fc_judgments_version: 4
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 4 | 1 | 1274 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Relocation"
] |
2023-11-24 | Family Court | D 5714/2016 (FC/SUM 1740/2023) | WRT v WRU | [2023] SGFC 38 | 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%2F30720-SSP.xml | [
"Plaintiff in Person",
"Mr Ng Kiat Han (Advance Law LLC) for the defendant"
] |
2023-11-30T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Chia Wee Kiat | <root><head><title>WRT v WRU</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WRT <em>v</em> WRU </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30720-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 38</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">D 5714/2016 (FC/SUM 1740/2023)</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">24 November 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"> Chia Wee Kiat </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"> Plaintiff in Person; Mr Ng Kiat Han (Advance Law LLC) for the defendant </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"> WRT — WRU </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Relocation</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">24 November 2023</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Chia Wee Kiat:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The Plaintiff shall be referred to as the “Father” and the Defendant shall be referred to as the “Mother”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The parties were married on 26 March 2011 and have two children born to the marriage, [G] and [K].<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> G turned 12 in September 2023 and K turned 10 in November 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> Owing to parties’ irreconcilable differences, the Father filed for divorce on 25 November 2016 and Interim Judgment (“IJ”) was granted on 15 May 2017.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> The IJ was made final on 19 February 2018.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 On 31 May 2023, the Mother filed FC/SUM 1740/2023, an application to vary the IJ to allow the children to relocate to the United States of America (“USA”).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 At the hearing of the application on 17 August 2023, the Mother requested that I interview the children. I explained that it is not in every matrimonial case involving children that the court must interview the children. This is an option that the court may exercise but it is not the only option. Given the allegations by the Father that the children have been negatively influenced by the Mother, I was of the view that a specific issue report (“SIR”) prepared by a Court Family Specialist would be more helpful. The SIR is an independent, objective and confidential report that can provide the court with a fuller picture of the family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 On 30 October 2023, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, affidavits and the SIR, I dismissed the application with brief grounds.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Mother appealed against my decision <em>vide</em> HCF/DCA 114/2023 filed on 14 November 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 These are my grounds of decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Mother’s relocation application</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The Mother says that she has been in a relationship with her fiancé, [B], for about 4 years.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> B is a USA citizen<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> and works as a North American Infrastructure Program Manager for [M] in the USA.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> On 14 February 2023, B proposed marriage which she accepted. The Mother wants to migrate to the USA with the children to live with B and his family.<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_9"></a>9 The Mother says that she would be a full-time homemaker while B would remain the sole breadwinner of the family. With such arrangements, her primary focus would be raising the children full-time. Additionally, B’s employer allows him to work remotely and hence, he would be spending more quality time at home with the family.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Mother says that she intends to relocate the children only after G has completed her PSLE this year. The Mother and B have found a private school that would be excellent for the children to grow and learn.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> The Mother believes the children would not have a hard time settling in the proposed school and the USA as they are fluent in English.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Mother says that between 27 May and 20 June 2022, she brought the children for holiday to the USA to visit her fiancé’s family and for them to experience first-hand how it is like to stay in the USA. Since the trip, the children have consistently expressed their wishes and feelings to move to the USA to live together with the Mother and B.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Mother says that the children and the Father do not share a close relationship even though she had encouraged them to bond with the Father as much as possible whenever he had access to them.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> The Mother says the Father’s visits to the children were infrequent and he rarely spent the entire allocated time of access.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span> The Mother says the children told her that they preferred “Daddy B” over the Father.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> The children have also informed her that they are unhappy that the Father does not engage in fun or meaningful activities with them during most of his access periods.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Mother says that the Father has tried to sow discord between the children and herself.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> As a result, the children have learned to be silent when around the Father to avoid the risk of angering the Father. The Father, through his own actions, has caused his own children to dislike him. The Mother says that the relationship between the Father and the children will not be jeopardised should the relocation application be granted. In fact, the distance between the Father and the children may even improve their relationship.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The Mother says that she has obtained approval from the US Citizenship and Immigration Servies to travel to the USA to marry B within 90 days of arrival into the USA. Once their marriage is registered, she can apply to become a permanent resident.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The Mother says that if the children are not allowed to relocate, B “will have to leave his wonderful job in the USA to move to Singapore, if it is even allowed” and it is likely that she will also have to work instead of being a full-time mother to the children.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Father’s objections</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Father says that the Mother’s decision to relocate the children to the USA is not based on their best interests but for herself and not letting the Father get close to the children. The Father says that he will not risk the children’s safety, education and livelihood to agree to the Mother’s application to relocate the children to the USA.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The Father says that the Mother’s love relationships are always in a mess. The Mother is married twice and divorced twice and now she is going to get married for the third time with someone on long distance relationship.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span> The Father is concerned that the children will be stranded in a faraway country if the Mother and B go separate ways. The Father says that there is no legal obligation on B to pay for the children’s school fees and living expenses. The Mother and children will have no house to stay and no income to sustain the high costs of living in the USA. The Father says the Mother has no relatives or friends to rely on if problems arise.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The Father says that the children still have a long way to go to complete their education and they simply cannot afford the high costs of education and living in the USA as compared to Singapore.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 The Father says that the children are still very young and are not able to understand the financial aspects and make decisions on the consequences of unknown factors. He points out that going for holiday is completely different from migrating to another country with no relatives, friends and loved ones. <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_26" id="Ftn_26_1"><sup>[note: 26]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Father says that he has always tried very hard to bond with the children but the Mother will find ways to prevent the children from getting close to him.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_27" id="Ftn_27_1"><sup>[note: 27]</sup></a></span> The Father says that when the Mother purchased her own house in October 2022, she instructed the children and family members not to let him know where they have shifted.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_28" id="Ftn_28_1"><sup>[note: 28]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 The Father says that ever since the children shifted to the new house, he can only pick them from school and send them back immediately as the Mother always want them to rush back home for lunch or dinner. He always offered to bring them for meals but was always rejected by the children who said that the Mother wanted them to go home as soon as possible. He had tried his best to bond with his children even when he was studying for his part-time Specialist diploma from 2021 to 2022.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_29" id="Ftn_29_1"><sup>[note: 29]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 The Father says it is not true that the children have never been close to him.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_30" id="Ftn_30_1"><sup>[note: 30]</sup></a></span> The Father says that the Mother always says negative things to the children and makes them hate him.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_31" id="Ftn_31_1"><sup>[note: 31]</sup></a></span> The children are not close to him when the Mother is around as they know the Mother dislikes them being with him.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_32" id="Ftn_32_1"><sup>[note: 32]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The Father says that access to his children is already challenging in Singapore based on what the Mother has done. The possibility of the Mother blocking the children phone access to him cannot be denied. If the children are in Singapore, he can still go to their school / house to look for them. If they are allowed to migrate to other country, all this is not possible.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_33" id="Ftn_33_1"><sup>[note: 33]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The Father says that he will always do his utmost to take care and bond with the children even though the children are fully controlled by the Mother. The Father strongly believes that the children will understand his circumstances when they are older.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_34" id="Ftn_34_1"><sup>[note: 34]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 The Father says that the USA is a very dangerous country which allows the citizens to have guns in their home. He will never jeopardise the children’s safety for them to migrate.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_35" id="Ftn_35_1"><sup>[note: 35]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Father wishes the Mother well in her new marriage and says that he is able to take care of the children in Singapore if she wishes to migrate.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_36" id="Ftn_36_1"><sup>[note: 36]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Principles on relocation</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The paramount consideration in relocation applications is the welfare of the child (see <em>BNS v BNT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17588-SSP.xml')">[2015] 3 SLR 973</a> (“<em>BNS</em>”) at [19]). Although the legal principle is simple in concept, the challenge lies in its application to each unique case (see <em>TAA v TAB</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17369-SSP.xml')">[2015] 2 SLR 879</a> (“<em>TAA</em>”) at [7]). As noted by the Court of Appeal in <em>BNS</em> (at [2]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Cases of this nature are never easy to decide. As Mostyn J observed pithily in the English High Court decision of <em>Re AR (A Child: Relocation)</em> [2010] EWHC 1346 (Fam) at [4], “[t]hey involve a binary decision – either the child stays or he goes” and hence, whichever way the court decides, the decision is bound to cause considerable pain and anguish to one of the parties. The relocating parent will be aggrieved by a refusal of the application as that ostensibly ties him or her down, against his or her wishes, to an environment which he or she has little affinity towards. On the other hand, it is the left-behind parent who suffers if the relocation application is allowed because that naturally curtails not just the quantity but also the quality of that parent’s contact with the child (or children).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 The welfare of the child involves a consideration of different factors. In <em>UFZ v UFY</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/22303-SSP.xml')">[2018] 4 SLR 1350</a> (“<em>UFZ</em>”), Debbie Ong J provided the following guidance (at [8]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The inquiry of what is in the welfare of the child involves a consideration of a multitude of factors. Relocation applications involve one parent exercising his or her authority to relocate the child to another jurisdiction. Two important factors that will come into play will unsurprisingly be: (i) the reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver; and (ii) the child’s loss of relationship with the ‘left-behind’ parent (<em>BNS</em> at [28]). These factors, amongst others, are pertinent in helping the court assess what the best interests of the child are. This assessment is “<b><em>an intensely fact-centric exercise</em></b>” [emphasis in original] (<em>BNS</em> at [28]) and will remain a very difficult one in all relocation cases. …</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 As regards the weight to be given to the various factors, the Court of Appeal in <em>BNS</em> (at [22]) provided the following guidance:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[T]here can be <em>no pre-fixed precedence or hierarchy</em> among the many composite factors which may inform the court’s decision as to where the child’s best interests ultimately lie: where these factors stand in relation to one another must depend, in the final analysis, on <em>a consideration of all the facts in each case.</em></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in original]</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">(1) Reasonable wishes of primary caregiver</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 As noted above, an important factor the court will consider in a relocation application is the reasonableness of the primary caregiver’s wishes to relocate.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 In the present case, the Mother’s reason for relocation was her engagement with her fiancé B.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_37" id="Ftn_37_1"><sup>[note: 37]</sup></a></span> The Mother wishes to move to the USA to be with B and has expressed her intention to marry him in 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 Although the Mother’s intended marriage to B will be her third one, her wish to move on to the next stage of her life is understandable. Afterall, the Mother is divorced from the Father. This is acknowledged as much by the Father who “wished her well in her new marriage”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_38" id="Ftn_38_1"><sup>[note: 38]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 That said, the Mother’s relocation to the USA with the children will result in the physical separation of the children from the Father. Indeed, the same difficulty was noted in <em>UXH v UXI</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23882-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGHCF 24</a> (at [18]) (“<em>UXH</em>”):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">A divorced parent can certainly move on with life with a new partner. Indeed, there are many reconstituted families formed by divorced parties who move on to marry a second time, or even a third time. No difficulty in respect of a loss of relationship with a left-behind parent arises when the reconstituted family resides in the same country as the other parent. In the present case, however, the Mother’s wish directly affects the Father’s relationship with the Children because she and her partner have plans to relocate to the UK, which will result in physically separating the Children from the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 In <em>UXH</em>, the court quoted with approval the following observation of the lower court (at [22]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… In my view, where relocation is a matter of choice, the reasonableness of the wish of the primary caregiver would have to be evaluated against the impact of the relocation on the welfare of the children …</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mother cannot stay put in Singapore. The Mother and the children are all Singapore citizens. The Mother’s evidence that B “will have to leave his wonderful job in the USA to move to Singapore, if it is even allowed” suggests that she has not given sufficient consideration or seriously explored the alternative option of having B relocate to Singapore, which would be less disruptive to the stability that the children currently enjoy.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 It seems to me that the Mother’s decision to relocate is a matter of choice, and not borne out of necessity. That being the case, the reasonableness of the Mother’s wish will have to be evaluated against the impact of the relocation on the welfare of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">(2) Loss of children’s relationship with the Father </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 As noted in <em>TAA</em> (at [19]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">A relocation of children to another jurisdiction is a serious matter. It would mean a fundamental change in whom the children would see as their close family and the children would lose the experience of hands-on parenting from both their mother and their father (see <em>K v K</em> [2011] EWCA Civ 793). <b>The court must give sufficient weight to the loss of the children’s relationship with the left-behind parent</b> …</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 In <em>BNS</em>, the Court of Appeal explained (at [25]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">It is axiomatic that a child benefits from the nurturing presence and joint contribution of <em>both</em> parents in his or her life and this does not cease to be true upon the breakdown of marriage. Relocation, however, represents a serious threat to this ideal state of joint parenting since the left-behind parent would, as its appellation suggests, become less of a presence in the child’s new life.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in original]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 The Court of Appeal emphasised (at [26]) that although the loss to the child of his or her relationship with the left-behind parent is an important consideration, it is, like that of the wishes of the primary caregiver, not to be treated as having determinative weight or as being decisive in every case. How adversely the loss of that relationship will impact on the child’s welfare is a matter that depends on the facts, in particular, the strength of the existing bond between the left-behind parent and the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 The Court of Appeal elaborated further (at [26]) as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">In general, the stronger the bond, the larger the resultant void in the child’s life if relocation is allowed, and, accordingly, the weightier this factor must be in the overall analysis. Indeed, it may <em>further</em> be appreciated that it is only when there is a <em>subsisting</em> relationship between the left-behind parent and the child that one can properly speak of there being a “<em>loss</em>” of that relationship upon relocation. As has been astutely contrasted in <em>Ong</em> at para 9.42, the severance of an already functioning (if not blossoming) relationship will generally be both more agonising and disruptive to the child than if the effect of relocation was, relatively speaking, merely to hamper the “<em>building</em>” up of that particular parent-child relationship:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">There is a difference between the trauma and harm to a child arising from the <em>loss</em> of a close relationship and the benefits of <em>building</em> a relationship with both parents. Where the relationship between the child and non-custodial parent is not close, it may still be beneficial for the law to support the maintenance of this relationship or encourage parties to strengthen the relationship. However, if this must be sacrificed because of pressing reasons for relocation, it may be the less harmful choice for the child. In contrast, where a <em>loss</em> of a close relationship is concerned, the harm to the child may not justify the sacrifice. [emphasis in original]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 In the present case, the Mother contends that the relocation will not jeopardise the relationship between the Father and the children as the children have never been close to the Father even before the divorce. The Mother says that there were minimal interactions between the Father and the children ever since they were little and this has not changed to the present day.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_39" id="Ftn_39_1"><sup>[note: 39]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 This is disputed by the Father. The Father says that he has always tried very hard to bond with the children but the Mother will find ways to prevent the children from getting close to him. Many times, the children will Whatsapp him to come without wanting the Mother to know.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_40" id="Ftn_40_1"><sup>[note: 40]</sup></a></span> Examples of Whatsapp messages between G and the Father read:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_41" id="Ftn_41_1"><sup>[note: 41]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="18.82%"><col width="81.18%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" colspan="2" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><u>5 March 2022</u></b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Hi</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Can u come over?? </p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">But dun tell mim</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Finish work i come</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wat time</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">About 3 pm</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Ok.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">You and [redacted] wan eat anything. daddy go buy</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" colspan="2" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><u>8 July 2022</u></b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Come on Sunday and don’t tell mommy</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">If u tell mommy u are getting blocked forever</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">I gg oversea, monday den I can come</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" colspan="2" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><u>11 July 2022</u></b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Hello, morning. Wan to go out today? Daddy come</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">K</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" colspan="2" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><u>8 September 2022</u></b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Tmr can u come over??</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Plss</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wait no</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[Voice message]</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">I need to see when mommy not there</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Father:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Tmr morning I come</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">G:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Cannot</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Bc mommy won’t let me go out tmr</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 The Father says that at times when he called the children, they will scold him for no reasons or block him off the phone and he strongly believes they are under the influence of the Mother.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_42" id="Ftn_42_1"><sup>[note: 42]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 The Father says that after the Mother purchased her own house in October 2022, she instructed the children and her family members not to tell him where they have shifted. When the Father asked the children where they stay, the children told him that “mummy say cannot let you know where we stay”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_43" id="Ftn_43_1"><sup>[note: 43]</sup></a></span> When the Mother found out that the Father knows where they stay, she confronted her own mother for telling the Father.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_44" id="Ftn_44_1"><sup>[note: 44]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 I note that by the Mother’s own admissions, the Father has been exercising his access to the children.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_45" id="Ftn_45_1"><sup>[note: 45]</sup></a></span> Taking the Mother’s case at its highest, even if the Mother’s assertions are taken at face value, it cannot be said that there is no subsisting relationship between the Father and the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 Granted, the evidence before me suggests that there is a need to strengthen the relationship between the Father and the children. This is borne out as much by the evidence of the Father. However, as noted in <em>BNA</em>, where the relationship between the child and non-custodial parent is not close, it may still be beneficial for the law to support the maintenance of this relationship or encourage parties to strengthen the relationship. In my view, this factor is especially important in the present case given that there are no pressing reasons for relocation.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 The current bond between the children and the Father has weakened due to the ongoing conflict, but the relationship is salvageable with appropriate intervention and more opportunities of bonding and interactions between the children and the Father. The children are still young and would benefit from the nurturing presence and joint contribution of both parents in their lives. By relocating now, it would force an inevitable end to the relationship for the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 I note, in this regard, that similar concerns were expressed in <em>TAA</em> (at [23]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Mother is now fighting to spend time with the children and rebuilding her relationship with them. She had been an involved parent until the marriage broke down. Whatever may have been the true state of the circumstances during the years 2009 to 2014, the difficulties during that time had caused issues between the Mother and the children such that they are no longer as close as they were prior to the marriage breakdown. In fact, there is tension in their relationship. Does this then mean that the mother-and-children relationship should never be supported any further? Are the children to simply live without their Mother in their lives from now on, erase the earlier childhood memories of their relationship with her and move on without their mother in their lives? The reality here is that when the Father and children relocate to Spain, the Mother's access to the children will be more difficult than ever before. The Father's position appeared to be that he could not do anything more to facilitate access if the children themselves did not want to see or talk to their Mother. There was no evidence of any discussion between the parents on the proposed move to Spain, nor on any arrangements on how access could continue when the children left for Spain in September. It is doubtful anything will improve in terms of greater encouragement and support for access by the Father when they live in Spain for the longer term. There is no evidence of efforts by the Father to be supportive of access; instead, there appears to be support for the children to write letters that they do not wish to spend time with the Mother. Thus, relocation to Spain is likely to sound a death knell to the relationship between the Mother and the children. If the children remain in Singapore, their relationship with their Mother could get better, or it might not. Life is not predictable. But relationships are dynamic and it would be a disservice not to give the children the opportunity of building a positive relationship with their mother. The father is also obliged by the law to be a cooperative parent, to actively support the building of the relationship, for this is in the welfare of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">(3) Children’s wishes</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 The Mother submits that the children have often expressed their wishes to relocate to the USA.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_46" id="Ftn_46_1"><sup>[note: 46]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 However, as acknowledged by the Mother herself,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_47" id="Ftn_47_1"><sup>[note: 47]</sup></a></span> the children’s wishes, while relevant, are not determinative. In <em>TQ v TR</em> [2009] 2 SLR (R) 971 (at [20]), for example, although the son had expressed his wish to study in the Netherlands, the Court of Appeal decided that it would be best, having regard to all the circumstances, that he remain in Singapore with the Mother, instead of returning to the Netherlands with the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 Similarly in <em>VDU v VDT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24096-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHC 15</a>, in response to the mother’s submission that the access terms must accord with the children’s wishes, i.e., that the father should not be allowed access to the children if the children did not want to meet him, the court expressed the following concerns:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">It is in the best interests of a child for him to maintain links with both of his parents (see <em>UYK v UYJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24728-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 9</a> at [65]). The Children, being young, may not appreciate the importance of maintaining the links with the Husband, and thus it is not in their best interest to allow the Husband access only when the Children feel like meeting him. Moreover, the Husband has moved out of the Matrimonial Home and away from the Children since as early as 2012. The Children would thus have necessarily became somewhat estranged from the Husband, and there is a real possibility that the Children would be unwilling to meet with him. In the circumstances, to subject the Husband’s access to the Children’s wishes would not help improve their relationship.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 In the present case, the children’s wishes must be viewed against the fact that they are still young and may not fully appreciate the importance of maintaining their links with both parents and the significance of the loss of relationship with the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 Furthermore, the relocation to the USA calls for major adjustments. For the Mother, this would be her third marriage, but first cross cultural marriage, leaving a familiar environment that she has lived for more than 40 years to relocate to a new country with no social support except the new husband and his family. For the fiancé, this would be his first marriage, and a first to a Singaporean divorcee with two pre-teens. Aside to adjustments for new marriages, he will have to deal with cross culture issue, and new experience not just as a parent, but a “step” parent to two pre-teen daughters from different culture. For the children, they will have to be uprooted from a familiar environment to a new environment with little family and social support. Apart from having to adapt to a reconstituted family, they will have to adapt to a new environment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 While the Mother has brought the children for holiday to the USA to experience how it is like to stay in the USA, the impact of relocation vis-à-vis a temporary vacation is different (see <em>WNO v WNP</em> [2023] SGCF 19 (at [47]). It would not be wise to expect the children to fully appreciate the impact of the relocation at such young age.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 To reiterate, the welfare principle of the child is paramount and this principle overrides any other consideration. As the Mother has the real option of staying in Singapore and the relocation if allowed would result in the children’s loss of relationship with the Father, I do not find the wish to relocate to be a reasonable one.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 Moreover, there is no presumption at law in favour of relocation even if the primary caregiver’s desire to relocate is not unreasonable. As noted in <em>UXH v UXI</em> (at [11]):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">… While the wishes of parents may have a bearing on the welfare of the child, the court must determine if those wishes are incompatible with the interests of the child; where they may not be compatible, the law expects parents to put the interests of the child before their own (<em>TAA</em> at [17]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 Balancing all factors, I do not find the Mother’s wish to relocate to the USA to be compatible with the best interests of the children at this point in time.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 While I understand that the Mother will likely be disappointed by my decision, the law expects parents to put the interests of the child before their own. As noted in <em>TAA</em> (at [20]), a refusal to allow relocation at the time of application does not necessarily mean that a future relocation can never be possible. When circumstances have changed such that it is clear that relocation is in the best interests of the children, the Mother can always renew her application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 Keeping the status quo for now will provide for stability and continuity of care for the children, and an opportunity for the relationship between the Father and the children to be repaired and strengthened. It will also allow for the children to adjust to a newly reconstituted family within a more stable and familiar environment. The Mother can plan trips to the USA to give the children more exposure and experience of living in the USA, without the need disrupt the stability that the children currently enjoy.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 For the above reasons, I dismissed the application with no order as to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 As it was clear to me that there are co-parenting issues that need to be addressed, I encouraged the Mother and Father to seek help from a psychologist or counsellor experienced in parent-child issues who can assist them to implement a workable co-parenting system that will protect the relationships of the children with significant adults. I also encouraged the Father to acquire the skills and necessary insights that will help him engage the children at a pace they are comfortable with and strengthen the parent-child bond.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 Notwithstanding the Mother’s decision to appeal against my decision, it is my hope that both parties would take immediate steps to improve their co-parenting relationship which is essential to the wellbeing of the children.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Mother’s Written Submissions dated 10 August 2023 (MWS) at [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [5].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Mother’s Written Submissions dated 10 August 2023 (MWS) at [5].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [6].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Mother’s Written Submissions dated 10 August 2023 (MWS) at [1].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [30].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [12].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [13].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [15].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [17].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [19].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [20].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [24].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [25].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [26].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [27].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 8 August 2023 (DA3) at [8].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 8 August 2023 (DA3) at [14].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [5].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [5(a)]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [5].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [6].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_26_1" id="Ftn_26">[note: 26]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [7].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_27_1" id="Ftn_27">[note: 27]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [8].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_28_1" id="Ftn_28">[note: 28]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [8].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_29_1" id="Ftn_29">[note: 29]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [9].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_30_1" id="Ftn_30">[note: 30]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_31_1" id="Ftn_31">[note: 31]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [15].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_32_1" id="Ftn_32">[note: 32]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_33_1" id="Ftn_33">[note: 33]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [17].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_34_1" id="Ftn_34">[note: 34]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_35_1" id="Ftn_35">[note: 35]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [17].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_36_1" id="Ftn_36">[note: 36]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [18].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_37_1" id="Ftn_37">[note: 37]</a></sup>Mother’s Written Submissions dated 10 August 2023 (MWS) at [13].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_38_1" id="Ftn_38">[note: 38]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [18].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_39_1" id="Ftn_39">[note: 39]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [21].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_40_1" id="Ftn_40">[note: 40]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [10]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_41_1" id="Ftn_41">[note: 41]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at Exhibit 2.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_42_1" id="Ftn_42">[note: 42]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [8(b)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_43_1" id="Ftn_43">[note: 43]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [8(c)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_44_1" id="Ftn_44">[note: 44]</a></sup>Father’s Affidavit dated 21 July 2023 (PA1) at [8(c)].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_45_1" id="Ftn_45">[note: 45]</a></sup>Mother’s Affidavit dated 23 May 2023 (DA1) at [20] to [23].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_46_1" id="Ftn_46">[note: 46]</a></sup>Mother’s Written Submissions dated 10 August 2023 (MWS) at [25].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_47_1" id="Ftn_47">[note: 47]</a></sup>Mother’s Written Submissions dated 10 August 2023 (MWS) at [25].</p></div></content></root> | bfbf991455a9b194b7648efcef28f93e6848a495 |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed