fc_judgments_version: 99

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
99 83 1 1810 
[
    "Family law \u2013 Relocation"
]
 2024-08-29 Family Court Originating Summons Guardianship No 164 of 2023, Originating Summons Guardianship No 38 of 2024 XBE v XBF and another matter [2024] SGFC 67 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%2F32219-SSP.xml 
[
    "Ms Kulvinder Kaur (I.R.B Law LLP) for the Plaintiff/Husband. Ms Lim Pei Ling June and Ms Annette Tan (Focus Law Asia LLC) for the Defendant/Wife."
]
 2024-10-02T16:00:00Z[GMT] Jen Koh <root><head><title>XBE v XBF and another matter</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XBE <em>v</em> XBF and another matter </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32219-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 67</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Originating Summons Guardianship No 164 of 2023, Originating Summons Guardianship No 38 of 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">29 August 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"> Jen Koh </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 Kulvinder Kaur (I.R.B Law LLP) for the Plaintiff/Husband. Ms Lim Pei Ling June and Ms Annette Tan (Focus Law Asia LLC) for the Defendant/Wife. </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"> XBE — XBF </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">29 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Jen Koh:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background facts</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1       The parties were married in Singapore on 15 November 2015. They have 3 children B (XX September 2016), aged 7 who will turn 8 this year; D (XX September 2018), aged 5 turning 6 this year and E (XX September 2020), aged 3 turning 4 this year.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       The Plaintiff is a 41-year-old Indonesian citizen who used to hold Singapore PR status. She discovered through ICA in or about November 2023 that her Singapore PR status was terminated although she had prior approval that this was to continue through for 5 years until May 2028. With effect from September 2022, she resides in Indonesia and works in her family business.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       The Defendant is a 38-year-old Singaporean citizen and is a university lecturer. He was the Managing Director and CEO at XXX International Pte Ltd and worked full-time. He had a change in job profile in October 2023 or thereabouts. He is now a university lecturer.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The Plaintiff was a fulltime homemaker and stay home mum after the marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       After the marriage, the parties and the children lived at ET Place with the Defendant’s parents. They had the assistance of domestic helpers. The Defendant’s father used to be a teacher and retired in 2019. The Defendant’s mother is a Senior Nurse and continues to be gainfully employed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       In December 2021, the Plaintiff said that she rented an apartment at The M and a lease agreement was entered into for a year from January 2022 to January 2023. There was a disagreement as to when the parties moved into The M. The Defendant said March 2022; the Plaintiff said February 2022. There was also a dispute as to why the lease was taken up. The Plaintiff said that the Defendant kicked her out and that he moved in later after they reconciled in February 2022. The Defendant said they were going to move into his apartment in Paterson (The XXX) which was then still being rented out with the lease ending in January, coinciding with the end of the lease at The M. Nevertheless, the parties and the children lived together at The M until 6 August 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       The Defendant’s parents stayed on at ET Place until this was sold in June 2022. They then moved into The M with the couple whilst awaiting the completion of their new place at The W. However, they then sold The W in July 2022, and they purchased a unit at The XXX, in the same condominium compound as the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       The Plaintiff and the children left for Indonesia on 6 August 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The children’s stay in Indonesia 6 August 2022 – 31 October 2023</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       There is no dispute that the parties went to Bali, Indonesia to attend the Plaintiff’s brother’s wedding scheduled on 29 September 2022. The parties withdrew the 2 older children from their kindergartens so that the children could spend more time with their maternal grandparents and relatives. The Plaintiff and the children flew to Jakarta, and they stayed in Indonesia from 6 August 2022 until an intervening event which will be discussed. They flew to Bali on 25 September 2022 whilst the Defendant arrived on 26 September 2022. The Plaintiff’s brother’s wedding took place in Bali on 29 September 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     The Plaintiff said that the Defendant exhibited violent behavior towards her on 29 September 2022 and that this was witnessed by her father. The Defendant conceded that the parties had an altercation on 29 September 2022, but he said nothing had come out of it. He then discovered that the Plaintiff and the children were missing the next day. He said that the Plaintiff’s father and other family members of the Plaintiff as well as 2 policemen informed him that the Plaintiff and the children would stay on in Indonesia for a while. The Defendant claimed that he had no choice in the matter and returned to Singapore with the parties’ domestic helper. He said he later found out the Plaintiff and the children had flown to Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     What was not disputed was that from end September 2022, the Plaintiff and the children remained in Jakarta, staying with the Plaintiff’s parents. The 2 older children started attending school with the younger child being homeschooled because of his young age. The children were also attending various extra-curricular activities in Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12     The Defendant went to Jakarta on various occasions as set out in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. He would spend extended periods with the children of at least 7 days to 14 days in Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     On 31 October 2023 on one such visit, the Defendant removed the children from Jakarta and returned to Singapore. He did not have the children’s passports but was probably assisted with the Singapore Embassy in Jakarta. He has not given details of this to date. The Plaintiff was the one who retrieved the information from the Indonesian Immigration Authorities on 4 November 2024. Since then, the children have remained with the Defendant at The XXX.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     On 21 November 2023, the Plaintiff commenced proceedings in Singapore vide OSG164/2023 for the interim sole custody care and control of the children and for the children to be returned or relocated to Jakarta. She commenced divorce proceedings in Jakarta on 30 December 2023. The parties attended a compulsory mediation session on 19 June 2024. The divorce proceedings are live in Indonesia. The Plaintiff informed that the ancillary matters would be dealt with in Indonesia.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     The Defendant cross applied for sole custody care and control of the children in OSG38/2024 on 2 April 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Decision – children to be returned to Indonesia and relocation of the children allowed</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     After reading all the affidavits, considering the documents and hearing the parties, I granted an order for the children to return to Jakarta in Indonesia and to continue to remain there in the care of the Plaintiff. The children are to therefore to be relocated to Indonesia. Consequential orders for access with the Defendant were also dealt with and parties worked out the terms with specific inputs from the Court where there was no agreement.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     The Defendant’s application was also dismissed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18     I now set out the reasons for my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Principles of relocation</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     The general principles with regards to relocation are stated in the Court of Appeal’s decision in <b><em>BNS v BNT</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17588-SSP.xml')">[2015] 3 SLR 973</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span>. It is trite law that the welfare of the child is paramount in deciding relocation cases, and this principle ought to override any other consideration. This is dependent on a multitude of factors which may impact what is best for the child’s welfare. It is a fact-centric exercise. The reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver to relocate is also considered as it may affect the child’s welfare, because the child’s emotional and psychological welfare is generally intertwined with that of the primary caregiver. Loss to the child of his or her relationship with the left-behind parent is also an important consideration but it is not of determinative weight in every case. The court is also to consider the child’s wishes<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_20"></a>20     I find that it is in these children’s welfare to be returned to Jakarta and to be relocated to the place where they had stayed with the Plaintiff, their mother for a period of some 13 months before the Defendant’s unilateral removal of the children from Jakarta to Singapore on 31 October 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     I set out the reasons for my decision taking into account the following factors:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_a"></a>a)     That the Plaintiff was/is the children’s primary caregiver.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_b"></a>b)     The Defendant’s role as a parent before 31 October 2024 and post 31 October 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_c"></a>c)     The paternal grandparents’ role did not displace the Plaintiff as the primary caregiver.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_d"></a>d)     The Defendant’s care of the children after return to Singapore from 31 October 2023 did not displace the Plaintiff’s role.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_e"></a>e)     The Defendant consented to the children staying in Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_f"></a>f)     The Defendant had regular contact with the children in Jakarta and there was no loss of relationship.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_g"></a>g)     The Plaintiff’s caregiving in Jakarta and relocation plan.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_h"></a>h)     The Plaintiff had good reasons to stay in Jakarta with the children due to the Defendant’s conduct i.e. the Defendant’s violence.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_i"></a>i)     Primary caregiver’s wishes to be considered.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_j"></a>j)     Children’s wishes and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_k"></a>k)     Loss of parental relationship and claims of alienation</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Plaintiff is the children’s primary caregiver</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     As a starting point, I made a finding that the Plaintiff was/is the children’s primary caregiver save for the period of 31 October 2023 to July 2024 when she was deprived of the children through the Defendant’s actions of 31 October 2023. This period of absence from the children’s lives was involuntary and caused by the intervening event of their removal from the Plaintiff’s care by the Defendant. It did not however mean that she lost her role or that it had been displaced.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     The Plaintiff’s contributions towards the children’s caregiving as the children’s primary caregiver and a homemaker have been set out in affidavits<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_24"></a>24     She set the children’s daily routine, taking care of their medical needs and overseeing their health; showering the children, preparing all the children’s meals from purchase of the groceries, to cooking and cleaning up, cutting fruits for them, managing the children’s prams, teaching the children how to walk, getting them ready whenever the parties went out etc. She also encouraged and developed their social development through games and arts and crafts. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant worked fulltime from their births.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     When the children remained in Jakarta following the parties’ altercation on 29 September 2022, the Plaintiff continued to be the children’s primary caregiver. She ferried the children to school, was involved in their school life, put them to bed, brushed their teeth, planned their meals etc.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     The Plaintiff even prepared meals for the Defendant and the children when he visited them in Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     More importantly, the Defendant acknowledged in an email dated 3 October 2022 at page 54 of P1<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span>, that the Plaintiff “<em>have done much more than (he) in handling the roles of both a wife and a mother on a full-time basis, at long hours too</em>.”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     Although they had domestic helpers, the Plaintiff carried out caregiving responsibilities, while the domestic helper focused on household chores. The Plaintiff also produced a WhatsApp chat dated 13 July 2020<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span>, detailing the domestic helper’s household responsibilities. The WhatsApp chat corroborated her version of events that indeed the domestic helper’s role was confined to household chores whilst the Plaintiff concentrated on caregiving.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29     Having found that the Plaintiff was/is the children’s primary caregiver, it is in their best interests for the children to remain with her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30     I also refer to <b><em>ULA v UKZ</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22490-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGHCF 19</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> in which weight was given to the relocating parent’s desire to relocate. The Court considered the ways that such relocation would benefit her and held that as the relocating parent is the child’s primary caregiver, the child’s happiness and wellbeing are connected to her and cannot be divorced from hers. In the same vein, the Plaintiff herein is the children’s primary caregiver and the three young children’s welfare, and wellbeing are connected with her.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Defendant’s role as a parent before 31 October 2024 and post 31 October 2024</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31     Notwithstanding the Defendant’s present narrative as to his involvement and that of his parents; whilst important, those efforts were secondary to the primary care the Plaintiff exerted over the care of 3 young children from birth.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32     The Defendant worked fulltime until he removed the children from Jakarta on 31 October 2023. The Plaintiff gave some contextual background to the Defendant’s work history and said that he was a workaholic<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span>. He also pursued his post-graduate education in Switzerland sometime around the end of 2019, and the family moved there for his studies. As he was studying, the care of the young children resided with the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33     The Plaintiff’s account of the Defendant’s lack of time with the family to the extent of only spending minutes a day was also supported by the Plaintiff’s exhibits of WhatsApp messages to her in-laws in October 2019 and in June 2020. He watched videos on YouTube and played online games to the extent that the Plaintiff asked for help from her in-laws to speak with the Defendant for help with the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34     The Defendant also did not want to sleep with the Plaintiff and the children at home, as he said they were noisy. The Plaintiff had to convert the Defendant’s study room into a bedroom for the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35     The Plaintiff also submitted that the Defendant made personal trips without the family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36     In the circumstances, the Defendant’s account of his caregiving must be considered contextually and against the facts of this case. His narration of his detailed caregiving of the children only occurred after 31 October 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The paternal grandparents’ role did not displace the Plaintiff as the primary caregiver </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37     As for the paternal grandparents, B was born in 2016 but the paternal grandfather retired from his fulltime job only in 2019 some 3 years later. D was born in 2018. The Defendant and his parents thus worked fulltime until the paternal grandfather’s retirement in 2019. The paternal grandmother continues to hold down a fulltime job. The primary care of the three young children was left to the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38     The Defendant said the paternal grandfather assisted in caregiving and pointed out to some ferrying of the children as well as text messages from the paternal grandmother giving tips to the Plaintiff on how to care for one of the children who was ill. He also submitted that the parties had the assistance of domestic helpers.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39     The paternal grandparents might have supported the care of the 3 children but their roles could not be considered primary caregiving.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40     Whilst the Defendant submitted that that his parents “heavily assisted” with taking care of the children, there was no evidence of this before 31 October 2023. The Defendant repeated in various WhatsApp messages that his parents were elderly and, “...<em>aged a lot and health deteriorated</em>”, and his father’s latest audio report stated that he had severe hearing loss<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span>. The Defendant’s father suffered chronic chest pains and was admitted to hospital, as stated in the Defendant’s WhatsApp message dated 29 January 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41     I have no doubt that the paternal grandparents love the grandchildren and supported the Plaintiff and Defendant as much as they could but it could not be said that the paternal grandparents were the children’s caregivers. I find that the role rested with the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Defendant’s care of the children after return to Singapore from 31 October 2023 did not displace the Plaintiff’s role</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42     Since the children’s abduction by the Defendant from Jakarta, the Defendant claimed that the children have a new routine. He claimed that he is a hands-on father and he referred to the affidavits from the Chinese tuition teacher and a friend to support this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43     As set out earlier, this routine was created by the Defendant when he abducted the children from Jakarta. He then started the children on formal schooling for B and other classes for the two other children. He claimed to have resumed his caregiving role and he also left his regular job to become a stay home father, working as a lecturer with limited hours of teaching.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44     I did not agree with this narrative as the Defendant abducted the children and removed them from the Plaintiff’s care. The children had lived with the Plaintiff in Jakarta from 29 September 2022. His removal of the children from Jakarta on 31 October 2022 and retaining them with him in Singapore did not transform him to be their primary caregiver especially when he retained them without the Plaintiff’s consent or prior knowledge.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45     The Plaintiff pointed out that there had been delays in the proceeding caused by the Defendant filing his reply affidavit and cross application only in April 2024. The Defendant claimed that parties were negotiating and that he only requested one extension of time. However, for various reasons, his affidavit and various applications were only filed in April 2024. This was 5 months after the Plaintiff’s application. By the time this matter came for final hearing, 7-8 months had passed. The Defendant should not take advantage of this by claiming that the children have a new routine when this was caused by his actions.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46     I also did not see this “routine” as insurmountable; the comparison was not timeframes in which the children were in Jakarta <em>vis-a-vis</em> timeframes in Singapore. The starting point is that the Plaintiff is the children’s primary caregiver. The children were removed from her care. They were then put into a new routine which I found to be artificially created by the Defendant. Their removal from their primary caregiver was also not in their best interests.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47     In fact, the Defendant has not provided any evidence that he was/is the primary caregiver from their birth. The Defendant, his domestic helper and his parents did not displace the Plaintiff as the children’s primary care giver.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48     The Defendant had a tuition teacher, Chen XXX filed an affidavit on April 2024 <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span>about his caregiving. It is pertinent to note that she did not refer to the Defendant’s mother being at home which was consistent with the fact that the Defendant’s mother continued to work. Chen XXX set out in affidavit that she met the Defendant in January 2024. She filed the affidavit in April 2024 and made general statements that the Defendant was invested in the children’s studies. I placed little weight on her affidavit as this was commissioned by the Defendant to garner support for his case; she was the tutor for a short span of time which coincided with the Defendant’s claim of a new “routine” for the children; her statements were general, and she was in no position to have compared the Plaintiff’s care with the Defendant’s.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49     The Defendant also had a friend (R) file an affidavit on 17 April 2024 about what a hands-on father he was. However, the affidavit was unhelpful as the said friend interacted with the Defendant only when the children had play dates. The friend concluded that the Defendant was a good father because he discussed education syllabus with him. The friend was not able to expand on more than that. I did not place weight on the evidence regarding the Defendant being the children’s primary caregiver given the limited content of the affidavit.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50     The Plaintiff also submitted there that the Defendant and/or his domestic helper and/or parents were negligent <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span>with the children’s care. I did not place too much weight on this as parties would tend to overstate their positions in the advancement of their case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51     The pertinent point to note is that the Plaintiff was/is the children’s primary caregiver and the separation of mother and children was caused by the Defendant’s intervening act of removing them from her. His attempts to build a narrative as the children’s primary caregiver must be taken in context of his fulltime job (before 31 October 2023), the Plaintiff’s primary role, and the other matters that are set out here.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Defendant consented to the children staying in Jakarta</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52     I also find that the Defendant consented to the children remaining in Jakarta. The Plaintiff’s decision to remain in Jakarta stemmed from incidents in the marriage (elaborated further below) in which he told the Plaintiff that she could take the children and return to Jakarta if he was violent again. This was corroborated by the video recording produced by the Plaintiff in evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53     From the Defendant’s text messages and emails, he accepted that the children would live in Jakarta. He also told the Plaintiff to enroll the children in an international school in Jakarta; corroborated in text messages between the parties and his subsequent actions. He visited the children’s school in Jakarta and participated in events when invited by the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54     His messages to the Plaintiff of 12 September 2023 were reproduced in her affidavit<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span>:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“... I will be going over next week Thursday and spend time with you and our children. I hope we can stay together and I’m willing to live there with you all. Let’s discuss? ...”</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(text message from the Defendant on 20 January 2023)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“If you think being in Indonesia is better, let’s discuss it as long as we can be together as a family.”</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(text message from the Defendant on 19 March 2023)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“... Kindly give our children and family a chance in Jakarta.” (text message from the Defendant on 2 July 2023)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“Let us restart (if you insist in Jakarta) for our children and family.” (text message from the Defendant on 9 August 2023)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“Dearest, I beg you to please let our family reunite. I’m willing to move to Jakarta. ...”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55     The Defendant also stated in his email of 9 July 2023<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span>:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“I have done everything I can and am really at my wit’s end on how to salvage our dear family. My last solution is to go to you, leave Singapore and live with you and our children in Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Please kindly give me the 1<sup>st</sup> and last chance at trying a new life for our family IN JAKARTA. I will support you in whatever you wish to do.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56     In <b><em>TUC v TUD</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/20876-SSP.xml')">[2017] 4 SLR 877</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span>, the High Court discussed a parent’s consent to relocate in the context of Section 13(a) of the Hague Convention. The High Court stated that there must be proof on the balance of probabilities that the left-behind parent consented to the child being removed to or retained in a different country. Although this is not a case under the Hague Convention, I find that the principles are relevant, and that the Defendant’s words and conduct indicated a clear consent for the children to live in Jakarta. The fact that the Plaintiff and the children stayed on in Jakarta for 13 months also evidenced this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57     In <b><em>VMY v VMZ</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25265-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGFC 94</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> the Court ordered that the father be permitted to relocate with the children to the United Kingdom and have care and control of the children. In the case, there was an email in 2019 where the mother confirmed that she was agreeable to the children relocating in the summer of 2021. The children attended classes to prepare for grammar school in the United Kingdom and in contemplation of the children moving to an international school which followed the United Kingdom school curriculum.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58     In this present fact situation, the Defendant’s conduct and messages confirmed his consent. The Defendant did not refute these messages. He even suggested that he would relocate to Jakarta to be with the Plaintiff and the children. He also went to Jakarta and spent extended time with the children (discussed below). I find there was no ambiguity in what the Defendant said and that he meant what was said. The Defendant did not address these messages and emails in his replies.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Defendant had regular contact with the children in Jakarta</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59     Although counsel submitted that the Defendant was unsure of whether he would have contact or access with the children each time he went to Jakarta, it was undisputed that the Defendant saw the children. The Defendant had no issues travelling to Jakarta on various occasions for access as set out <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span>:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_a"></a>a)     27 January 2023 to 5 February 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_b"></a>b)     8 April 2023 to 9 April 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_c"></a>c)     12 April 2023 to 13 April 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_d"></a>d)     14 April 2023 to 15 April 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_e"></a>e)     20 May 2023 to 21 May 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_f"></a>f)     26 May 2023 to 28 May 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_g"></a>g)     24 June 2023 to 26 June 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_h"></a>h)     28 June 2023 to 2 July 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_i"></a>i)     3 August 2023 to 14 August 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_j"></a>j)     15 September 2023 to 18 September 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_k"></a>k)     22 September 2023 to 28 September 2023;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_59-p2_l"></a>l)     25 October 2023 to 31 October 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60     The Plaintiff also offered the Defendant undisturbed phone calls with the children twice a week<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span>. This was corroborated by the Defendant at paragraph 32 of D1 and his parents were also present at the weekly video calls<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span>. He sent an email on 9 May 2023 that he had access to the children when he said:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <em>“</em>In the meantime, I am to continue the current routine of seeing our children (B, D and E) in Jakarta as often as I can every month or so, and kindly continue to video call my parent and I during every Wednesday and Saturday at 7pm (SGT) / 6pm (JKT) so we can talk with and see the children.”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61     On the evidence, the video calls commenced 2 days after the Plaintiff and the children stayed in Jakarta.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62     There is no concern that the Defendant would be deprived of contact with the children when they relocate to Jakarta. The Defendant in his own messages stated that was to “continue the current routine” of seeing the children as often as he could, every month or so. The dates listed in paragraph 59 also showed that he did have access to the children regularly.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Plaintiff’s caregiving in Jakarta and viable relocation plan</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63     On the other hand, the Plaintiff continued her role as the children’s primary caregiver when they lived in Jakarta from 29 September 2022 to 31 October 2023. She can continue her role once the children return to her. The children’s care should not be substituted with a domestic helper or grandparents, especially if a parent is readily available to be with the children. This is one such case in which the Plaintiff would be continuing her caregiving of her three young children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64     As for a relocation plan, this was not an issue as the children lived in Jakarta and were attending school/classes there for 13 months. This was not the usual relocation case in which one parent questioned the viability of a relocation plan. The children already lived in Jakarta for more than a year before their removal by the Defendant.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65     The children lived with the Plaintiff and their grandparents at Apartment XXX Indonesia. The Plaintiff had assistance from her parents although she said this was required. She also had the assistance of domestic helpers<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_66"></a>66     The children attended school in Jakarta at XXX de Jakarta since November 2022<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_67"></a>67     The children attended various extra-curricular activities and tuition classes in Jakarta. B attended gym sessions, taekwondo, wushu martial arts, ice skating, artistic swimming classes, baking and cooking classes, painting, paddle, singing classes, Chinese and French lessons. D attended gym, taekwondo, wushu martial arts, Chinese lessons, and piano lessons. The Plaintiff has exhibited numerous photographs of the children which were taken in Jakarta<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span>. E was home schooled by the Plaintiff in Jakarta as he was only slightly over 2 years old then<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_68"></a>68     The Plaintiff purchased insurance in Jakarta. She brought them for regular medical and dental checkups when the children lived in Jakarta. Copies of the policies were exhibited<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_69"></a>69     The Plaintiff has an extensive extended family in Jakarta, whom the children are familiar with, including cousins, aunts, uncles, and their grandparents<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_70"></a>70     I also address the Defendant’s submission that that there was a lack of contact between the Plaintiff’s parents and the children when the children lived in Singapore before August 2022. The Plaintiff denied this allegation as her parents visited Singapore about 4 times from B’s birth. Her sisters visited Singapore several times. The children also visited Jakarta with the Plaintiff on numerous occasions and met up with her extended family and the children are not unfamiliar with their maternal grandparents. In any event, I did not see this as a concern as the children have lived with the maternal grandparents for 13 months and had been meeting with their aunts, uncles and cousins.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_71"></a>71     On the other hand, the children do not have any cousins or any other extended family members from the Plaintiff’s side of the family in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_72"></a>72     Upon the children’s return, they would continue with their stay at the Plaintiff’s parent’s home and they would return to their routine of 13 months before they were wrested from the Plaintiff’s care. They would be looked after by their mother, their primary caregiver. There was no real concern about a viable relocation plan as the children lived in Jakarta. They had a life in Jakarta and they would be returning to that life.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Plaintiff had good reasons to stay in Jakarta with the children – the Defendant’s voice</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_73"></a>73     The Plaintiff had good reasons to stay on in Jakarta with the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_74"></a>74     She had a legitimate concern about the Defendant’s issue of anger and violence. He has also been caught on recordings bad-mouthing the Plaintiff to the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_75"></a>75     During the marriage, the Plaintiff had been subjected to the Defendant’s violent behavior. She suffered multiple wrist and back injuries and produced a TCM report<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_25" id="Ftn_25_1"><sup>[note: 25]</sup></a></span>: The Defendant had been physically violent to the Plaintiff even when she was 7 months pregnant<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_26" id="Ftn_26_1"><sup>[note: 26]</sup></a></span>. He admitted to abusing the Plaintiff as seen from the Plaintiff’s video recording dated 21 July 2019’. He had choked the Plaintiff, pushed her off a bed while she was nursing one of the children; pulling her down the bed when she was heavily pregnant<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_27" id="Ftn_27_1"><sup>[note: 27]</sup></a></span>; pushed the Plaintiff on the wardrobe countertop when she put on a nice dress to meet a friend etc.<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_76"></a>76     The family lived in Switzerland for the Defendant’s post-graduate studies<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_29" id="Ftn_29_1"><sup>[note: 29]</sup></a></span>. When the family was in Switzerland, the landlord in Switzerland received a complaint because of the Defendant’s shouting (at the children and the Plaintiff).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_77"></a>77     On 21 July 2019, the Defendant admitted that he had hit the Plaintiff, and reassured the Defendant that she could leave with the children, if he ever hit her again. The recording is relevant and reproduced:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“Defendant: If it happens again, you can just walk with the kids.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Me: No, you say...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant: You can just walk with the kids.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (0:06) You say...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (0:06) I don’t like this kind of recording. I don’t like this kind of documentation, dearest.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (0:11) Today, 7th of July.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (0:13) Dearest, I don’t like this kind of documentation, dearest.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (0:16) You must say, today, 7th of July.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (0:19) Dearest. Okay.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (0:21) No. You say, today, 7th of July. I, XBF.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (0:25) 7th of July. I, XBF</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (0:27) Just beat my wife again.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (0:28) Beat my wife. Okay, XBE.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (0:28) And I promise...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (0:30) And I promise that no matter how insulted I feel or upset</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">I feel, I will not lay a finger on her. And I’ll teach the kids that women are not below men. And that I will spend more time as much as I can with the kids. And I would not discipline the kids using a cane.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (1:05) And if you were to lay a finger...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (1:07) And if I were to lay a finger on my wife...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman: (1:11) Again.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man: (1:11) Again. she can leave with the kids.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_78"></a>78     The Defendant raised his hand to hit the Plaintiff when the parties were in Bali on 29 September 2022, and this was witnessed by her father. The Plaintiff’s father also filed an affidavit setting out what he had seen of the Defendant’s conduct.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_79"></a>79     The Defendant’s parents themselves were also aware of the Defendant’s anger management issues. They spoke to him about this anger and even suggested that the Defendant sought help. The chat in the family’s WhatsApp chat on 2 February 2021<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_30" id="Ftn_30_1"><sup>[note: 30]</sup></a></span> is relevant:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[2/2/21, 9:22:18 AM] T K: XBF what is going on?? B is still very young and need a lots of parents love and nurturing. She can be playful and stubborn at times but you cannot vent your anger on her under whatever circumstances. Papa and Mama don’t raise you like that using hard approach on B. She may be scarred emotionally and have deep hatred for you when she grow up. I don’t think that is what you wanted. You told Papa before you want to give your children the best. If you really cannot control yourself, please go for help.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_80"></a>80     The Plaintiff’s father spoke to the Defendant about the Defendant’s abuse over a 3-hour conversation which was recorded.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_31" id="Ftn_31_1"><sup>[note: 31]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_81"></a>81     On one occasion, the Defendant hit B near her eye. B can be heard in the recording stating that the Defendant had poured alcohol on her in his fits of anger. The extracts of the recording on 26 May 2022, taken by B are as follows and the full version is set out at paragraph 35 of P2:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (0:09) B, Okay? Okay? If your mother does not even have the decency to explain that to you, she is not fit to be your mother because that is the fact. I did not aim at your eye. I was trying to punish you and only flicked one time because you did something wrong. Okay?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (0:28) B can differentiate eye and cheek? Very good.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (2:04) That is the cheekbone. Okay? This is ... very near to your eye.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (2:09) It’s not the eye, B. Cheekbone and eye are two different things.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (2:12) So the fact that Papa aimed there, it is not right.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (2:15) I did not aim at your eye, B. I did not aim at your eye. Okay, that is the cheekbone.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (2:21) In the middle of night I eat (inaudible), okay?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (2:45) Goodnight, D. I don’t want you to live with this monster. Okay? Your mother is a monster. Okay?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (6:18) B, I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to your monster mother.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (6:43): Papa wait. *sound of beating*</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (6:45) B..</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (6:48): Can you show me?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (6:48) Does Papa beat you like that? Oh no!</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (6:50) Very hard.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (6:56) No, I don’t want to beat you like the way Papa does. Because when Papa does that to Mama, Mama gets bruises all over.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (7:02) No, Mama hits Papa and Papa gets bruises and Mama uses vulgarities and bad words on Papa.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (7:09) Does Mama even hit Papa?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Girls (7:10) No.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (7:16) I know why she sprays water at Papa because...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (7:19) Yeah, I spray water at Papa. That’s true.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (7:21) Because Papa kept hitting you so I have to spray the water.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman (8:11) Are you serious?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman (8:13) I have told you so many times. Do not aim at her face. Do not aim at her head. She was literally covering her face.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (8:20) You could have talked to me.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Woman (8:21) And the moment her hands went down, you hit her there. And when I asked you, why did you hit her there, you said, ”I aimed there.”</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (9:00) And then I said, look at where you hit. And then you said, “Yes, I aimed there.?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (9:04) Is that the eye?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (9:05) That is a centimetre away from the eye.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (9:38) What is that B?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (9:38) Just now you bit me very hard. Ow. [Inaudible]</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (11:09) Can you please not aim at the head?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (11:10) I can. But my point is..</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (11:11) So why do you keep doing this?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (11:27) What do you think my life was? Staying with you for so many years...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (11:32) Hey hey! Look! Look!</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (11:32) ... and nobody believed what you did to me. You choked me.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (11:34) Hey! Hey!</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (11:34) You hurt my back. You break my back. You broke my pelvic. You broke my pelvic.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (11:42) What kind of behaviour you had?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Me (11:43) You punched me. You hit me.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Me (11:45) You hurt my wrist.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Man (11:47) Okay? You do that same thing to me as well. Okay?</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(...)</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">B (14:06) I still remember when we were... when we were with family. With Yeye (paternal grandfather) and Nainai (paternal grandmother). I was naughty. And then papa put alcohol in my face. I still remember that.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Me (14:15) Yeah. That was very bad.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Me (14:16) All over your face. I’m so sorry about that, B.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Defendant (14:18) B, B. Papa was not...</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Plaintiff (14:20) Please try to erase that memory. That’s not a good memory to keep.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_82"></a>82     The Defendant had raised in submissions that the Plaintiff did not file an application for a Personal Protection Order (PPO). The Plaintiff was alone in Singapore with 3 young children and her immigration status was tied to the Defendant. I did not place too much weight on the submission of a lack of an application for a PPO in the circumstances of this case: the Plaintiff was a foreigner living in her husband’s country and depended on him. She would have to continue living with the Defendant after filing the PPO and that would be an unsustainable outcome.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_83"></a>83     In the case of <b><em>ABZ v AYZ</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2012] 3 SLR 0627.xml')">[2012] 3 SLR 627</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_32" id="Ftn_32_1"><sup>[note: 32]</sup></a></span>, the High Court allowed the wife’s relocation to the United States. The husband’s appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the wife’s decision to relocate was understandable as she was vulnerable, alienated and isolated in Singapore. The wife had no family members or close friends in Singapore to support her. She underwent a difficult divorce and suffered a loss of self-esteem caused by years of abuse by the husband. The wife also did not hold permanent residency in Singapore. Notwithstanding the wife’s work experience in her younger days, given the years she spent as a homemaker, the High Court held that it would be difficult for her to re-enter the workplace.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_84"></a>84     In the same vein, the Plaintiff in this case worked when she was younger but became a fulltime homemaker and the children’s primary caregiver throughout the duration of her marriage. She was isolated here without familial support and then subjected to violence not only targeted against her, but which spilled over to the children. That is of concern. The Plaintiff and the children should be given this opportunity to heal with familial support and the children be brought up in an environment without stress.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_85"></a>85     Further, the Plaintiff’s immigration status in Singapore is uncertain. On 12 May 2023, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (<b>“ICA”</b>), informed the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s Permanent Resident (“PR”) status would be valid for “5 years” <em>i.e.</em>, until 12 May 2028.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_86"></a>86     On 6 November 2023, when the Plaintiff visited ICA, she discovered that her PR status was terminated, and her Singapore identity card had to be surrendered to the ICA.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_87"></a>87     The Defendant did not admit to any involvement on his part with regards the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s PR status.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_88"></a>88     Unfortunately, the loss of her PR status meant that the Plaintiff could not stay on in Singapore especially if the Defendant did not sponsor her. With divorce proceedings underway in Indonesia, it is unlikely that the Defendant would act as her sponsor.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_89"></a>89     With an uncertain immigration status, and a marriage marred by violence or abuse; no familial support (like the wife in <b><em>ABZ v AYZ), it</em></b> is understandable why the Plaintiff wanted to stay on in Jakarta with the children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Primary caregiver’s wishes to be considered</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_90"></a>90     The Plaintiff’s wish to have the children returned to Jakarta is reasonable given the matters above and the findings I made. The Plaintiff had been abused by the Defendant and she should be in her home country with her support network. She lost her PR status in Singapore. There would not be an opportunity for her to stay in Singapore for the long term. The Plaintiff does not have any family members in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_91"></a>91     The parties’ relationship was unstable due to the Defendant’s violence and behavior, and I refer to the few descriptions of the violence and abuse suffered by the Plaintiff which unfortunately spilled over to the older child. The younger children should also not be triangulated in the conflict.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_92"></a>92     The final straw was the incident on 29 September 2022. The Defendant had raised his hand to hit the Plaintiff, and this was witnessed by the Plaintiff’s father.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_33" id="Ftn_33_1"><sup>[note: 33]</sup></a></span> As her father, the Plaintiff’s father was protective of her and the children. With the backing of her family, the Plaintiff took the step to protect the children and herself by staying on in Jakarta.<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_93"></a>93     Given the circumstances and the factual matrix of this case, I find that it is more likely than not that greater harm would be suffered by the Plaintiff and the children if the children are not allowed to relocate. It is in the best interests of these young children to relocate to Jakarta to be reunited with their mother, the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Children’s wishes</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_94"></a>94     The Defendant claimed that the children repeatedly expressed their wish to return to Singapore when they were in Jakarta with the Plaintiff. He submitted that Singapore was their home since birth, they had been displaced from their home and placed in an unfamiliar environment, taken away from their father and their grandparents.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_95"></a>95     The Court in <b><em>WRT v WRU</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30720-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 38</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_35" id="Ftn_35_1"><sup>[note: 35]</sup></a></span> has highlighted at [38] that although the child(ren)’s wishes are “<em>relevant, they are not determinative</em>”. Further, the age of the child(ren) is an important factor in the Court’s consideration of their wishes. The younger the child(ren), the less appropriate it was for the Court to rely on any expression of interest for or against relocation as they do not have the requisite maturity to make decisions on such major issues.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_96"></a>96     At ages between 3 to 7 years old, the children would not fully understand the weight of what was said to them and by them, prompted by the Defendant and recorded by the Defendant. I agreed with the legal principle that the children’s wishes should be considered but they had to be also considered taking into account their ages and the fact that the Defendant had a strong controlling personality eg the Defendant could be heard asking leading questions in the recordings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_97"></a>97     Given their ages, they would easily re-adapt to being home in Jakarta with their primary caregiver. I refer to <b><em>UYK v UYJ</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24079-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHC 9</a> in which Ong J, as she then was, held the following:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">55    This was not a case where a child and her family have lived in Singapore for many years with strong ties to Singapore, or at least ties which are not merely transient. It is perfectly reasonable for a family desiring to live in Singapore to set up a home here, but the intentions of parties would no longer be the same after their relationship has broken down. In the present case, disallowing relocation was in effect compelling the Mother to live permanently or indefinitely in a country which was not her home, and a country where her immigration status was tenuous and uncertain. In this regard, the Father argued that the Mother’s wishes should not be taken into account as it is the child’s welfare that should be the court’s concern. However, I was of the view that to wholly disregard the life circumstances that the primary carer will be confronted with was simply out of touch with the realities of life and was also inconsistent with the welfare of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">56    The Father submitted that the UK would now be a “brand new environment” for C, but it appears that C had spent some time in the UK when he was younger, and to some extent, had a life planned out for him in the UK before the relationship breakdown.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">57    The DJ was also not wrong to find that C was young and adaptable, and would be able to settle down in the UK with a loving parent by his side.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_98"></a>98     In fact, the children have expressed that they did not want to be away from the Plaintiff.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_36" id="Ftn_36_1"><sup>[note: 36]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Well-settledness and country of birth</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_99"></a>99     As for the Defendant’s claim that the children would be returning to the country of their births, this “status quo” was displaced with the children living in Jakarta with the Defendant’s consent, from 29 September 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_100"></a>100    As set out in <b><em>UYK v UYJ</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25444-SSP.xml')">[2020] 5 SLR 772</a><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_37" id="Ftn_37_1"><sup>[note: 37]</sup></a></span>, well-settledness in a country is also not an immutable circumstance that can never change. The passage of time and support from a loving parent can enable a child to adapt well to transitions in life. The relevant extracts are set out:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[51]  whether a child is well settled in Singapore is a relevant factor that should be given appropriate weight. It was also important, however, to bear in mind that in a globalised world, families are geographically mobile and adaptable, and the weight to be placed on well-settledness will depend on other related circumstances including how many years the child has lived in that country, the age of the child, and whether that country has been the family’s home for many years.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[52]  Well-settledness in a country is also not an immutable circumstance that can never change. The passage of time and support from a loving parent can enable a child to adapt well to transitions in life.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[54]  The argument of well-settledness, in protracted litigation proceedings, will tend to favour the party objecting to relocation: the longer the child is kept in Singapore, the more well settled he is likely to be in the country. In some situations, a party who prolongs proceedings may thereby seek to benefit from that contrivance by advancing the argument that the child is now well settled in Singapore and thus should not be relocated. The court should give appropriate consideration and weight to this factor of well-settledness in the context of other relevant factors and overall setting of the case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_101"></a>101    I could not agree to a submission of the children having a routine or being well-settled from 31 October 2023. Their abduction from Jakarta on 31 October 2023 was an act engineered by the Defendant. He had abducted the children on 31 October 2023 but took some 4-5 months to file his affidavit in reply and/or his cross application. He should not benefit from this delaying tactic to secure a litigation advantage at the expense of the children’s welfare and best interests.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_102"></a>102    As for Singapore being the children’s home country, I had tied the children’s home to being with their primary caregiver, their mother. The Plaintiff had tried to maintain the marriage but the Defendant’s conduct caused the breakdown of the marriage. The children should not be deprived of their relationship with their primary caregiver especially given the facts of this case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_103"></a>103    I had made a finding that the Defendant was/is not the children primary caregiver and his anger management issues would be detrimental to the children in the long run. He has also shown that he had no qualms in bad-mouthing the Plaintiff to the children and he had embarked on a campaign since their return to stop her contact with them. This was not acceptable given their young ages and that she was/is their primary caregiver. As such, as set out in <b><em>UYK v UYJ</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25444-SSP.xml')">[2020] 5 SLR 772</a>, there must be appropriate consideration and weight to the factor of well-settledness or return to home county in the context of other relevant factors and overall setting of the case. The relevant factors here do not support a contention that the children should remain in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Loss of parental relationship and claims of alienation</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_104"></a>104    Parties both claimed that the other would alienate or have alienated the children from him/her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_105"></a>105    On the Plaintiff’s part, I am satisfied that she would not alienate the children from the Defendant and there would not be a loss in their relationship. She had involved the Defendant in the children’s lives in Jakarta from September 2022 and the fact that he had spent so much time with them when they were there speaks for itself. His contact with the children was not controlled or fettered in anyway. The Plaintiff has also come up with a generous access plan and this was endorsed on 12 August 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_106"></a>106    On the other hand, when the Defendant’s abducted the children from Jakarta to Singapore, he had been uncooperative regarding the information between the Plaintiff and the children. He had imposed conditions and he had controlled the video/telephone calls. Given the way he had even rejected proposals for the Plaintiff to see the children in supervised setting by the government agencies, I am not confident that he would ensure contact between the Plaintiff and the children if the children remained in his care.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_107"></a>107    Whilst loss of relationship is an important consideration, it is inevitable as a consequence of family breakdown. The Plaintiff has shown that she supported contact between the Defendant and the children in the 13 months they lived in Jakarta. The Defendant has also shown that he has the financial means and flexibility to travel to Jakarta and/or to relocate there as well. The uniqueness in this case is that one did not need to conjecture about a relocation plan and access because past actions and conduct showed that the Plaintiff supported the Defendant’s access with the children.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Concluding remarks</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_108"></a>108    Given the facts of this case and the matters I have set out, I therefore granted the Plaintiff’s application and allowed the relocation. I also endorsed the access plans presented by the Plaintiff as they are fair and reasonable; her past conduct during the 13 months showed that she would fulfil her end of the bargain.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_109"></a>109    I also awarded costs to the Plaintiff fixed at $8,000 and disbursements as drawn.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Bundle of Authorities (PBA) TAB-7 at [26]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Women’s Charter 1961 TAB-3 PBA</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s Written Submission PWS page 75</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s affidavit filed 21/11/2023 P1 page 54</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Plaintiff’s affidavit filed 10/5/2024 P2 [49.2 – 3]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>SGHCF 19 TAB-14 of PBA</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>PWS Para 48, Page 25</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>P2, [49.1.4], [49.1.5 – 7]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>P2, [216], TAB 57</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>WS Para 48, Page 25</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>P1, [28]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>P1, Tab 9</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>SLR 877 PBA TAB-12 - WS Para 35, Page 17</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>SGFC 94 PBA TAB-24 - WS Para 36, Page 18</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>P1 Para 23, Page 8-9</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>P1, [25], P2, [149.2]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>P2, [148.1]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>P2, [148.5], D1, Tab 17</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>P2, [56]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>P1, [10], P2, [129]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>P1, [20], Tab 6, P2, [166.2], Tab 53</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>P2, [129], Tab 45</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>P2, [70], Tab 38</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>P2, [170]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_25_1" id="Ftn_25">[note: 25]</a></sup>P1, [11], Tab 4, P2, [115], P1, [11], Tab 4</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_26_1" id="Ftn_26">[note: 26]</a></sup>P2, [117]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_27_1" id="Ftn_27">[note: 27]</a></sup>P1. page 233</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_28_1" id="Ftn_28">[note: 28]</a></sup>P1, page 233</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_29_1" id="Ftn_29">[note: 29]</a></sup>P2, [49.6]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_30_1" id="Ftn_30">[note: 30]</a></sup>P2, [36], Tab 19</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_31_1" id="Ftn_31">[note: 31]</a></sup>P2, [105]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_32_1" id="Ftn_32">[note: 32]</a></sup>SLR 627 TAB-5 PBA</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_33_1" id="Ftn_33">[note: 33]</a></sup>P2, [83] – [85], [103] – [105], PF3, [28]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_34_1" id="Ftn_34">[note: 34]</a></sup>P2, [105]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_35_1" id="Ftn_35">[note: 35]</a></sup>SGFC 38 &lt;TAB-29&gt;</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_36_1" id="Ftn_36">[note: 36]</a></sup>P2, [151]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_37_1" id="Ftn_37">[note: 37]</a></sup>SLR 772 &lt;TAB-21&gt;</p></div></content></root> 66d260106dc3945d5bb55958aa446a7a9a947383

Links from other tables