fc_judgments_version: 10

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
10 10 1 1277 
[
    "Family law \u2013 Maintenance for Child \u2013 Maintenance of biological child",
    "Family law \u2013 Maintenance for Child \u2013 Periodic maintenance"
]
 2024-01-19 Family Court Maintenance Summons No. 1492 of 2023 GHR v GHS [2024] SGFC 4 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%2F30964-SSP.xml 
[
    "Ms Syafiqah Ahmad Fu'ad (I.R.B. Law LLP) for the Complainant",
    "Ms Sofia Bennita d/o Mohamed Bakhash (Phoenix Law Corporation) for the Respondent."
]
 2020-12-31T16:00:00Z[GMT] Kevin Ho <root><head><title>GHR v GHS</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> GHR <em>v</em> GHS </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30964-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 4</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">Maintenance Summons No. 1492 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">19 January 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"> Kevin Ho </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"> Ms Syafiqah Ahmad Fu'ad (I.R.B. Law LLP) for the Complainant; Ms Sofia Bennita d/o Mohamed Bakhash (Phoenix Law Corporation) for the Respondent. </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"> GHR — GHS </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance for Child</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance of biological child</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance for Child</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Periodic maintenance</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">19 January 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Kevin Ho:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1       The present proceedings involve an application for maintenance filed by Ms [A] (“Complainant”) against Mr [B] (“Respondent”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       While the Complainant’s application for maintenance is usual in that it is an application made pursuant to s 69(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (“WC”) for the maintenance of a child, the facts, and the parties themselves are not. The Complainant and the Respondent are not married and thus their child, [C] (“Child”), was born out of wedlock in March 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       The birth of a child is typically an event marked by joyous celebrations but, in this case, the birth of [C] was an occasion marked by feelings best described as tense (at least on the part of the Respondent and his family).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The parties themselves are young and both were not even at the age of majority when the Child was born. They are both adults now. The Respondent is currently serving his National Service (“NS”) and has less than a year more before he completes NS.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       When the Child was born, there was much confusion and suspicion; possibly because of the circumstances under which the parties had met, and how the Child came to be conceived.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       It is not disputed substantively that the Respondent and the Complainant met when the former was doing <em>ad hoc</em> delivery rider work after he had completed his Polytechnic studies, before entering NS.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       According to the Respondent, he met the Complainant in May 2022. There must have been some degree of mutual attraction because by 31 May 2022, they were “sexually intimate”. Their amorous relationship continued for a few months, until July 2022 when the Complainant told the Respondent that she was pregnant with his child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       Then came much confusion and uncertainty – as is not uncommon for young expectant parents to be in, certainly for the Respondent since this is his first child. The Complainant has a 3-year-old son from a previous romantic relationship.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       The Respondent’s worries and confusion must have been quite significant, and to some extent, it appears that he is still somewhat puzzled by this turn of events. In his affidavit filed in these proceedings, he refers to the birth control measures he had taken during the fleeting period of the parties’ intimate relationship. This then led to rather unfortunate allegations raised about the Child’s paternity after the Child’s birth.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     But the Child’s parentage is now water under the bridge because the Respondent agreed to undergo a paternity test on his own volition. Both parties exhibited the paternity test results in their affidavits. The test report states that the likelihood of the Respondent being the Child’s father is 99.998%.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> Put simply, the Respondent is the Child’s biological father and it is apparent that the protective / birth control measures did not work.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     I set out some detail about the parties’ relationship and the Child’s paternity to give context to the present case, and to make sense of some of the arguments which the parties – particularly the Respondent – had raised in the course of the hearing, of which I now turn to.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Is there an obligation to maintain?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12     The Respondent’s first argument was that he should not be made liable to pay any maintenance at all. Although this issue was not vigorously pursued during trial, it nonetheless remains part of the Respondent’s case in his counsel written submissions.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     As mentioned above, the Respondent himself – having believed that he was safe through the use of contraception – never thought of having a child. This argument was buttressed by the Respondent’s narration (in his affidavit) of the discussions and interactions between the parties leading up to the delivery of the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     Much ink was also spilled talking about the parties’ private discussions on whether to keep the Child, the ensuing fallout between the 2 young would-be parents, as well as the communications between their respective families (after having discovered the Child’s existence).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     The focus on these matters was rather unfortunate, as they operated as an unnecessary distraction to the key question, <em>viz.</em> is there a liability to maintain the Child since it is now clear that Mr [B] is the Child’s father?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     To answer this question, one needs to first consider the statutory source of this obligation in s 68, WC which reads:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Duty of parents to maintain children</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">68.     <em><u>Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides</u></em>, it shall be the <u>duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody</u> or the custody of any other person, <u>and whether they are legitimate or illegitimate</u>, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the cost thereof.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"></p><div align="right">[Emphasis added]</div><p></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     The preamble to the provision is clear – it is the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, except where there is an agreement or order of court which says otherwise. This same provision was referred to in the Respondent’s written submissions.<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_18"></a>18     There is obviously no order of court governing the parties’ parental responsibility and so the only other exception is where there is an “<em>agreement</em>” between the parties. In the Respondent’s written submissions, attempts were made to refer to an alleged agreement wherein parties had agreed that if the Complainant wanted to keep the child, she would take “responsibility” for the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     Yet, when one looks at the Respondent’s affidavit and evidence adduced at trial, and despite the effort by counsel to suggest the existence of some sort of initial understanding for the Complainant to not go through with the pregnancy, the fact remains that there was no written or oral agreement where both parents had agreed that the Respondent need not maintain the Child at all.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20     The Respondent’s own affidavit evidence describes how by 17 July 2022 (about 1 week after first being informed by the Complainant about her pregnancy), the Complainant had informed the Respondent that she intends to keep the Child.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> Since then, the relationship between the parties took a down-turn, and they disagreed on whether to keep the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     The Respondent also pointed to a conversation on 20 July 2022 (a few days later) regarding the financial support for the Child, and that explained that “[The Complainant] <em>became hostile and told me that she would take me to court after the birth of the child</em>”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span><sup></sup></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     This puts it beyond peradventure that there was, in fact, <em>no agreement</em> between the parents that the Respondent need not maintain the Child; there was a disagreement and the Complainant wanted the Respondent to provide financial support. The Respondent not wanting the Complainant to have the Child is different from an agreement that if the Complainant did conceive the Child, that he need not maintain the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     Since there was neither agreement nor a court order, s 68 imposes the obligation on the Respondent to maintain the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24     I had gone through the above analysis to demonstrate that even if I take the most generous reading of the statutory provisions (as cited by the Respondent in his counsel’s written submissions), the evidence does not point to any basis in fact or law for the Respondent to argue that he is under no responsibility to maintain the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     There was, strictly speaking, no need for the Court to have gone through the above review of the evidence because the case-law on this matter is clear in that parents simply <em>cannot</em> contract out the obligation to maintain their children by agreement. This was made clear in by the Court of Appeal (“CA”) in <em>AUA v ATZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/19292-SSP.xml')">[2016] 4 SLR 674</a> (at [44]) where the CA held as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">44    The second principle is that the courts will not allow a parent to abdicate his/her responsibility of parent support. For that reason, we were careful to state that a marital agreement may be relevant to the question of the <em>quantum </em>of support, but not its <em>existence</em>. <b>Even though s 68 of the Charter begins with the phrase “[e]xcept where an agreement… otherwise provides”, a parent cannot contract out of the obligation to provide for his/her child</b>. As pointed out in Leong Wai Kum, <em>Elements of Family Law </em>(LexisNexis, 2nd Ed, 2013) (“<em>Elements of Family Law</em>”) at p 409, this proviso must be read in conjunction with s 73 of the Charter, which empowers the courts to vary the terms of any agreement relating to the maintenance of a child if it is satisfied “that it is reasonable and for the welfare of the child to do so”.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"></p><div align="right">[Emphasis added in <b>bold</b>]</div><p></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     Put another way, even if there was an express agreement for the Respondent not to maintain the Child, the Court may vary this agreement because the law does not usually allow one parent to abdicate his/her responsibility.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     The discussion above was, in part, meant to address the Respondent’s lament that he took reasonable steps to prevent a pregnancy. That is simply not a legal basis to avoid having to maintain one’s biological child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     In a way, the present case shares some similarities to the High Court case of <em>TBC v TBD</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17718-SSP.xml')">[2015] 4 SLR 59</a>. In that case, the respondent father (who was married with children) had sought to argue that he was not liable to maintain his illegitimate child born out of a sexual affair with the complainant mother. The father had proclaimed that he had “<em>never wanted this child and didn’t even plan for this</em>” and that he had “<em>not recognised</em> [the] <em>child as</em> [his] son”. He too did not initially admit his paternity of the child until a DNA test confirmed it.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29     Despite the respondent-father’s attempts to resist liability, the High Court found that s 68, WC did impose the obligation on him, and Kan J upheld the lower court’s decision which found the father liable to maintain his illegitimate child. In the present case, the Respondent cited only the lower court’s decision in his counsel’s written submissions but the High Court’s remarks and observations in the same case were also relevant.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30     Given the clear language of s 68, WC and the weight of the case-law on this issue, I therefore cannot accept the Respondent’s argument that he should not be made to maintain the Child. He is the Child’s father, and he is obliged to provide financial support for him.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance: Lump sum or Periodic?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31     As I have found that the Respondent needs to pay maintenance, the next question is to determine how much maintenance should be ordered.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32     On this matter, the Respondent had another string to his bow – his counsel submitted that if I were to find the Respondent liable, the Respondent asks that he be allowed to pay $25,000, in a single lump-sum, as maintenance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33     The effect of such an order would mean that once this amount is paid, the Respondent would no longer need to pay any more maintenance for the Child in the future.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34     I start by noting that the Respondent’s arguments on this point are somewhat contradictory – on the one hand, the Respondent says that he is currently serving NS earning about $800 per month.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> In his affidavit, he explained that after deduction of his personal expenses, he is left with only $40.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> He also stated in his affidavit that his parents (i.e. the Child’s grandparents) should not “<em>and will not</em>” be responsible for the Child.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35     That is a rather harsh position for grandparents to take regarding their grandchild (if it was true), but that is ultimately irrelevant. The Court’s focus remains on the <em>Respondent’s</em> obligations as a parent, and <em>not the grandparents’</em> obligation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36     In any event, if the Respondent is indeed left only with $40 a month, how then would he be able to make payment of the $25,000 he had suggested? I can only infer that he is (or will be) receiving help from somewhere or someone else, perhaps his family (i.e. the same family who he says will not help him).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37     Be that as it may, I do not find it reasonable to order a lump-sum maintenance at the present stage. Such an order would be entirely speculative given that the Child is not even 1 year old as at the time of this hearing. To fix a sum of $25,000 now would be presumptuous.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38     Previous decisions of the High Court and the Family Court (for eg. <em>UTL v UTM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23130-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 10</a> at [109]; <em>UGM v UGN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20956-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGFC 123</a> at [53]; <em>WNA v WNB</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29850-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 14</a> at [96]) have explained that lump-sum maintenance is usually not awarded for young children save for exceptional circumstances as the Child’s needs and expenses would change with time, and it is usually difficult to predict at the time of hearing what their future expenses would be.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39     In many of these cases, the court was also concerned that ordering a large lump-sum maintenance may cripple the paying parent. Here, the situation is on the other end of the spectrum – ordering a lump sum amount of $25,000 when the Child is only several months old would have an <em>under</em>-inclusive effect. $25,000 works out to about $100 per month for the next <em>20 years</em> until the Child reaches the age of majority. It is thus not in the Child’s welfare and interests for such an order to be made now.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40     I therefore find that it is both reasonable and in the Child’s welfare to make a periodic order of maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41     How much would be a reasonable amount for the Respondent to pay? I agree that his current earning capacity and position in life are relevant factors.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42     I have considered the list of expenses he has provided in his affidavit,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> and I find that some items are on the high side and/or can be considered luxuries or voluntarily incurred expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43     The Respondent listed monthly expense items such as a motorcycle loan (of approximately $230), petrol (of approximately $80), motorcycle maintenance and insurance savings (of approximately $150). Given that he is currently in NS, I do not see a need for him to incur motorcycle expenses. In any case, I find the petrol and maintenance costs to be rather high when according to the Respondent, he is a full-time NS man (“NSF”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44     I see no basis for him to insist on the use of a motor vehicle. He has certainly not shown any evidence that the Singapore Armed Forces or the Ministry of Defence <em>mandates</em> that an NSF (undertaking the Respondent’s vocation) must own a motorcycle as a mode of conveyance to his army camp.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45     That is not to say he cannot have such expenses, only that the Court must consider this category of expense against the needs of the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46     The Respondent has also included a provision of $50 as “allowance” for his parents. Yet, from his own evidence, his parents are working and can support themselves. As I had noted earlier, it is likely that his parents may even be providing financial assistance to the Respondent to help fund any lump-sum maintenance which might be ordered. Again, there is nothing wrong with filial piety, but it must be balanced against the Respondent’s <em>legal</em> obligation to maintain his Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47     Although I find that the Respondent is not completely without means, the Complainant’s list of expenses and her claim for the Child’s maintenance is also on the high side. She says that her personal expenses amount to $1,287 and that the Child’s expenses amount to $704.85.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> These expenses include a <em>monthly sum</em> of $200 for clothing expenses, and another $50 for weekend expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48     Given the Child’s age, his needs and the Complainant’s own limited income, I do not find these expenses to be reasonable.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49     That said, I do agree with the Complainant that the Respondent’s estimate of the Child’s reasonable (given during the course of cross-examination) was unhelpful. His suggested amount of $325.60 per month was on the low side. That does not come as a surprise given that the Respondent’s testimony revealed that he was not familiar with what is needed to maintain a young child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50     Ultimately, the fact remains that the Respondent is serving his NS, and his salary is limited – requiring him to support the Child at the original claim of $950 per month sought by the Complainant (which is more than his total salary) is neither realistic nor fair. The lower amount of $450 (proposed by the Complainant during the trial) is also high, given that it accounts for 60% of the Respondent’s current income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51     The High Court has recently decided that in matters of maintenance – especially children’s maintenance – the court will consider an appropriate “budget” to be allocated each month for various categories of expense: <em>WBU v WBT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29255-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 3</a> (at [10]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52     While I have explained why the Respondent, as the Child’s father, is required to contribute to the Child’s maintenance, the Child’s is also the Complainant’s son. I also take into account the fact that the Child is incurring expenses solely determined by the Complainant (without the Respondent’s input being sought), and she should therefore moderate her expenditure.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53     In my view, an estimate of the Child’s reasonable expenses each month (based on the Complainant’s claimed categories of expenses) would be in the sum of approximately $400. Each parent should bear 50% of this amount.</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="10.2086858432036%"><col width="24.9435984207558%"><col width="20.882684715172%"><col width="19.9802594472645%"><col width="23.9847715736041%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No.</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Description</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Comp’s Claim</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Resp’s Estimation</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Court’s Assessment</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">1.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Milk Powder </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$130.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$90.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$100.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">2.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Diapers </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$84.80</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$60.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$80.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">3.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wet wipes </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$57.50</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$30.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$50.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">4.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Telon Oil </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$7.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$7.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$7.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">5.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Soap </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$21.30</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$21.30</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$21.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">6.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Oral wipes </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$17.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$17.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$17.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">7.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Diaper rash cream </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$5.30</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$5.30</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$5.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">8.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Milk cereal </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$126.95</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$40.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$100</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">9.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Medical/Dental expenses </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$5.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$5.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$5.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">10.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Clothing </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$200.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$50.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$20.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">11.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Weekend expenses </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$50.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$0.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">$0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" colspan="2" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total:</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$704.85</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$325.60</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$405.60</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54     I thus find it reasonable to order the Respondent to pay the <u>sum of $200 per month</u> as maintenance for the Child. By way of context, the Complainant is herself receiving $300 maintenance from the father of her first child (who is now approximately 4 years old).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55     Both parties are, of course, at liberty to apply to vary the maintenance ordered, in the future, if they are able to satisfy the applicable legal requirements justifying such a variation, including <em>inter alia</em> proof that there has been a material change of circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56     In conclusion, I note the unique context of the present case including the parties’ young age, the circumstances leading to the conception and subsequent birth of the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57     However, the law imposes an obligation on parents to maintain, and provide financial support to, their child. This is a facet of parental responsibility and one which is non-delegable. Whatever the history or context may be leading to the child’s arrival, it cannot be gainsaid that it was <em>not</em> the child’s choice to be born and having been born, the parents (who brought him into existence) must ensure that he or she is well taken care of and nurtured to adulthood.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58     In the present case, I hope that – in time – the Respondent would come to cherish the unique bond he has with his Child. His involvement in the Child’s life – both financially and, hopefully, non-financially – will go some ways to ensuring the Child’s success in life.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59     Accordingly, the Complainant’s application in MSS 1492/2023 is allowed. I order the Respondent to pay maintenance for the Child in the sum of $200 per month with the said sum to be paid on 15<sup>th</sup> day of each month to be deposited into the Complainant’s designated bank account.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Complainant’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“C1”) at p. 13; Respondent’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“R1”) at p. 39</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Respondent’s Written Submissions dd 11.01.24 (“RS”) at pp. 3 – 5</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>RS at [9]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>R1 at [43]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>R1 at [23]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>R1 at [47]; RS at [21]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>RS at [22.2]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>R1 at [41]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>R1 at [52]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>R1 at [50]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>C1 at [16]</p></div></content></root> 7d7d3ebb29e39cbe574253cbf9e3cadd3324c0fc

Links from other tables