fc_judgments: 97
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 97 | fa3dfae9a3aafc3f0e9fde11365371e6fa4c7cbf | [
"Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Child \u2013 Whether it is reasonable to order a father to start paying his son $1,000/month for an educational course that his son intends to apply for only about two years later"
] |
2024-10-30 | Family Court | MSS No. 1404 of 2024 | XFP v XFQ | [2024] SGFC 97 | 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%2F32408-SSP.xml | [
"Son and Father in person."
] |
2024-11-15T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Kow Keng Siong | <root><head><title>XFP v XFQ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XFP <em>v</em> XFQ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32408-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 97</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">MSS No. 1404 of 2024</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">30 October 2024</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"> Kow Keng Siong </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"> Son and Father 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"> XFP — XFQ </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Child</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Whether it is reasonable to order a father to start paying his son $1,000/month for an educational course that his son intends to apply for only about two years later</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">30 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Kow Keng Siong:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 Under the Women’s Charter 1961 (“<b>Charter</b>”), a parent may be ordered to maintain his/her adult child if the latter “<em>would be</em> receiving instruction at an educational establishment”. S, a young adult, <em>plans to apply</em> for a course in a local university after his National Service (“<b>NS</b>”) ends in about two years’ time. Should S’s father be ordered to make payments to S, while he is still in NS, so that S can save up the money for the course? This is the issue in MSS No. 1404 of 2024 (“<b>MSS 1404</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The application</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 At the time of the hearing, the applicant (“<b>Son</b>”) (D.O.B.: 8 November 2002) was serving his NS. He planned to apply in February/March 2025 for a course run by the Singapore Institute of Technology (“<b>SIT</b>”). The outcome of such an application would only be made known in June/July 2025. If successful, the Son would commence the course only around August 2026.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Son initiated MSS 1404 to compel the respondent (“<b>Father</b>”) to start paying $1,000/month<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> while he is still in NS. The Son planned to use these payments to fund the SIT course (estimated at $30,000+). He commenced MSS 1404 because he believed that the Father had the funds and was concerned that they might be depleted when the course was due to start.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Father’s position</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 During the hearing, the Father stated that he was surprised and “confused” by MSS 1404 – as the Son did not inform him of his plans to apply for an SIT course prior to the application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 That said, the Father made it clear that he was fully prepared to pay the course fees. However, he was facing financial hardship at the material time, and he could start making the payments only from 2026 – i.e., when the course was expected to begin. The Father was prepared to tap into his monies in the Central Provident Fund (“<b>CPF</b>”) to pay the course fees. In this regard, he had about $240,000 in his CPF Ordinary Account – which would be more than enough to cover the fees. While he was prepared to pay the fees, the Father felt that his ex-wife (“<b>Mother</b>”) should be making contributions as well.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Governing provisions</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Section 69(2)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Son initiated MSS 1404 pursuant to s 69(2) of the Charter. According to this provision –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(2) The court <em>may</em>, on due proof that a parent <em>has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance</em> for his or her child who is unable to maintain himself or herself, order that parent to pay monthly sums or a lump sum <em>for the maintenance of that child</em>.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Section 69(5)(c)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 When applying s 69(2) to MSS 1404, it is essential to also consider s 69(5)(c) of the Charter. The latter provision states that –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(5) The court <em>shall not make</em> an order under subsection (2) for the benefit of a child <em>who has attained 21 years of age</em> or for a period that extends beyond the day on which the child will attain that age <em>unless</em> the court is satisfied that the provision of the maintenance is <em>necessary</em> because –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">…</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) the child is or will be or (if an order were made under subsection (2)) <em>would be</em> receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not while in gainful employment,</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Observations</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I pause to make a few observations.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_a"></a>(a) For MSS 1404 to succeed, the Son must prove two things. <em>First</em>, that the payments which he is seeking qualify as “reasonable maintenance”. <em>Second</em>, that the Father has “neglected or refused” to provide the maintenance sought: s 69(2).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_b"></a>(b) As the Son “has attained 21 years of age”, a court may order the payments sought <em>only if</em> he “would be receiving instruction at an educational establishment”: s 69(5)(c).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_c"></a>(c) In applying s 69(5)(c), the following bears highlighting. <em>First</em>, the Charter does not specifically oblige a parent to fund his/her child’s tertiary education. <em>Second</em>, the obligation to provide maintenance under s 69(2) does not require a parent to pay for all the expenses of a child’s tertiary education: <em>UYT v UYU</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25733-SSP.xml')">[2021] 3 SLR 539</a> at [12] and [13].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_d"></a>(d) Ultimately, a court retains the discretion under s 69(2) (“may”) whether to order a parent to pay for his/her child’s tertiary education expenses – and if so, (i) <em>how much</em> of such expenses the parent should bear and (ii) <em>when</em> the payments ought to begin.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">My decision</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 In my view, the Son had failed to prove that the payments sought are both “reasonable” (s 69(2)) and “necessary” (s 69(5)(c)). These are my reasons.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Requested payments are neither “necessary” nor “reasonable”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 <em>First</em>, the Son had failed to satisfy the legal requirement that he “<em>would be</em> receiving instruction at an educational establishment” in due course. At the time of the hearing, he had not even applied for the SIT course yet. In deciding whether to allow MSS 1404, I cannot assume (a) that the Son will apply for the course in 2025, or (b) that he will be admitted into the course in 2026 (if the application is made). Clearly, if the Son does not make the application or is unsuccessful, then it is <em>not necessary</em> to pay the course fees at all.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 <em>Second</em>, MSS 1404 is in effect a request for maintenance to be paid <em>in advance</em>. I am unable to locate a precedent where such maintenance has been ordered. In my view, it is wrong in principle to allow the Son’s request.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_11-p2_a"></a>(a) Courts order child maintenance base on what a child <em>needs</em> and not what the child (or his/her parents) <em>wants</em>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_11-p2_b"></a>(b) MSS 1404 is contrary to the above well-established principle. This is because its purpose is <em>not</em> to secure funds to meet the Son’s <em>current financial needs</em>. Instead, the purpose of MSS 1404 is to advance his <em>aspirational goal</em> – by establishing an education fund that he can tap on sometime in the <em>future</em>, if he is admitted into the SIT course.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_11-p2_c"></a>(c) The situation in the present case is similar to <em>UAP v UAQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/21471-SSP.xml')">[2018] 3 SLR 319</a>. In that case, the High Court wisely declined to order maintenance to cover the son’s tertiary fees. This is because at the time of judgement, the son “had not yet decided on his college choice”. In the circumstances, the High Court found that to order “a specific sum for [a child’s] tertiary education was too remote”: judgement at [98].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 <em>Third</em>, ordering the Father to pay maintenance in advance will create raise a host of issues – given that there is no certainty that the Son will be admitted into the SIT course. For instance, if his application for the 2026 enrolment is unsuccessful, what will happen to the payments already made? Is the Son supposed to hold onto them until he is admitted into the course? What if he is not admitted any time soon – or at all? There can still be complications even if the Son is admitted into the course. For instance, if the course fees turn out to be higher than expected, will the Son have to make another application to increase the amount of payable?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 <em>Fourth</em>, it bears highlighting that child maintenance is a <em>shared</em> parental duty. In other words, both the Father <em>and the Mother</em> have a joint responsibility in supporting the Son’s course fees. In this case, the Mother was apparently working as a freelance renovation contractor. To determine what their respective contribution towards the fees should be, it is necessary for me to consider, among others, the Father’s and Mothers’ relative income, earning capacity and assets (“<b>financial position</b>”). In this case, while I had the Father’s financial position,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> I did not know the Mother’s position. In the absence of such information, I have no basis to find that the Father should be solely responsible for funding the Son’s course fees – without any financial contribution from the Mother whatsoever.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Father’s financial circumstances</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 I now come to the Son’s submission that the Father has the available funds to make the requested payments. This submission is based photos posted online by the Father’s second wife (“<b>2<sup>nd</sup> Wife</b>”). They were apparently posted in June/July 2024 and show that she had a branded watch and bag, and was counting stacks of cash.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 I am not persuaded by the Son’s submission.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_a"></a>(a) <em>First</em>, as shown in [10] above, the Son was unable to cross the legal threshold for ordering maintenance. He was also unable to show that his application for maintenance in advance is consistent with settled jurisprudence. In the circumstances, the Son’s belief that the Father had sufficient funds is neither here nor there.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_b"></a>(b) <em>Second</em>, and in any event, the Son did not adduce any evidence to show that the Father had the relevant funds at the time of the hearing. His belief that the Father had such funds was based on speculation – namely a watch, a bag and cash in the possession <em>of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Wife</em>. According to the Father, the watch and bag were bought several years ago – the watch in 2018 (by him) and the bag in 2019 (by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Wife). The Father added that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Wife and him kept their finances separate.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_c"></a>(c) <em>Finally</em>, the following evidence – which was not disputed by the Son – in fact shows that the Father was in dire financial straits.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_15-p2_c-p3_i"></a>(i) At the time of the hearing, the Father was indebted to five banks and was on various repayment plans to discharge these debts.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> According to the Father, these debts were incurred while running his construction business.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_15-p2_c-p3_ii"></a>(ii) About one year before the hearing (i.e., in September 2023), the Father had traded in his 2021 Mercedes E Class (valued at about $400,000) for a 15-year-old Mercedes S Class (valued at about $50,000).</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_15-p2_c-p3_iii"></a>(iii) The Father had not been timely in paying child maintenance (total: $2,500) for the Son and daughter, and would pay the arrears in sums of $3,000 and $5,000 when he could.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_d"></a>(d) Given the above, I accepted the Father’s submission that allowing MSS 1404 will add to his current financial hardship.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 For the above reasons, I dismissed MSS 1404.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 Before concluding, I wish to make a few observations.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a) During the hearing, the Father did not express any anger towards the Son for having hauled him to court over MSS 1404. At all material times, he spoke tenderly to the Son. At the beginning of the hearing, the Father had in fact addressed the Son as “Dear” – before he quickly corrected himself and addressed the Son by his English name. From my observation of the Father, it is clear to me that he loved the Son dearly.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b) At the end of the hearing, the Father was visibly and genuinely sad that the Son had turned to the law to compel him to fund the SIT course. According to the Father, the Son had not called him for a long time, and the first time that he came to know of the latter’s intention to pursue an SIT course was on receiving MSS 1404. The Father teared when he stressed that he was prepared to help the Son – “not because the law says so” – but as a parent.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_c"></a>(c) The Son should remember the Father’s love and words. The law is a blunt tool and has its limits. Experience has shown that issues achieve better outcomes through honest and direct communication. Whatever may have been the reasons for the apparent lack of communication between the Son and Father, it is never too late to press the reset button.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_d"></a>(d) In this regard, the Son’s aspiration to pursue tertiary education can be a good opportunity for him to reconnect with the Father. In my view, the Father sincerely wants to make the Son to be a better man than he is – including by providing the latter a tertiary education that he (the Father) did not have. I urge the parties to start communicating directly with each other.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>During the hearing, the Son stated that he was open to receiving a lower amount – at least $500/month to $600/month – if this is deemed more appropriate.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>This information is in the Father’s statement dated 10 September 2024 (exhibit R1).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>The Son’s statement dated 17 August 2024 at pages 127 to 131.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>For details, see Father’s statement dated 10 September 2024 (exhibit R1) at pages 24 to 34.</p></div></content></root> | 1839 |
Links from other tables
- 2 rows from _item in fc_judgments_version