation, education, religion and major medical intervention.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49     Both Parties had began their respective applications both seeking sole custody of the Children. At the 1<sup>st</sup> Hearing, I had highlighted to Parties to consider the landmark Court of Appeal case of <b><em>CX v CY </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2005] 3 SLR(R) 0690.xml')">[2005] 3 SLR(R) 690</a></b> (“<b><em>CX v CY</em></b>”) that for the Court to depart from the default position of joint custody, that there would need to be exceptional reasons as to why sole custody needed to be ordered (see particularly at [39] of <b><em>CX v CY</em></b>).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50     The Father subsequently clarified at the 1<sup>st</sup> Hearing and in the Father’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Submissions that he sought sole custody for the primary reason of preventing any further purported abduction of the Children, and since considering the case of <b><em>CX v CY</em></b>, he was willing to agree to joint custody.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51     With regard to the Mother’s position, she was of the view that cooperation with the Father was “<em>impossible</em>” given that the Father was purportedly raising further acrimony. The Mother had argued that if the Father were willing to work on his behavioural issues and take steps towards reducing acrimony, that only then, would she find joint custody to be appropriate. The Mother cited the Father’s purported abusive acts towards her, being allegedly deceitful in hearings and also cited an incident on 20 May 2023 where the Father had gone to the Eldest Son’s School in Noida. She had also raised the issue of the Father’s foul and abusive language over correspondence. The Mother alleged that the Father had made false accusations about access and that he had meddled with the marital finances and made unilateral decisions against the Children’s best interest and had jeopardized the Children’s education.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52     In relation to the allegations of abusive acts, it was undisputed that there was an alleged incident on 19 November 2022, however, the alleged violent acts were unclear save that there was a purported strangling. A personal protection order application was filed and withdrawn and that there was no determination on such allegations in the Indian domestic violence proceedings. The Mother did confirm at the 1<sup>st</sup> Hearing that there had not been any physical abuse of the Children. The Mother, however, alleged that the Father had called them names and had thrown items around the house, even though it was not directed at any particular person. These allegations, even if they could be proven to be true, did not amount to the issues of abuse that would disqualify a parent from having joint custody.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53     Regarding the Father’s unkind words, having reviewed both sides’ correspondence, it is fair to say that both Parties have exchanged some heated words and could have been a lot less acrimonious in their exchanges, but that also did not rise up to the level that it would make it so acrimonious to disallow joint custody.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54     Allegations of financial abuse and/or mismanagement were definitely troubling, and this would need to be further investigated in the appropriate forum at an appropriate time, but once again, that would not disqualify a parent from sharing joint custody. This similarly applied for disputes over access arrangements, while the Court may need to intervene to resolve issues, this did not warrant granting only 1 parent sole custody.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55     On the issue of the Father’s purported unilateral decisions and messing with the Children’s education, it is noted, that the Mother has made unliteral decisions as well. The fact that there were such allegations of unilateral decisions actually makes it more pertinent that the parents were to be reminded that they cannot make major decisions on their own and that they have to make major decisions for the Children as co-parents. If such agreement was not forthcoming, then the Court would need to intervene and make the relevant decision, but only as a last resort.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56     I agreed with the Father that as stated in <b><em>CX v CY</em></b> at [26] that has since been oft-repeated in multiple subsequent cases that “<em>the welfare of a child is best secured by letting him enjoy the love, care and support of both parents. The understanding is that a child will feel more secure if both his parents continue to be involved in his life</em>”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57     In the circumstances, I found no reason to depart from the status quo of joint custody. It is in the Children’s best welfare that both their Parents remain involved in the necessary decision making for major decisions and that the Parents are reminded of this joint responsibility.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Key Issue 2: Whether to reverse relocation and to order the return of the Children?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58     Having determined that the status quo of joint custody should be maintained, I next delve into the key issue of where the Children should reside, i.e., whether to order that the relocation of the Children to Noida be reversed and order their return to Singapore or to allow them to continue to reside in Noida.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59     Before we delve into the law on relocation, I first deal with the factual dispute as to whether or not the Father had consented to the Mother on the relocation, which is discuss below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Was consent provided?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60     Given that there was no order on custody and that joint custody remained unchanged, all major decisions for the Children should have been made jointly instead of unilaterally. The issue of relocating from Singapore to India would definitely be a major decision. Additionally, enrolling the Children in a school and applying for Permanent Residency status would also be major decision, which will be touched upon below.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61     With regard to this, the Mother claimed that she had embarked on the relocation with the Father’s knowledge and consent, whereas the Father insisted that she had instead abducted the Children and that all he had consented to was for her to bring the Children to India for a planned holiday, albeit a few days early.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62     The Mother’s case was that the Court should believe her that the Father had provided consent for the relocation of the Children because:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_a"></a>(a)     she and the Children had resided in India during the previous separation, between March and May 2022, after a purported incident of the Father beating her when the Eldest Son had a high fever. The Mother further asserted that in a conversation in April 2022, the Father had proposed for them to either continue living in India or to figure out how they were going to reside in Singapore;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_b"></a>(b)     then in October 2022, the Mother had stated that if there were to be a divorce, she would not continue to live in Singapore and would want to go back to India, to which, the Father purportedly responded that “<em>that is for you to decide</em>”;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_c"></a>(c)     subsequently, on 20 November 2022 after the purported incident of family violence on 19 November 2022, when the Mother was staying with a friend in Singapore, the Father purportedly sent a message that “<em>[y]ou are welcome to come back anytime …. I don’t mind if you need to take them to India</em>”;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_d"></a>(d)     additionally, in the 9 months prior, the Mother alleged that relocation had been discussed and the Father had purportedly agreed to relocating back to India; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_62-p2_e"></a>(e)     in general, the Father had purportedly allowed the Mother to “<em>figure out children’s arrangements</em>” by herself.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63     While, on the face of this narrative, there appeared to be an agreement for the Mother and the Children to spend some time in India, there did not appear to be sufficient evidence to support the Mother’s case that the Father had unequivocally agreed to a permanent relocation of the Children to India. A past living arrangement for a separation period did not mean that there was consent for a future permanent relocation. The statements made in October and November 2022 were also ambiguous and subject to interpretation. More importantly, the purported discussions on relocating back to India were not corroborated by any documentary evidence and seem to indicate her personal views on wanting to return to India as opposed to a joint position. Additionally, just because the Mother claimed to be the primary parent making arrangements for the Children did not mean that this provided her with <em>carte blanche</em> or implicit consent for a permanent relocation of the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64     Apposite to the Mother’s arguments, the Father strongly denied that he had provided any such consent for relocation. He had provided evidence of him sending emails to certain law firms. He claimed that this was to seek legal advice on how to apply for an injunction to prevent the Mother from removing the Children from Singapore. In this regard, the emails provided only went as far as to show that the Father was looking for legal advice, but did not specifically go towards corroborating his intention to seek an injunction. However, what is significant is that very shortly after the Mother and the Children failed to return back to Singapore after the intended date of return of 3 January 2023, the Father did apply for OSG 8 swiftly by 17 January 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65     In the circumstances, given that the Mother had the burden to prove her assertions, I found that she had not discharged her burden to prove that the Father had provided consent for the Mother to permanently relocate the Children to India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66     While parties can consent to the relocation, the lack of consent is not fatal to the application. The Court can still determine whether the relocation should be allowed. In this case, the Mother had jumped the gun and unilaterally relocated herself and the Children without seeking the necessary Court intervention.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Is the Hague Convention/International Child Abduction Act 2010 applicable?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_67"></a>67     The Father had initially argued that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (25October 1980) 1343 UNTS 89 (entered into force 1 December 1983) (“<b>Hague Convention</b>”) should apply. However, while Singapore is a signatory, India is neither a contracting party with Singapore, nor is India a signatory to this Hague Convention. Hence, there is basis for an immediate return of the Children to their place of habitual residence before this change in residence, which would have been Singapore, pursuant to section 6 of the International Child Abduction Act 2010 (“<b>ICAA</b>”). The Father then argued that by analogy, the principles applicable to the Hague Convention should also apply to the present case. However, to do so, would be circumventing the intent under the ICAA which only applies to contracting states.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_68"></a>68     Moreover, the application for the return of the child to the former place of habitual residence under the Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Act 2010 only relate to the forum to determine issues of the child’s welfare. As clarified at [29] to [34] of <b><em>TDX v TDY </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17573-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGHCF 4</a>; <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17919-SSP.xml')">[2015] 4 SLR 982</a></b> (“<b><em>TDX v TDY</em></b>”), particularly at [31], that under the Hague Convention regime, “<em>the habitual residence of the child is the sole criterion in determining which court should decide on the child’s substantive welfare</em>”. Upon application, the Court would still need to determine where the child should reside as a part of the child’s substantive welfare.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69     A clear example of this is shown in the case of <b><em>UYK v UYJ </em></b><b>[2020]] SGHCF 9; <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25444-SSP.xml')">[2020] 5 SLR 772</a></b> (“<b><em>UYK v UYG</em></b>”), where the father had successfully obtained orders in the United Kingdom (“<b>UK</b>”) under their Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c 60) (UK), which obligated the mother and child to return to Singapore. The mother then applied for sole care and control of the child and relocation of the child from Singapore to the UK. This was granted by the district judge and upheld on appeal. Hence, even though the Hague Convention and ICAA were inapplicable in this case, given both Parties’ submission to jurisdiction, the Court is at liberty to determine the substantive child welfare issues raised in OSG 8 and 40, such as the relocation.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Relocation Principles</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_70"></a>70     Hence, I move on to the relevant authorities and applicable legal principles on relocation for guidance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71     The key principles that the Court has to consider for a relocation, as stated in the Court of Appeal case of <b><em>BNS v BNT </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17588-SSP.xml')">[2015] 3 SLR 973</a></b> (“<b><em>BNS v BNT</em></b>”) is the paramount consideration of the best welfare of the children. Providing further guidance on this, is the High Court case held by Justice Debbie Ong in <b><em>UFZ v UFY </em></b><b>[2018] SGHCF 823; <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/22303-SSP.xml')">[2018] 4 SLR 1350</a></b> (“<b><em>UFZ v UFY</em></b>”) that 2 important factors to balance are:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_71-p2_a"></a>(a)     the reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver: and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_71-p2_b"></a>(b)     the children’s loss of relationship with the left-behind parent.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72     Each case is an intensely fact centric exercise. The factors that the Court can consider include “<em>the child’s age, the child’s attachment to each parent and other significant persons in the child’s life, the child’s wellbeing in her present country of residence, as well as the child’s developmental needs at that particular stage of life, including her cognitive, emotional, academic and physical needs</em>” (See <b><em>UXH v UXI </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23882-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 24</a></b> (“<b><em>UXH v UXI</em></b>”) at [28])</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73     The Court in <b><em>UYK v UYG</em></b>, the High Court also delved into the issue of well-settledness at [51] to [52]:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">51    The Father’s case heavily emphasised C’s well-settledness in Singapore. I agreed that whether a child is wellsettled in Singapore is a relevant factor that should be given appropriate weight. It was also important, however, to bear in mind that in a globalised world, families are geographically mobile and adaptable, and the <em>weight to be placed on well-settledness will depend on other related circumstances including how many years the child has lived in that country, the age of the child, and whether that country has been the family’s home for many years.</em></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">52    Well-settledness in a country is also not an immutable circumstance that can never change. The passage of time and support from a loving parent can enable a child to adapt well to transitions in life… [emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_74"></a>74     Overall, the Courts duty is to balance all considerations for the welfare of the Children. Applying these principles, there have been cases where relocation was allowed and other cases where it was not, which a briefly reviewed below.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_75"></a>75     In the recent case of <b><em>UYK v UYG</em></b>, as briefly described above in paragraph 69, the mother, who was the primary caregiver, had brought the child to a planned vacation in the UK and did not return. As stated above, the child was ordered to be returned to Singapore, where, upon return, the mother applied for sole care and control and for leave to relocate, both of which were granted. The Father appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. A key factor considered was the Joint Letter of Intention that parties had entered, that provided that in the event of relationship breakdown the mother’s intention was to return to the UK, and while this was not binding, it shed light on parties’ intentions. Another issue was well-settledness of the child. In a globalised world, the weight that is to be given to well-settledness depended on related circumstances, including how many years the child lived in that country, age of the child, whether the country was the family’s home for many years, and acknowledging the child’s ability to adapt to new environments given time and support. Showing relocation to be a necessity was not a requirement but should be considered amongst other factors.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_76"></a>76     It was held in that case that refusing relocation would be to compel the mother to live indefinitely in a country which was not her home where her immigration status was tenuous. The loss of relationship with the left-behind parent was an unfortunate consequence and the trauma of such loss could be mitigated by a willingness and ability of both parties to support substantial access. An inability of relocation would potentially result in a transference of insecurity and negative feelings on to the child under her primary care.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_77"></a>77     However, in <b><em>BNS v BNT</em></b>, relocation was not allowed. This was notwithstanding that the mother and father of the children were both Canadian citizens who were married in 2002 but relocated to Singapore and then moved to Bangkok for work in 2004 where the 2 children were born in 2006 and 2007, before returning to Singapore in 2008. Parties and the Children stayed in Singapore since then. The marriage broke down in 2011. The Court ordered joint custody and interim care and control to the mother. The High Court allowed the appeal of the father, disallowing relocation. The Court held that while a child’s welfare is closely linked to the primary caregiver, the wishes of primary caregiver were not decisive. A child would benefit from continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents and the potential loss of an opportunity to have a meaningful relationship the left behind parent had to be considered.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_78"></a>78     In <b><em>BNS v BNT</em></b>, it was held that the mother displayed hostility to father and given the distance between Singapore and Canada, the existing good relationship between the children and the father would be undermined by relocation. The Court held that on scrutiny of the relocation plans, the motivation to move was to avoid unpleasantness of having to deal with the father rather than seeking emotional and psychological support. The Court further held that the children were young, and it was not appropriate to inflict this sense of displacement.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_79"></a>79     In another case of <b><em>TAA v TAB </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17369-SSP.xml')">[2015] 2 SLR 879</a></b> (“<b><em>TAA v TAB</em></b>”), the High Court disallowed the relocation. The father of the children was a Singapore citizen, whereas the mother was an American citizen. They completed their divorce in Singapore and then the father who married a woman from Spain who had Singapore PR status applied to relocate the 3 children to Spain. In that case, the children had lived their lives in Singapore and the father did not have a concrete plan on relocation to Spain and would entail him finding a new job and the children adjusting to an environment where English was not the main language of communication.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_80"></a>80     In yet another case of <b><em>UXH v UXI</em></b>, the mother, father and 2 children were Portuguese and Singapore PRs. After divorce, the mother had a new British partner and sought to relocate to the UK with the children, but the Children’s entire lives had been in Singapore. Hence, the relocation was not allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_81"></a>81     I will now apply the legal principles as elaborated on in the above cases to this present case.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Who was the primary caregiver of the Children?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_82"></a>82     To determine the reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver, I, first, had to consider whom amongst the parents was the primary caregiver.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_83"></a>83     In this case, while both Parties held jobs, it was clear that the Mother, was the primary caregiver for the Children, and the Father had sought sole care and control, largely to allow him to take back the Children from India if an order was made in his favour. There were hardly any arguments from the Father about how he was the one taking primary care of the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_84"></a>84     Conversely, the Mother had breast fed each of the Children till age 1, was responsible for attending to their daily meals, cleaning and grooming. She was involved in the planning of their activities and was in charge of dropping off and picking the Children up from school, even while they were in Singapore. As the Mother described it, the general day-to-day decisions for the Children were largely made by her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_85"></a>85     Thus, having determined the Mother to be the primary caregiver of the Children, had to consider what her reasonable wishes were and balance this off with the Children’s potential loss of relationship with the left-behind parent.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Necessity &amp; Motive of Relocation</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_86"></a>86     In this case, there was no immediate necessity for relocation. While the Mother was fully entitled to decide not to reside with the Father, living separately from the Father, did not require relocation to another country. The Mother was a Singapore PR, so her residency status was not in issue and she was well able to continue work in Singapore. In fact, as of the time of the decision, she had continued working for the Singapore multinational company whilst in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_87"></a>87     The above-mentioned factors were in favour of the Father’s position. However, as held in <b><em>UYK v UYJ</em></b> [at [67] to [69], necessity was not a requirement, and should be considered with other factors.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_88"></a>88     The Mother had explained that she wanted to extricate herself from the home environment and wanted to protect the Children from the Father’s alleged behaviour. The Mother had initially sought refuge at a friend’s home but had to leave and decided to go to Noida, India earlier than initially scheduled.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_89"></a>89     While Noida is not a location in India that Parties had spent significant time in before, this is where the Mother’s has family support had moved to and her extended family actively assist her in the care of the Children. So, in this case, it was not that the relocation was to avoid unpleasantness of having to deal with the Father rather than seeking emotional and psychological support, unlike in <b><em>BNS v BNT</em></b>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_90"></a>90     As the case law previously cited also suggests, the wellbeing of the Primary Caregiver is closely related to the wellbeing of the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_91"></a>91     Based on text messages exchanged between the Parties, it was explicit that the Mother was desirous of not staying in Singapore if Parties were to get a divorce, and she had already spent a stint of time in India with the Children and her family during an earlier period of separation. To order for the Children to be returned to Singapore would mean that the Mother would have to leave her family support system and return to Singapore, where she does not have a home to go to as the Father insisted on still residing there and she did not want to cohabit in the same home as the Father. Hence, the ordering of the return of the Children would present a logistical challenge and would strain parties’ finances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_92"></a>92     The effect this would have on the Mother had to be taken into consideration as it could also adversely affect the care of the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Parties’ Connection to Singapore – were the Children well-settled in Singapore?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_93"></a>93     Next, I considered how well-settled the Children were in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_94"></a>94     In this case, as stated above, the Father was a Singapore Citizen, and was also an Overseas Citizen of India with a USA Green Card. The Father was originally an Indian Citizen but gained citizenship after studying in Singapore sometime in 2005. Thereafter, the Father lived in the USA, Norway and London for significant stretches of time. The Mother was an Indian Citizen and a Singapore PR since 2013. This PR status was renewed in 2018 and was still valid as of the time of this reporting.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_95"></a>95     Parties were married in Singapore in early July 2012, but conducted their ceremonies in India on the later part of July 2012. Parties had only been residing in Singapore from March to December 2012, before the Mother moved to the UAE and then both parties moved to the USA. Hence, substantially, the Parties had only been living together in Singapore for about 10 months before their return in April 2020.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_96"></a>96     The Children were USA Citizens and Overseas Citizens of India and were originally only in Singapore under LTVPs that were valid till October 2023. However, after the Mother had left with the Children, the Father applied for and obtained Singapore PR statuses for the Children as of July 2023. The Father claimed that this was with the Mother’s consent, but the Mother has vehemently denied granting consent. Notably, Singapore PR status for the Children had only been applied for when Parties were not on good terms, and the Mother and the Children had left for India in November 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_97"></a>97     The Eldest Son who was 6 years old, was not born in Singapore but in the USA and remained there with his parents until he was about 3 years old.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_98"></a>98     Parties relocated to Singapore in April 2020. This coincided with the Father finding new employment in Singapore. The Mother relocated but continued to work remotely for her USA company, but then transitioned to her current job with the Singapore multinational company.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_99"></a>99     It was undisputed that in 2021, the Matrimonial Home in Keppel Bay, Singapore was purchased where Parties and the Children resided at.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_100"></a>100    But in July 2021, the Parties moved back to the Texas, USA for about 3 months for the birth of the Youngest Son who was born in late August 2021. Regardless of who had planned for this, going to Texas, US, was purposefully engineered for the Youngest Son to obtain USA Citizenship.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_101"></a>101    It is undisputed that between March and May 2022, the Parties were separated and the Mother and the Children had resided in India, albeit not Noida, for this period of time.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_102"></a>102    It is also undisputed that the Mother and the Children left for India on 21 November 2022, and have remained there since.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_103"></a>103    So, in summary, the Children had not spent much time living in Singapore:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_103-p2_a"></a>(a)     the Eldest Son had stayed in Singapore for about just under 2 years out of his 6 years of life (i.e. 9 months in 2020, 9 months in 2021, and 7 months in 2022); and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_103-p2_b"></a>(b)     the Youngest Son had stayed in Singapore for about 10 months out of his 2 years of life (i.e. 3 months in 2021, 7 months in 2022).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>During such time, the Children were residing in Singapore only on an LTVP (Singapore PR status was only obtained after they had left Singapore).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_104"></a>104    While enrichment programs were attended by the Eldest Son in Singapore, he had not entered into the formal Singapore school system. It was unclear if there was an intention to send him to local schools of international schools: the Father claimed he was considering local school, whereas the Mother was of the view that they were looking at international schools. Also, his kindergarten studies were disrupted by a 3-month travel to the USA for the birth of the Youngest Son. The Eldest Son had purportedly attended 4 different schools in the US, Singapore and India. The Youngest Son, at his young age, had not much of a social life in Singapore. I was also cognizant of the fact that in almost all of the audio recordings provided by the Father in support of his case, that the Eldest Son spoke primarily in Hindi, and not one of the 4 national languages of Singapore, to the Father and the Father also spoke largely Hindi with him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_105"></a>105    Furthermore, while the Parties made connections with friends in Singapore, they appeared to mostly be of the expatriate community as seen by the persons that they got to file affidavits of support for each of their applications. Moreover, they had relocated in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic where there were restrictions, and the Father was unable to present sufficient evidence of the Parties and the Children having integrated into Singapore culture. In the circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to support the Father’s assertion that Singapore was the Children’s domicile or that they were well-settled in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_106"></a>106    It is curious to note that the Children being born to a Singapore Citizen, would have normally availed them to the option of obtaining Singapore Citizenship, but such Singapore Citizenship was not pursued at any material point in time while the Parties were jointly residing in Singapore. The Father only belatedly sought, in OSG 8, an application seeking the authority to apply for Singapore citizenship for them without the Mother’s consent, which was also not allowed, given the ultimate decision reached and that the issue of citizenship being a major decision that the Parents with joint custody should reach a decision on.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Other factors relating to the Children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_107"></a>107    As stated above in paragraph 72, <b><em>UXH v UXI</em></b> guides that the Court should consider the factors relating to the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_108"></a>108    In this case, the Children have already undergone several changes in their young age, having relocated from the USA to Singapore and then spending a period of time in the USA and in India before remaining in India for the last 10 months in Noida prior to the decision. The Children being young would mean that they could very well adapt to a change in environment without significant difficulty. Based on the evidence provided, it appeared to suggest that the Children had grown largely accustomed to their living arrangements in Noida.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_109"></a>109    The Eldest Son had started primary schooling in Noida, in 2023, albeit by way of enrolment made by the Mother unilaterally. As opposed to kindergarten studies which were more flexible, for the Eldest Son to return to study in Singapore, this would be a tectonic shift in the education system, which must be given due consideration for the Children’s best welfare.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_110"></a>110    What appeared to be significant was that the Children have the support of the Mother’s parents in Noida, as well as the Mother’s sister and brother-in-law. The Mother’s family appear to be close-knit and the Children appear to be comfortable in their care. I have to acknowledge that the Children’s connection with the extended maternal family in Noida, India, was fairly significant. There also appears to be well-settled arrangements for the care of the Children and the education for the Children, particularly the Eldest Son.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_111"></a>111    Conversely, in Singapore, there were no further familial support systems, instead, the Father’s mother resides a few hours away from where the Mother resided. If the Mother were to be ordered to relocate with the Children back to Singapore, it is unclear where they would reside. The Father insisted on remaining in the Matrimonial Home and if the Mother refused to reside with him, this would entail her obtaining alternative accommodations in Singapore and also setting up wholly new arrangements for the care and education of the Children. This would be without the support of the Mother’s extended family who are in Noida, India. The Father did not provide any concrete plans for how such care could be effected in Singapore, save that he wanted to have care and control of the Children and that he would be assisted by a domestic helper for such care, while attending to his full-time work.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_112"></a>112    A factor that was of some concern was the effectiveness of ordering any interventions for the Children, if they were to remain in Noida, India. Counselling, and evaluation reports could only be done when the Children and Parties were largely physically in Singapore. Hence, if the Children were to remain outside of Singapore, that would be a limitation in the intervention that can be ordered. However, notably this was not one of the accepted factors for the Court to consider for relocation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_113"></a>113    Notably, in the few cases cited where relocation was not allowed, a common factor was that there were no concrete plans on relocation, and it would entail significant upheaval for the Children. The proposed relocation in those cases also had little connection or significance for the children. Whereas in this case, there were already firm arrangements in place, and India had a significant connection to parties and the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Loss of Relationship to the Father</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_114"></a>114    If relocation were allowed to persist, it would invariably affect the Father’s relationship with the Children. While the regular virtual access had afforded the Father with some contact, physical access with the Children would be more substantial. While the Mother had offered to provide the Father with access in Noida, India, the Father was of the view that he would be at risk if he were to travel to India. The Father alleged that the Mother’s father had political ties and that he had encountered significant difficulties during an attempted access in May 2023, where the Indian Police had been called down, and he had to spend significant time in questioning. In this regard, while allegations were made and a video with transcripts provided showing a tense exchange between parties over who was able to spend time with the Eldest Son, I found that the Father’s assertions that he was unable to exercise access in Noida, India to be unsupported in evidence. In any event, the Father had decided not to have any further physical access until OSG 8 and 40 were fully determined. It is noted that after the order was made, the Father appears to have exercised regular access to the Children in India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_115"></a>115    While the Father being in a separate location from the Children, is a significant impediment to their bonding, this can be ameliorated with robust access arrangements including physical and virtual access. Both the Father and Mother were earning substantial income, and the Father’s travels to and from to Noida, India, while being an inconvenience, could be well managed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_116"></a>116    Generally, it appeared that the Father still maintains a fairly good relationship with the Eldest Son despite the distance and the Father has also spent some time developing a relationship with the Youngest Son.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Balancing the Considerations</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_117"></a>117    Hence, in favour of allowing relocation to Noida, India, to persist included:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_117-p2_a"></a>(a)     the Children’s lack of significant connection to Singapore;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_117-p2_b"></a>(b)     the Mother’s support systems in India and the Children’s well-settledness in India instead of Singapore;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_117-p2_c"></a>(c)     the concrete plans which were already in place for the Children’s care in Noida, India instead of Singapore; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_117-p2_d"></a>(d)     the primary caregiver’s relocation was based on reasonable reasons of family support and her wellbeing would affect the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_118"></a>118    In favour of ordering a return of the Children to Singapore included:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_118-p2_a"></a>(a)     the loss of relationship for the Father;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_118-p2_b"></a>(b)     relocation was done unilaterally by the Mother and should not be condoned; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_118-p2_c"></a>(c)     there was no immediate necessity for relocation as Mother had PR status and the Children could reside in Singapore on LTVPs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_119"></a>119    Overall, on balance, the Children’s lack of substantial connection to Singapore, the Mother’s support system in Noida, India, and the Children’s strong connection to the Mother’s extended family there and the concrete plans which have been effectuated, to me, presented as stronger factors showing that the Children’s best welfare was better served with allowing them to continue to reside with the Mother in Noida, India. While the Mother’s actions to unilaterally relocate the Children was wrong, ultimately the decision was reached on the Children’s best welfare and disapproval of the Mother’s actions can be achieved through the means of costs or other measures.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_120"></a>120    In the circumstances, I allowed the Children to continue to reside in Noida, India and did not order for their return. However, given that the Mother had unilaterally relocated the Children, the Father should be compensated with costs, which is discussed subsequently in paragraphs 141 to 143.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Key Issue 3: Care &amp; Control of the Children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_121"></a>121    With regard to the care and control of the Children, the Father had initially sought sole care and control but subsequently pivoted to consider shared care and control, whereas the Mother had also sought sole care and control to her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_122"></a>122    Given the Children residing in Noida, India and the Father continuing to reside in Singapore, shared care and control across countries would be impractical. As stated above, it was clear that the Mother has and continues to be the primary caregiver of the Children. In the circumstances, there was no reason to not grant sole care and control of the Children to the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Key Issue 4: Education of the Children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_123"></a>123    The Father had expressed a desire for the Children to study in a Singapore Public School, whereas the Mother preferred for them to go to an international school. Given that that I allowed the Children to remain in Noida, India, I did not find any reason to disturb the current education arrangements. The Father also provided no alternative schooling options in India. However, as this matter was something that needed to be further determined in the ancillary matters in the Divorce Proceedings, I reserved this for reconsideration at such time, when more complete evidence would be in place.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Key Issue 5: Access to the Children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_124"></a>124    In relation to access, pursuant to the cases such as <b><em>BKJ v BKK </em></b><b>[2013] SGDC 26</b>, overnight access should be the default position unless there are strong grounds against it and the Courts should be slow to deny overnight access as it would be normally helpful for the development of the parent-child bond.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_125"></a>125    In that case, District Judge Colin Tan had summarized the well-held principle that overnight access should be approached from the perspective of the child’s best welfare and the child’s rights to spend time with their respective parents. The child should be equally entitled to overnight access with the father as he is with the mother, unless there is evidence to disprove either party’s eligibility, such as a history of abusive or negligent parenting. Even though the child is asleep during a part of the overnight access, there is an intangible value of building up familiarity, being able to say good morning to or to have a particular storybook read by the parent before the child goes to bed, these are important opportunities to build bonds.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_126"></a>126    In the circumstances, I found not reason not to order for overnight unsupervised access with the Father for both of the Children, provided that the Father has another adult present with him, such as his mother. This is because there has not been cogent evidence provided that the Father was incapable of caring for a the children independently overnight.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_127"></a>127    While the Mother had raised certain concerns over the Father, there was no cogent evidence presented on how he was a risk to the Children. Additionally, she acknowledged that he was never physically abusive to the Children. In light of this, the norm of unsupervised overnight access was allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_128"></a>128    Given the logistics of travel and the Father’s full time work, I ordered that the Father be able to have 2 weekends of access to the Children every month. As held in <b><em>BLD v BLE </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2013] SGDC 0333.xml')">[2013] SGDC 333</a></b> (“<b><em>BLD v BLE</em></b>”) at [34], weekend time with school-going children is important and where the bulk of parent-child bonding takes place given the realities of modern life. So, the Mother should also have 2 weekends per month with the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_129"></a>129    I did not grant any overseas school vacation access to the Father at this juncture, given the dispute between parties over where the Children should reside, but reserved it to be reconsidered in the ancillary matters for the Divorce Proceedings. The full terms of the access are described below in paragraph 140(d).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Key Issue 6: Children Maintenance</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_130"></a>130    While both Parents are equally responsible for the maintenance of the Children, this may not translate in equal financial contributions. The sharing of this financial responsibility would correspond with their financial means and capacities. This position was affirmed in the recent decision of <b><em>WBU v WBT </em></b><b><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29255-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 3</a></b>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Income of Parties</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_131"></a>131    For the Mother, taking an average of her take home income for Year of Assessment (“<b>YA</b>”) 2022 and 2023 from her Notices of Assessment (“<b>NOAs</b>”) of:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_131-p2_a"></a>(a)     YA 2022: 288,796 – 19,713 (CPF deduction) = S$269,083; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_131-p2_b"></a>(b)     YA 2023: 228,761 – 18,279 (CPF deduction) = S$210,482.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>Her average annual income works out to be S$239,782.50, which is a monthly average of S$19,981.88.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_132"></a>132    Even though the Father claimed he was earning less than the Mother, by averaging his income for YA 2021 and payslips for YA 2022 and YA 2023 (as these NOAs were not provided):</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_132-p2_a"></a>(a)     YA 2021: 345,276 – 20,400 (CPF deduction) = S$24,876 annual income, and thus, a monthly average of S$27,073;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_132-p2_b"></a>(b)     YA 2022: 253,499.72 annual (after CPF deduction), and thus a monthly average of S$21,124.97; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_132-p2_c"></a>(c)     YA 2023: 232,364.65 annual (after CPF deduction), and thus a monthly average of S$19,363.72.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>His average monthly income amounted to S$22,520.56.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_133"></a>133    However, I accepted the Mother’s point that if the Court were to observe the receipt of monthly salary into the Father’s bank account, his current salary would be S$27,103.24. This was the sum that the Father had been receiving regularly into his UOB account from January to June 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_134"></a>134    As briefly touched on, the Father failed to provide his NOAs for YA 2022 and 2023 (which would be income earned in 2021 and 2022), because they were purported unavailable. The Father’s narrative on this is put into serious question, when the disclosure was allowed as late as August 2023. It was quite unbelievable that the NOAs for the income earned for the previous year would not be ready as of such time. Even if the Father was disputing the assessment, he could have provided the disputed NOAs or his 1R8A Form for income tax, but he did not. Given that this regular monthly income received into his bank account does not even account for the average bonuses for the year, which I do not have insight into, I found it fair to consider the sum of S$27,103.24 to represent the Father’s most recent income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_135"></a>135    In the circumstances, given their joint monthly income of S$47,085.12, their proportionate share of the joint income as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="49.96%"><col width="50.04%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>The Father</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>The Mother</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">27,103.24</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">19,981.88</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">58%</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">42%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Reasonable Expenses of the Children </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_136"></a>136    Expenses (Rate of 1 INR: 0.016 SGD):</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="8.18163632726545%"><col width="29.9859971994399%"><col width="17.2234446889378%"><col width="15.6431286257251%"><col width="14.9229845969194%"><col width="14.0428085617123%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/N</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Item</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Mother’s Claim (INR)</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Mother’s Claim (S$)</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Father’s Estimate (S$)</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Allowed (S$)</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>HOUSEHOLD</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(1)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Rental</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">225,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">3,600.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(2)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Domestic Helper</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">84,700.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">1,355.20</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">40.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">750.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(3)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Food/Groceries</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">30,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">480.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">85.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">480.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(4)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Utilities</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">15,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">240.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">20.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">200.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(5)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Home Wifi &amp; Broadband</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">2,063.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">33.01</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">33.01</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(6)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Home Maintenance/Repairs</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">30,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">480.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(7)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Vehicle</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">83,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">1,328.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">20.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">200.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">Sub-Total</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">454,763.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">7,276.21</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">170.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">1,763.01</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">Each Child’s Share</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">151,587.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">2,425.40</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">58.33</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">587.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">Children’s 2/3 Share</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">303,175.33</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">4,850.81</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">116.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">1,175.34</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>CHILDREN</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(8)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s School Fees</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">28,580.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">457.28</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">457.28</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(9)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s School Fees</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">26,540.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">424.64</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">424.64</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(10)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s School Bus</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">6,065.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">97.04</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">97.04</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(11)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s School Bus</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">6,065.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">97.04</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">97.04</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(12)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s School Admission Registration</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">8,500.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">136.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(13)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s School Admission Registration</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">8,500.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">136.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(14)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Misc School </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">5,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(15)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Misc School </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">5,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(16)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Food (Eating Out) </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,666.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">170.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">170.67</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(17)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Food (Eating Out)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,666.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">170.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">170.67</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(18)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Medical</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">12,188.71</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">195.02</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(19)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Medical</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">12,188.71</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">195.02</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(20)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Dental</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">416.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">6.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">6.67</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(21)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Dental</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">416.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">6.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">6.67</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(22)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Pocket Money </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">2,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">32.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">32.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(23)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Pocket Money</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">2,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">32.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">32.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(24)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Personal Grooming</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">700.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">11.20</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">11.20</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(25)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Personal Grooming</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">700.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">11.20</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">11.20</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(26)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Enrichment</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">20,500.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">328.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">328.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(27)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Enrichment</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">7,916.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">126.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">126.67</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(28)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Clothing/Shoes</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">15,500.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">248.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">150.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(29)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Clothing/Shoes</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">15,500.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">248.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">150.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(30)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Toys &amp; Entertainment</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">5,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(31)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Toys &amp; Entertainment</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">5,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">80.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(32)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Diapers &amp; Wipes</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">4,900.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">78.40</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">78.40</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(33)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Baby Cereal &amp; Formula</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">5,820.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">93.12</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">93.12</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(34)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Furniture</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,416.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">166.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(35)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Furniture</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,416.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">166.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(36)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Birthday</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,416.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">166.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(37)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Birthday</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,416.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">166.67</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(38)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup>’s Holiday</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">43,750.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">700.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(39)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2<sup>nd</sup>’s Holiday</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">43,750.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">700.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">-</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">Sub-Total</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">164,200.38</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">2,627.21</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">3,363.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>TOTAL</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>627,672.75</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">10,042.76</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">4,538.61</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_137"></a>137    In general, the Father’s estimates were significantly too low and not representative of what would be the Children’s reasonable expenses and some of the Mother’s claimed sums were largely inflated. For certain specific requests, I elaborate on why these sums were disallowed or reduced as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_137-p2_a"></a>(a)     given that the Mother and the Children were residing with the Mother’s parents, with no immediate plans to move to her own residence, no rental income has been incurred. In the circumstances, such claimed amount was not allowed at this juncture, and can be pursued for variation if there was a material change in circumstances, such as the Mother moving out with the Children to a new residence that she has to rent;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_137-p2_b"></a>(b)     the claimed fees for a domestic helper of S$1,355.20 a month was excessive for a family of 3, where there already is a cook, a nanny, a driver and a cleaning service engaged which were paid for by the Mother’s family. In the circumstances, I adjusted the sums down to a reasonable rate of S$750 per month, which was comparable to the costs of domestic helper and levy fee in Singapore;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_137-p2_c"></a>(c)     for the Youngest Son’s education, I note that they were not yet incurred, but were due to be incurred in a few short months. As such, given the imminent expenses, I allowed it on the basis the Youngest Son would either be in childcare or enrolled in school shortly; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_137-p2_d"></a>(d)     with regard to the registration fees this would not be a recurring sum, and as such, I excluded such expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_138"></a>138    Overall, I found the monthly expenses of S$4,538.61 per month to be reasonable for the 2 Children and commensurate with the lifestyle that the Parties ad previously been enjoying, particularly given their relatively substantial monthly income. I further found it fair to order that the Father bears a 58% share of such reasonable expenses, which amounted to S$2,632.39, but this was rounded up to S$2,7000 to take into account various miscellaneous fees.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_139"></a>139    That would be a sum of S$1,350 per Child per month, which was well within each Parties’ means to afford. This was still the case, even when accounting for the Mareva Injunction imposed against the Mother in the Divorce Proceedings, which allowed her monthly withdrawals of S$8,000, and payment of her taxes and legal fees.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Full Order of Court</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_140"></a>140    In the circumstances, having considered all these issues, I dismissed OSG 8, as the substantive issues of custody, care and control, access, child maintenance and relocation were instead dealt with in OSG 40. The Orders made in OSG 40 are as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_140-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Mother and the Father shall have joint custody of the Children of the marriage;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_140-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Mother shall be permitted to continue with the relocation of the Children to Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_140-p2_c"></a>(c)     Until further order or written agreement between the Parties, the Children’s current education arrangements in Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India, shall remain as status quo;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_140-p2_d"></a>(d)     The Father shall have access to the Children as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i"></a>(i)       In the event that the Father remains outside of Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India, the Defendant shall have daily video access according to the following terms:</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i-p4_A"></a>(A)       at 8:30 pm (SGD time; 6:00 pm Indian time) by way of Zoom, or alternatively WhatsApp or other electronic means</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i-p4_B"></a>(B)       The Zoom call will be hosted by the Father and the zoom meeting details shall be provide to the Mother, 24 hours prior to the call.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i-p4_C"></a>(C)       The Zoom call shall be conducted in a private room with just the Eldest Son for at least 20 minutes with no interference from any other person.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i-p4_D"></a>(D)       Thereafter, the Father shall be at liberty to have video access with the Youngest Son outside of this private room, for a total maximum of 45 minutes per day.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i-p4_E"></a>(E)       The Private Video access between the Father and the Eldest Son shall not be recorded by either Party or their family member or agents.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_i-p4_F"></a>(F)       The Mother shall exert all reasonable efforts to facilitate such video access. The Mother shall ensure that her parents and/or other family members or agents of the Mother do not interfere with the video access, including but not limited to interrupting the video access making loud noise and trying to distract the attention of the Child/Children</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       In the event that the Father continues to reside in Singapore, but travels to Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India, the Father shall be at liberty to have reasonable access as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_A"></a>(A)       Physical Access:</p> <p class="Judg-5"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_A-p5_I"></a>(I)       During School Term, the Defendant shall have up to 2 weekends of uninterrupted monthly physical unsupervised overnight access to the Children in Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India for up to three (3) days with each access Commencing on a Friday evening up to Monday and with the timing of such access to be mutually agreed between the Parties. If no agreement is forthcoming it shall begin at 4 pm on Friday to the start of school or 9 am on Monday, as the circumstances may be.</p> <p class="Judg-5"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_A-p5_II"></a>(II)     During School Vacation, Physical unsupervised overnight access to the Children in Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India of up to five (5) days with each access commencing with the timing of such access to be mutually agreed between the parties. If no agreement is forthcoming it shall begin at 9 am of the 1st day to 9 pm on the 5th day.</p> <p class="Judg-5"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_A-p5_III"></a>(III)    The Defendant shall ensure that other than himself, there shall be at least one other adult to be present during his overnight access time, such as his mother.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_B"></a>(B)       For the Eldest Son’s Birthday: the Father shall be at the liberty to celebrate the Eldest Son’s birthday with him either during the weekend before or the weekend after his birthday in accordance with the School Term Physical access stated above.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_C"></a>(C)       For the Youngest Son’s Birthday: the Father shall be at the liberty to celebrate the Youngest Son’s birthday with him either during the weekend before or the weekend after his birthday in accordance with the School Term Physical access stated above.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_D"></a>(D)       For the Father’s Birthday: the Father shall be at the liberty to celebrate his birthday with the Children either during the weekend before or the weekend after his birthday in accordance with School Term Physical access stated above.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_E"></a>(E)       For Holi and Diwali:</p> <p class="Judg-5"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_E-p5_I"></a>(I)       On odd years, the Father shall have the Eldest Son from 9 am to 9 pm and the Youngest Son from 9 am to 3 pm on Holi; and</p> <p class="Judg-5"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_E-p5_II"></a>(II)     On even years, the Father shall have the Eldest Son from 9 am to 9 pm and the Youngest Son from 9 am to 3 pm on Diwali.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_F"></a>(F)       The Father shall pick up the Children from the Mother’s Residence and the Mother shall pick the Child/Children up at the allotted time from the Father’s place of temporary residence in Noida, West Uttar Pradesh, India.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_G"></a>(G)       The exception to the access terms above are that the Father’s access shall not fall on either the Mother’s Birthday or Mother’s Day, which the Mother shall have with the Children.</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_ii-p4_H"></a>(H)       Notice Period - the Defendant shall give the Mother no less than three (3) weeks’ advance notice from the date of the proposed date of access.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_140-p2_d-p3_iii"></a>(iii)       Parties are at liberty to agree to such further or alternative terms in writing.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_140-p2_e"></a>(e)     Pending the final determination of the Ancillary Matters, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a monthly sum of S$2,700.00 for the maintenance of the Children as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_140-p2_e-p3_i"></a>(i)       S$1,350.00 for the Eldest Son; and</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_140-p2_e-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       S$1,350.00 for the Youngest Son.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_140-p2_f"></a>(f)     Liberty to Apply​.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_141"></a>141    At the close of the hearing after the decision had been rendered, the Mother belatedly raised the issue of claiming for backdated maintenance. However, as this was not previously raised before and no evidence had been led on this, I did not allow such a submissions at such a late stage.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Costs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_142"></a>142    Separately, having delivered the decision at the 3<sup>rd</sup> Hearing, I invited Parties to make arguments on the costs. The Mother submitted that she had incurred S$25,000 in legal fees thus far and was desirous of the Father paying her such costs. The Father estimated that he spent between S$40,000 to S$50,000 on legal fees in Singapore and another S$10,000 to S$15,000 in India (i.e. between S$60,000 and S$75,000).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_143"></a>143    While the Father was successful on the issue of joint custody, the Mother was successful on the significant issues of care and control and the relocation. For the access arrangements, it was a compromise between both sides’ positions and for Children Maintenance, both were far off the mark and the Court made an order that was in the middle ground. Overall, the Mother was more successful on the substantial points. While costs are usually only provided when parties had legal representation, both Parties had began with lawyers and both acknowledged that they sought legal advice of Singapore lawyers for the proceedings. In the circumstances, I was minded to allow costs of S$8,000 to take into account the amounts paid for disbursements and their seeking of legal advice, even though they were largely not legally represented in the hearings. However, I also had to take into account the fact that the Mother had unilaterally relocated the Children without submitting the disputed issue to the Court to determine the issue before taking further steps. In the circumstances, I found it fair to make no order as to costs, so as to indicate the Courts disapproval for such unilateral actions taken by the Mother.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_144"></a>144    I appreciated that both Parties had to grapple with complex legal issues as litigants in person after having discharged their lawyers. However, I would be remiss not to point out that even though both Parties did not have formal representation, they had acknowledged that they were receiving legal advice on the arguments in OSG 8 and 40. Having said that, both Parties were intelligent, well-spoken and did their best to argue their cases. They acquitted themselves nicely in their oral arguments but were, at times, unfocused and significant time had to be spent on procedural issues and refocusing them on the legal basis for certain arguments. While they had to be reminded about decorum on occasion, the oral submissions were largely civil even though the issues were hotly contested.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_145"></a>145    I did not come to my decision lightly, as I understood the significant repercussions that it would have on Parties and the Children as well as the extended family. As such, I gave both the Father and the Mother ample opportunities to address me on further evidence and submissions after raising my concerns with them, while also setting reasonable timeframes to ensure that decision was rendered within a fairly short time frame, taking into consideration the complexity of the issue sand the breadth of evidence provided.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_146"></a>146    In my decision-making process, I had to consider the matter carefully and did go back and forth on the merits of each Parties’ cases. In the best case scenario, Parties should have been able to have civil discussions with each other to reach a consensus on such important issues for the Children, however, they were unable to do so and the Court thus had to intervene. Ultimately, I made the difficult decision on the various issues based on established case law and principles which puts the Children’s best welfare as the paramount consideration.</p> </div></content></root> 1274

Links from other tables