fc_judgments_version: 5

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
5 5 1 1274 
[
    "Family law \u2013 Ancillary matters \u2013 Maintenance of wife \u2013 Maintenance of children \u2013 Access"
]
 2023-11-15 Family Court Divorce 5877 of 2021 WRV v WRW [2023] SGFC 37 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%2F30668-SSP.xml 
[
    "Mundo Alyssa Galvan and Rachel Ong (M/s Tembusu Law LLC) for the Wife",
    "Thomas Ng Hoe Lun (M/s Circular Law Chambers LLP) for the Husband."
]
 2023-11-21T16:00:00Z[GMT] Darryl Soh <root><head><title>WRV v WRW</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WRV <em>v</em> WRW </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30668-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 37</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">Divorce 5877 of 2021</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">15 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"> Darryl Soh </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"> Mundo Alyssa Galvan and Rachel Ong (M/s Tembusu Law LLC) for the Wife; Thomas Ng Hoe Lun (M/s Circular Law Chambers LLP) for the Husband. </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"> WRV — WRW </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Ancillary matters</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance of wife</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance of children</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Access</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">15 November 2023</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Darryl Soh:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1       This matter concerns ancillary reliefs arising from divorce proceedings between the Plaintiff-Wife (“Wife”) and the Defendant-Husband (“Husband”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”). The Parties robustly litigated the care orders in respect of the children, the division of matrimonial assets, the Wife’s maintenance, and the children’s maintenance. The Wife is appealing against the access and contact orders, and part of the maintenance orders. My decision hereafter will focus on the access and maintenance orders made.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background Facts</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       The Parties were married in 2014 and they are in their 30s. They are blessed with two children – their son is in primary school and their daughter is in pre-primary. The Parties marriage was a short single-income marriage wherein the Wife was primarily the children’s caregiver and the Husband was primarily the family’s breadwinner. According to the Wife, she has either been helping at the Husband’s company, tried to set up her own business, or seeking gainful employment, with little or no support from the Husband. In light of disagreements over the Husband’s behaviour, the Wife and the children moved out of the matrimonial home in 2021. As at the time of the hearing, the Husband was a director of a food business, and the Wife was working in a part-time home-based administrative role.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       The Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband on 15 December 2021 on account that he behaved in such a way that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. On 5 January 2022, the Husband filed his Defence and Counterclaim on a similar claim against the Wife. The Husband subsequently withdrew his Defence and the divorce proceeded on an uncontested basis on cross amended pleadings. The Parties’ marriage was dissolved on 12 May 2022, thereby lasting for approximately eight years.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The ancillary reliefs were adjudicated on 6 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. The Wife’s appeals were filed against part of the decisions made on each hearing date. In board terms, care orders were made on the first day and financial orders were made on the second day of hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       On 6 July 2023, I granted the Parties joint custody of the children and for the Wife to be granted sole care and control. Consequential orders were also made on the safekeeping of the children’s passports. Further, I made detailed access and contact orders between the Parties vis-à-vis the children. On 20 July 2023, the Wife appealed against the access and contact orders by way of HCF/DCA 63/2023. I have set out those orders in detail below at [16].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       The Parties agreed to limit the court’s powers on the division of matrimonial assets to the division of the matrimonial home. On 3 August 2023, I ordered for the matrimonial home (with an agreed value of $650,000.00) to be sold within nine months of Final Judgment. After discharging the mortgage (with an agreed outstanding amount of $442,037.23) on the matrimonial home and the payment of the costs and expenses of the sale, I ordered for the net sale proceeds (approximately $207,962.77) to be divided between the Parties in the ratio of 45:55 in favour of the Husband. Each party shall thereafter be responsible for refunding their respective CPF accounts. In other words, the Wife is expected to receive approximately $93,583.25 from the division of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       Insofar as the Wife’s maintenance is concerned, I ordered the Husband to pay monthly cash maintenance of $2,000.00 to the Wife for the period of September 2023 to May 2024 and for this to be reduced to $800.00 for the period of June 2024 to December 2024. The Wife’s maintenance is to cease in 2025 when the Parties’ daughter enters primary school.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       I also ordered the Husband to pay a cash maintenance of $500.00 to the Wife for each child and for the Husband to be solely responsible for their school and enrichment classes for up to $300.00 per child per month on a reimbursement<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> basis. To avoid doubt, the Wife is to be responsible for amounts over and above the $300.00 prescribed per child per month.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       On 11 August 2023, the Wife appealed against the cessation of her maintenance in 2025 and the children’s maintenance orders by way of HCF/DCA 75/2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Access and Contact Orders</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     The Husband sought for the following access orders in respect of the children:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_10-p2_a"></a>(a)     Every Thursday 6pm to Sunday 6pm;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_10-p2_b"></a>(b)     Telephone or videos calls to the children when they are in the Wife’s care and control;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_10-p2_c"></a>(c)     On the 1<sup>st</sup> day of every Chinese New Year; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_10-p2_d"></a>(d)     Each party shall be at liberty to take the Children overseas for one week during the June or mid-year school holidays and one week during the December or year-end school holidays.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     The Wife’s submitted that the Husband shall only be granted supervised access to their son and no access to their daughter.<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_12"></a>12     I will first set out the conceptual grounds of my decision before turning to the specific terms of my access orders.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     I found the Wife’s submissions to be curious since the Parties earlier recorded a consent order<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> on interim access whereby the Husband shall have access to their son every Friday 5pm to Sunday 5pm and for him to have supervised access to their daughter every Friday, 5pm to 7pm. In other words, the Wife’s submissions were a stark regression from what they agreed to earlier. According to the Wife, the interim access arrangements were still taking place, but they were not smooth sailing.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> She argued that the Parties have made allegations about the other about their respective adherence to the access timings and that Parties have not been able to communicate effectively for the purposes of making access arrangements.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     At the outset, I will deal with the Wife’s submissions for the Husband’s access to their son to be supervised. Taking the Wife’s case as its highest, the alleged circumstances do not come anywhere close to the exceptional circumstances required for supervised access. See the High Court’s observations in <em>APE v APF</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/16869-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGHC 17</a> at [32] as to when supervised access should be awarded.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     I next turn to the Wife’s submissions for the Husband to have no access to their daughter. I note that this was part of the broader dispute between the Parties on the biological link between the Husband and the daughter, which the Wife regrettably advanced without any factual or legal basis so as to deprive the Husband of his parental responsibilities regarding that child. I have deliberately omitted elaborating on this as I dismissed the Wife’s case in the strongest of terms and the Wife rightly has not appealed against. The Wife’s case for the Husband to have no access therefore could not be sustained. Elaborating on this dispute herein may negatively impact on their daughter’s relationship with both her parents in the future should she read this judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     I now turn to the specific terms of my access and division of contact orders in respect of the Parties:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Husband to have six hours of access to the children on alternate days of the weekend (<em>i.e.</em> alternating between Saturdays and Sundays each week) from 10am to 4pm commencing 15 July 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Husband to have an hour and a half of access to the children on one weekday per week for dinner, from 7pm to 8.30pm with 48 hours’ notice to be given by the Husband to the Wife;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_c"></a>(c)     Parties to share all school holidays and public holidays contact time with the children save for Chinese New Year holidays equally. For the avoidance of doubt, the Husband shall have overnight access to the children during his share of the school holidays;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_d"></a>(d)     Parties are at liberty to bring the children out of Singapore for a holiday during their access or contact time. The travelling parent shall provide confirmation of the travel date and details at least four weeks in advance. The travel itinerary, with details on accommodation, flight, and contact numbers shall be provided at least four weeks prior to travel. Prior to travel, the Wife shall handover the passport(s) of the children to the Husband 14 days prior to travel, which shall be returned to the Wife within 14 days after travel;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_e"></a>(e)     For the Chinese New Year holidays, the Parties are to alternate between years where one party shall have Chinese New Year reunion lunch and the 1<sup>st</sup> day with the children, and the other party shall have Chinese New Year reunion dinner and the 2<sup>nd</sup> day with the children. Should there be a 3<sup>rd</sup> day of holidays, this shall fall under the equal holiday schematic; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_f"></a>(f)     For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no restriction on remote access (phone and/or video calls) between the Parties and the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     I found that the Husband’s interim agreed two-hour weekly access to the Parties’ daughter and this single weekly opportunity for him to have contact with the children to be insufficient. Further, it was not in the children’s collective best interests to have their individual access time with the Husband structured separately as this will lead to perceptions of different treatment between the children. Accordingly, whilst the Husband previously had two full days with the Parties’ son under the agreed interim access terms, I was of the view that having the children spend time jointly with the Husband (albeit a shorter time in respect of the Parties’ son) and more frequently (<em>i.e.</em> in addition to the weekend access, to having a dinner on one weekday and liberal remote access) would facilitate collective bonding in a reconfigured family unit so as to achieve better overall developmental outcomes for the children. However, I did not agree with the Husband’s submissions for a far longer weekly access time with the children as this would be (a) a significant departure from what the children are presently used to as a whole, (b) incompatible with his busy schedule since such a structure comprises two days of the weekdays, and (c) practically deprives the Wife of the entire weekend’s meaningful contact time with the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18     In respect of the holiday access and contact time, I made orders to divide the holidays equally and equitably between the Parties so that the children can have the opportunity to spend quality time with each parent during the respective breaks. I also saw no reason why either parent ought to be constrained from bringing the children out of Singapore for a holiday. I therefore granted them liberty to do so.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Maintenance for the Wife</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     The Wife is appealing against my decision to grant her maintenance for a limited duration, ceasing in 2025. The Wife had sought maintenance of $2,000.00 for an indefinite period on the basis that she has been financially reliant on the Husband for the majority of the marriage and the need to care for the children.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> The Husband argued that the Wife is more than sufficiently capable of maintenance herself and submitted that there be no maintenance for the Wife.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20     I found no merit to the Wife’s case for indefinite maintenance. The power of the court to order maintenance in the context of ancillary reliefs is supplementary to the division of matrimonial assets. In this case, it is critical to appreciate that the Parties agreed to limit the scope of the court’s exercise of its power to divide the matrimonial assets to just the matrimonial home. In this context, the Wife is to receive 45% of the matrimonial assets. Quantitatively, the Wife is expected to receive approximately $93,583.25. In my view, this was a just and equitable share of the matrimonial assets given the Parties’ short marriage. Furthermore, the Wife is in her 30s, she holds a diploma and is presently working in a part-time home-based administrative role. There is no reason whatsoever why the Wife should not work towards self-sufficiency (which I will elaborate on below) and achieve a clean break. I however accepted that she needed time to find her feet after the divorce and prioritise the care of the children, especially when the younger child has yet to start primary school. I therefore granted her request for $2,000.00 maintenance but I limited it to nine months, which is the ordered duration for which the matrimonial home is to be sold. Thereafter, I ordered six months of a reduced monthly maintenance of $800.00, the expiry of which the younger child is expected to start primary school.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     I found that the Wife can work towards self-sufficiency. Together with the $20,715.13 balance in her CPF Ordinary Account and the approximate $93,583.25 from the sale of the matrimonial flat, the Wife will have sufficient funds to afford the downpayment and monthly mortgage payments from her CPF contributions to purchase a new home for herself and the children. This will consequently obviate the need for the Wife to incur out-of-pocket rental expenses. After removing the rental and the highly discretionary monthly expenses of car rental fees and the allowance for her parents in the circumstances of this case, the Wife will only be incurring reasonable monthly expenses of $1,100.00.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> This would be lower than the Wife’s present monthly take-home income of $1,120.00 from her part-time job. Finally, once the younger child starts primary school in 2025, the Wife will be more than able to find full-time time employment that provides a higher monthly income. When those circumstances were considered in their totality, I was of the view that the Wife is more than capable of maintaining herself.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Maintenance for the Children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     The Wife submitted for the Husband to pay monthly maintenance of $1,500.00 for their son.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> The Wife initially did not seek maintenance for the Parties’ daughter but sought maintenance in light of the court’s care orders relating to their daughter. The Husband submitted that he should only pay maintenance of $700.00 in total for the two children. I disagreed with both Parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     I first considered the children’s reasonable monthly expenses, which the Wife submitted to be $1,510.00 for their son and $1,050.00 for their daughter.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> The Wife provided a breakdown of their son’s expenses and clarified during the hearing on 3 August 2023 that their daughter’s monthly expenses were similar:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(a)    Food $100.00</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(b)    Medical/Healthcare $70.00</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(c)    Clothing $50.00</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(d)    Transport $300.00</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(e)    Hobbies, Toys and Sports $100.00</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(f)    Pocket Money $60.00</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(g)    Enrichment class fees $830.00 (comprising $80.00 for swimming, $200.00 for abacus, $350.00 for Mandarin, and $200.00 for English)<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24     I agreed with most of the Wife’s submissions on the children’s expenses except three areas.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     First, I found that the transport expenses for each child was excessive. Even after taking into account that the Wife has chosen to use a private vehicle instead of public transport and factoring the possible savings or economies of scale when the children travel together, I budgeted $200.00 for each child’s transportation expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     Next, I was of the view that there was insufficient evidence that the children will incur total annual medical and healthcare expenses of $840.00 per child and $1,200.00 per child for their hobbies, toys and sports. These amounts were excessive when considered objectively. As such, I found it reasonable to budget $200.00 as miscellaneous and upkeep expenses per child for the above-mentioned expenses including amounts submitted by the Wife for their pocket money and clothing which I found reasonable.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     Finally, I found the total amount submitted for the children’s enrichment classes to be excessive. The aggregate amount of $830.00 for the Parties’ son is more than 50% of his total expenses submitted by the Wife. Whilst there was insufficient evidence for the Parties’ daughter and whether it was still reasonable to expect the Parties’ son to go for all four classes, I found it reasonable in the circumstances to budget $300.00 per month on a reimbursement basis for each child for their school and enrichment classes in general given their respective ages. Should there be a material change in circumstances in the future, either party can file a variation application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     In light of the Wife’s current financial capacity and her need to work towards self-sufficiency, I ordered the Husband to be responsible for the entirety of the children’s reasonable monthly expenses. <em>i.e.</em> $500.00 per child per month and additionally $300.00 on a reimbursement basis per child for their school and enrichment classes. In the event that the children require additional enrichment classes per month, I ordered the Wife to be responsible for amounts over and above the $300.00 that the Husband is to reimburse her for. In my view, this will ensure that the Wife will not be profligate in those expenses for the children and yet contribute towards their expenses. Further, I am cognisant that the children’s expenses will increase over time. Once the younger child starts primary school, the Wife’s financial capacity is anticipated to improve, and she will be able to take on a greater share (<em>i.e.</em> the expenses not covered by the maintenance the Husband is to pay) of the children’s overall reasonable monthly expenses by then.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29     The Wife sought a backdating of the children’s maintenance to the date of Interim Judgment. Backdating is a matter of discretion by the court and the Wife did not provide any discernible case for such a discretion to be exercised. The Wife’s case was the Husband has not been providing any form of maintenance but yet she did not apply for interim maintenance. I accordingly ordered for the children’s maintenance to commence on the start of the month immediately after the hearing, <em>i.e.</em> on 1 September 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30     The Wife’s case during the ancillary reliefs was regrettable. The stance she took in respect of the care orders for the Parties’ daughter was a negative example and cannot be accepted. I have given the benefit of doubt to the Wife’s counsel that the positions taken on those matters were due to the Wife’s instructions. Be that as it may, I made no order as to costs as I was cognisant that the litigation has been trying on both sides and I did not want to aggravate matters further.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Reimbursement is to be done within seven days of production of receipts <em>via</em> email.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Page 8 of the Husband’s Fact and Position Sheet. The Husband sought for shared care and control orders but submitted for the proposed time division between the Parties to be referred to as his position on access in the event that his care and control submission is not accepted. See also the Notes of Evidence for 6 July 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Page 5 of the Wife’s Fact and Position Sheet.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>The consent order was recorded on 10 March 2022 at a Family Dispute Resolution Conference.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Pages 21 – 22 paragraphs 36 – 39 of the Wife’s Submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Page 4 of the Wife’s Fact and Position Sheet; pages 35 – 36 paragraphs 76 – 79 of the Wife’s Submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Page 7 of the Husband’s Fact and Position Sheet; pages 31 – 34 paragraphs 84 – 93 of the Husband’s Submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Page 6 of the Wife’s Affidavit of Assets and Means – $250.00 for groceries, $30.00 for house telephone bills, $200.00 for food, $200.00 for transport, $20.00 for mobile phone bills, and $400.00 for insurance.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Page 4 of the Wife’s Fact and Position Sheet, read with page 37 paragraph 83 of the Wife’s Submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Page 38 paragraph 85 of the Wife’s submissions; pages 6 – 7 paragraphs 13 – 14 of the Wife’s Affidavit of Assets and Means.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>The Wife clarified that prior to the present proceedings, the Parties’ son was enrolled in these enrichment lessons. The Wife intends to re-enroll the child for these lessons after the conclusion of these proceedings.</p></div></content></root> 7c3aeb36f08d787123a462fb33037d7903eb7689

Links from other tables