Category: The Brief

This is the first part of a series on the different ways divorce can be settled. This article was first published by OTP Law Corporation.

Divorce is a harrowing process. Beyond the emotional trauma, there are typically a host of issues and complications, especially if there are children or substantial assets involved. These issues, big or small, need to be addressed before the divorce can be finalised.

Sometimes, parties are able to come to an agreement on their own and thus result in an uncontested divorce. However, divorce will often be contested as spouses will usually not be able to totally agree on all aspects, especially for ancillary matters. In many cases, parties turn to litigation to resolve these issues, battling in court for every inch they can squeeze out of the other with rarely any clear winner at the end. This begs the question – is there a better way to resolve these issues?

There are four main ways in which divorce matters can be resolved: being a litigant-in-person, mediation, collaborative practice, and litigation. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and choosing one depends on the needs and interests of the party in question. Ultimately, this article hopes to show that there may be a better path towards a more friendly and peaceful divorce than litigation, which perhaps should be a last resort.

LITIGANT-IN-PERSON (LIP)

The first method parties can opt for is to handle their case by themselves, i.e. being a LIP. This method entails either party, or both, choosing not to engage lawyers to act on his/her behalf in the matter and instead, opting to complete the divorce process himself/herself. They would then be responsible for everything normally be handled by a divorce lawyer – drafting and filing paperwork (including pleadings, motions, affidavits, and court forms); communicating with the other party or his/her lawyer; doing the relevant legal research; and attending and presenting arguments at hearings… That’s a lot of work.Clearly, unless the LIP is already familiar with the court process and the law, this requires a great deal of preparation and research on his/her part on top of everything else that’s going on. Between complex legal jargon, legal processes, and financial implications (amongst many other things), not everyone has the time and ability to seek out the necessary information, especially in more complex cases. Being a LIP is no walk in the park, and is a solution perhaps not suited to most cases.

Pros

On the bright side, being a LIP cuts out a bulk of the costs of that come with litigation. With legal fees typically amounting to thousands of dollars, representing yourself will cut down on money spent finalising the divorce, leaving more in the pocket to settle other issues. Further, LIPs have full control over the legal arguments, strategies, and communication. This gives them the chance to make decisions independently.

Cons

Conversely, there are two main downsides to being a LIP. Firstly, acting for yourself means facing the legal and emotional toil yourself. This can be overwhelming, due to the stressful nature of appearing in court, the emotionally-charged nature of divorce, and frustration during hearings. There is also a wide array of issues to manage – from drafting to research to meeting court deadlines.  Unless parties are familiar with the processes, it is likely to be an overwhelming and time-consuming endeavour to find and internalise all the information.

Second, while a LIP can do research and follow the guides on the Family Justice Courts website (link: https://www.familyjusticecourts.gov.sg/Common/Pages/divorce.aspx) to understand what they need to do, they run the risk of not putting in enough useful information to build their case. This is of course, not their fault – after all, LIPs are not necessarily familiar with the relevant case law and documents, as well as what kind of evidence would be helpful. LIPs may also not be fully familiar with the implications of the decisions he/she makes, leading to the risk of making irreversible mistakes which have severe consequences in the long run. This also leads to a general concern by opposing counsel over whether decisions and agreements are made knowingly and voluntarily, especially with regard to bigger issues such as children, retirement benefits, or substantial assets.

Best for……

Clearly, this method is extremely taxing for parties as there are many things to take into consideration. In this light, this method is perhaps best for two specific cases: firstly, in uncontested divorce, parties with no children, little assets and debts to divide, and comparable income; or secondly, in contested divorce, where disputes are not too substantial, and parties are already familiar with the court processes and laws, and are able to keep a level head during the proceedings.

What is Project Restructure?

Project Restructure is a multi-disciplinary initiative by the founding lawyers of OTP Law Corporation to provide support as you embark onto a new phase in  life, whether family or work. Collaborating with our affiliates in PracticeForte Advisory, our approach brings together professional expertise in areas of law, finance, psychology, mediation, counselling and therapy.

If life is about solving one problem to the next let us help – with our suite of expertise honed further with experience.

Special Feature By PracticeForte Advisory Affiliate Abigail Leee

The year starts, the year ends. You always have that one or two items that you have told yourself that you would definitely need to keep to this for this particular New Year, but when the end of the year comes, you find yourself beating yourself up with yet another year of unaccomplished resolutions.

It always seems to happen, does it not? So how can we make resolutions so that they can be kept and at the same time be able to deal with the festive period stresses that seek to undo the success of resolution fulfillment?

Here are some pointers:

1. Be Realistic in Expectations

When setting New Year resolutions or goals, do not try to change everything at once or start with something that is too big. New goals do not necessarily deliver new results but consistencies in one’s lifestyle do, and that takes time. Changes require a process and add up over time so never underestimate the little intentional steps and efforts that you make.

2. Take a Break and Regain Your Focus

Intentionally include times of rest each week or go for a personal retreat at least twice a year so that you would gain clarity and be reminded in staying on track with your goals. Research has shown that high amounts of stress affect the physical body negatively, so take time each week to enjoy and cherish the moments of physical and emotional well-being.

3. Be Thankful

Positive Psychology studies show that thankfulness and being grateful increases happiness and reduces feelings of depression in an individual. Whilst negative thoughts and feelings are to be recognised and not to be denied, doing a daily reflection exercise at the end of the day where one acknowledges at least 1 to 2 positive events or things that have happened to them for that day could facilitate the increase in endorphin (“our happy hormone”) levels, provide better sleep and improve overall well-being for oneself and in our relationship with others around us.

4. Reach Out and Have a Support System

There are times when the going gets tough and at such times, being alone tends to make those times even rougher ones to pull through. Reaching out and establishing a support system for yourself will not only enable you to tide through difficult times but would also serve to you as regular reminders to have some fun and to relax!

Whatever you have as a New Year resolution definitely requires some form of change or changes to take place. Changes require a process and add up over time before it bears into the positive fruit that you wish to see, so never underestimate every little intentional step and effort that you make.

Have an awesome year ahead and have your best year yet!

This article is written by Susan Tay of OPT Law Corporation and is published in conjunction with PracticeForte’s Project Relocation Initiative.

Relocation Case Analysis ULA v UKZ –Voice of The Unmarried Mother Heard

This article is written by Susan Tay of OTP Law Corporation. This article is published in conjunction with PracticeForte’s Project Relocation initiative.

 I am a mother of a 9 year old son. His dad, an Irish man who was not married to me, lived with his wife and 2 kids in New Zealand. Until my son was about 3, his family did not know anything about me or our son. In fact, it was I who called his wife in 2012 and told her about us. My boy was 3 years old.

 The year after our son was born was the only time the 3 of us lived together. It was short lived and lasted only a year because his wife and the 2 children were away in Ireland that year. When they went back to New Zealand, I left and returned to Singapore with our son. He remained with his family in New Zealand. Since then, I single-handedly raised our child; with the help of my mum and a helper. He flew in to see our son and me, especially when he had business meetings here.  In 2011-2014, it was every 2-3 months but he came more regularly from 2014-2016, like every 4-8 weeks.  He started contributing towards maintenance only in the last couple of years before we broke up. He gave us about NZ$9000/ month.

 I do not doubt that he loves our son but his role in our child’s life was limited to periodic visits and holidays with him and financial contributions towards his maintenance. These contributions, while voluntary, were limited.

I count my blessings. I have a well-paid job and had no financial problems raising my son. My job however is a demanding one. Spanning 5 continents and as many time zones of 4-13 hours apart, I spent long hours at work leaving me exhausted and on the verge of being burnt out. I barely had time with son.

 I only finally broke up with son’s dad in late 2016. I was angry with him for wanting to take the son for a holiday without me. He stopped seeing us. He said I blocked his access.

 2017: the father took out an application in the Singapore courts asking for joint custody and access. We worked out a settlement in mediation and I agreed on the father sharing joint custody with me. We also worked out an access plan with him flying to Singapore every 6 to 8 weeks, visiting our son 6-8 times a year. He could also speak with our son at least thrice a week. We also agreed that Singapore would be our son’s habitual residence unless the Court allow or parties agree otherwise.

 1 month after the consent order, I was offered a 2 year assignment in London. I thought my prayers were answered. This was not the 1st time I had planned to move to London. Shortly before we broke up, in early 2016, son’s dad and I had actually made plans for me and son to move to London. Back then, he was supportive of my intended move. He knew that if I work in London, I will have a better work-life balance.  He in fact drew up a transition plan to London where he would visit us. He had business interests in London and travelled there often. There was no inconvenience.

 This time around however, he was dead set against it saying the move would mean reduced access. He claimed his son would be traumatised by the move. I had to apply to court for the relocation.  

Imagined Voice of the Mother in the case of ULA v UKZ. Facts were extracted from the judgments written in UKZ v ULA [2018] SGFC 32 and the at the appeal hearing in ULA v UKZ [2018] SGHCF 19.

Law In Singapore for Unmarried Parents

In 2017, there were a total of 796 births registered to Singaporean mothers who were not married to the fathers of their child/children.[1] Although this is a small fraction of the total birth population, Singapore laws have, since the 1980s, accorded equal parental rights to both mothers and fathers even if they are not married to each other. In this respect, Singapore can be applauded for its enlightened approach.

Yet, in a plight akin to the unmarried mother’s in ULA v UKZ, can we said to have pushed “equality” a tad too far? Seeking to achieve equality for both parties, for example in terms of ease of access, time spent with the child, etc., may not always possible when the best interests of the child are concerned.

This case exemplifies the difficulty in obtaining what’s best for the child in circumstances that are obviously not equal for the mother and father. In such instances, it may be more appropriate to place a sole caregiver’s needs higher than the other parent. I say this with the 1st instance hearing of the mother’s application for relocation in mind. Eventually, a more balanced and nuanced view was taken by the appeal judge and thankfully for the mother, she won her appeal to relocate at the High Court.

UKZ v ULA [2018] SGFC 32

At that 1st instance hearing of the mother’s application, the judge stopped short of calling the mother selfish. Of the view that the mother had run her case “on a very individual-centric, rather than child-centric basis,” the trial judge dismissed the mother’s application to relocate, calling it “unreasonable”.[2]

In the judgment, remarks were scathing to the mother. Examples include: “…the Mother’s claims of ill health and burnout should she continue in her current position in Singapore seemed to be a stretch at best, disingenuous at worst”; “the Mother did not appear to have much inkling if at all, as to how she would spend her “quality time with ”; “The impression one gets from this insouciant response, is that if relocation were granted, the Mother would expect R to deal with his new circumstances with equanimity and accept his lot in life so to speak”.

 She made the following points to support her decision that the mother did not consider the boy’s interests in her plans to relocate:

55 In my view, the above points made it readily apparent that the Mother was concerned with furthering her own ambition, desiring the relocation purely for her personal interest. While she attempted to dress up R’s best interests as being contingent upon and linked to her well-being, the paucity of evidence and the feeble argument that “things could be better”, without more, failed to persuade me that R’s interests lay at the heart of her relocation application.

 56 Buttressing my view that R’s interests were of secondary importance was the fact that in her choice of school in London for R, she had relied on an article of unknown reliability which stated that it was a good school, even though the article pointed out that it was the school’s own website that claimed it was in the top 20% for IB results.

 The judge of 1st instance was clearly persuaded by the Father’s argument that the 30 hour flight time from New Zealand to London would greatly reduce access. Perhaps the Judge saw it as yet a further attempt by the Mother to restrict access. We glean this from her conclusion that the Mother’s arguments were “very individual-centric, rather than child-centric”, such that the mother “conveniently and casually” dealt with the child’s issues by “subordinat[ing] R’s interests to hers”. Furthermore, the judge emphasised that there was a “blossoming relationship between Father and son” which would be lost.

 ULA v UKZ [2018] SGHCF 19

In the High Court, the appeal judge took an approach that was markedly different. You sense that as early as the 1st chord struck. This was how the Judge started his judgement:

1       This case concerns a boy (“R”) born of the relationship between the appellant and the respondent (“the Mother” and “the Father” respectively), who have never been married to each other. R, who is nine years old, has lived with the Mother in Singapore for the past eight years. The Father lives in New Zealand with his wife and their two children. The Mother, who is unmarried, applied to the Family Court for permission for R to relocate to London with her. The Father opposed R’s relocation to London on various grounds, including that it would adversely affect his relationship with R by making it more difficult for him to spend time with and contact R. The District Judge refused the application and the Mother appealed.

2       The facts of this case are unlike most other relocation applications, where relocation would result in the physical separation of the child from the non-relocating parent. In this case, the Father and R have not lived in the same country for the past eight years. The parties were unable to find any authorities in which the non-relocating parent lived in a different country from the child. As will be seen, I considered this living arrangement significant in reaching my decision on the facts of this case. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I take the view that relocation should be allowed, and therefore allow the Mother’s appeal. The reasons for my decision are set out herein.

The judgment bears repeating verbatim in the following parts as they are important to the law on relocation.

The law on relocation

 24     The principles on relocation may be stated fairly succinctly and are not in dispute between the parties. It is well-established that the welfare of the child is paramount in relocation applications and ought to override every other consideration (BNS v BNT at [19]). There is no presumption in favour of allowing relocation where the primary caregiver’s desire to relocate is reasonable. Rather, the relocating parent’s reasonable wish to relocate is only relevant to the extent that there would be a transference of the relocating parent’s insecurity and negative feelings onto the child, since it is the child’s welfare that lies at the heart of the inquiry, and not the interests of the relocating parent (BNS v BNT at [20]; see also TAA v TAB [2015] 2 SLR 879 (“TAA v TAB”) at [17]). There is no pre-fixed precedence or hierarchy amongst the various factors to be weighed in the overarching inquiry into the child’s welfare. Where the factors stand in relation to one another depends, finally, on a consideration of all the facts of the case (BNS v BNT at [22]).

 25     As I am dealing with this matter on appeal, I am conscious that the principles governing appellate intervention in cases involving the welfare of children are the same as those that apply to appellate intervention generally (CX v CY (minor: custody and access) [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 at [15]). The appellate court should play a “limited role”, reversing or varying the decision of the judge below only if it was exercised on wrong principles or if the decision was plainly wrong, as would be the case if the judge had exercised his discretion wrongly (BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 at [12]). That said, where no trial took place below and the parties gave their evidence by affidavit and through the production of documents – as was the case here – the appellate court may be said to be in as good a position as the first-instance court to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence (TSF v TSE [2018] 2 SLR 833 at [50]).

 The following factors were considered:

(a)     the significance of the Consent Order recording that Singapore should remain R’s habitual residence;

(b)     the effect of relocation upon the Mother’s health, her time with R and her career;

(c)     the effect of relocation upon R’s relationship with the Father;

(d)     the potential disruption to R’s life;

(e)     R’s education in London; and

(f)     the parties’ prior discussions about relocating to London.

 The Appeal Judge went through a fact-centric exercise in his analysis of the above factors, item by item, explaining very succinctly his views on these factors and how they weigh in on his decisions to allow the relocation. For some areas, like the Mother’s working hours and how moving to London will likely improve her working conditions, the Judge was painstaking in his effort to demonstrate how he was so convinced. There was a table of time zones to show the working hours if one is to handle the 5 continents.

His analysis was complete and detailed yet sparing (if none at all) in his judgment of the parent’s conduct.Most importantly, these observations were made without criticisms of either parent’s role and relationship with their child, unlike the Judge at first instance.

See the news reported at https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Results/court-allows-unwed-mum-s-bid-to-take-son-to-london

You can read the judgements at https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/-2018-sghcf-19-pdf.pdf and https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/-2018-sghcf-19-pdf.pdf

Author’s View

Any kind of relocation is a difficult one; be it for the parent leaving or the parent left behind. Unless there is clear evidence suggesting otherwise and sometimes under precarious circumstances like violence or abuse, few plan to relocate merely to restrict or thwart access by the other parent. As a lawyer and having handled cases representing both sides, I am often very slow to judge a parent on issues relating to the children, whether or not the parent is my client or the opposing party. As a caregiver myself, I am wholly appreciative of how caregiving includes caring for myself. And how often have we said to a mother in the plane, in case of emergency, administer the mask for yourself first before you tend to your child? Is that self-centric? Or self-care? Is self-care then inextricably tangled with child-care? In the case whereby the primary caregiver is the mummy, to be good to the child must surely mean to be good to the mother first? What use is an unhealthy, unhappy, unable mother to a child?

Another point: When judgments are written scathingly critical of a party’s conduct, are we not then endorsing and encouraging parties’ acrimony and mud-slinging of each other? Should our message not instead be a balanced and nuanced one, studying the details of the various factors that can determine whether this will be in the Child’s best interest, like the Judge in the appeal? Does that not focus the issue on what’s best for the kid than what’s wrong with the parent?

[1] https://www.msf.gov.sg/media-room/Pages/Age-profile-of-citizen-mothers-with-non-marital-births.aspx

[2] https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/woman-loses-bid-take-son-overseas-stint

ABOUT PRACTICEFORTE’S PROJECT RELOCATION

Started in July 2017 by the Family Division of PracticeForte Advisory, this project is an initiative to make legal help more accessible to spouses in overcoming the legal challenges to obtain court consent to return to their countries of origin with their children for the welfare of the children.

Project Relocation is part of PracticeForte Advisory’s ongoing efforts to further our twin pillar focus of “Building Peace, Building Expertise”

About PracticeForte Advisory 

PracticeForte Advisory is a network of independent professional advisory firms comprising, amongst others, lawyers, mediators, accountants, forensic experts and others. This niche group of professional advisory firms are banded together under the brand name:  PracticeForte Advisory.

PracticeForte Advisory is not an entity and all the affiliate firms are independent of the others.

About PracticeForte Family Division

PracticeForte Family Division comprises of specialist practitioners of Family Law including lawyers focused on matrimonial issues, mediators trained in resolving all family concerns; parenting coordinators to assist parents in their co-parenting journeys, counsellors and therapists.

OTP LAW CORPORATION is part of PracticeForte Advisory and its director, Ms Susan Tay is a member of the PracticeForte Family Division. Susan has had experience in representing parties as their lawyer in applications relating to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as well as relocation applications with the Family Justice Courts, Singapore. Susan is a trained parenting coordinator. She is also a mediator and is accredited on various panels as a family mediator. In particular, she is specially trained in cross border mediation for family conflict and child abduction and is accredited as one of the mediators with MiKK e.V International Mediation Centre for Family Conflict and Child Abduction.

For any enquiries, please email us at enquiries@practiceforte.websterizor.com or call us at 62213009.

Article By: Jared Heng

I am a Year 2 Higher NITEC Accounting Student from ITE Collage Central. I was assigned to PracticeForte Pte Ltd as part of my Industrial Attachment programme. My internship was to replace the full school term between April to September.

In those 6 months, I gained first-hand experience as to what it is like working for a small law management company and their affiliates. I had no prior relevant experience in this specific field besides what I had previously studied in the classroom. I managed to discover if accounting was truly my passion or if my passion lies elsewhere. Overall, I had an extremely rewarding internship experience.

Initially when I first started, I felt as if I was out of my depth and was overwhelmed with the drastic change from school life to work life. I was also rather intimidated as this was my first time working in an office. However, after I began to familiarise myself with my job, I gradually became more confident in my own actions. In the beginning, I would always seek assurance before attempting basic tasks as I was afraid of being reprimanded for making any mistakes. In due time, I realised that making mistakes was the first step to success. I was bound to mistakes but the key thing was to not get disheartened and instead learn from it. I subsequently grew confident with handling my accounting related tasks. Under the supervision of Ms. Serene Ee, the Accounting/Finance Manager, I assisted in the backend accounting processes of some firms and PracticeForte. Serene was very helpful and patient with me and I was very fortunate to benefit from her guidance. She taught me how to use various accounting software progammes and if I had any questions about accounting procedures, she would explain in great detail to help me understand the concept behind it. This was an extremely insightful experience and I’m glad I had almost 6 months to learn as much as possible.

I was lucky to be exposed to more than just accounting during my internship. I was given the opportunity to assist in administration, banking and sometimes even in law related matters. I have definitely developed into a more independent individual as I was responsible for depositing cash, cheques and postage. I have always been a relatively quiet person but after answering phone calls, interacting with clients and delivering documents to court, I feel I have become more confident and outspoken. The responsibility and meticulous nature associated to my job has stuck with me even after internship and I am now applying it to school. As a result, I am without a doubt more focused and less easily distracted in class. The discipline I have developed during my internship can be applied to many aspects of my life especially in regards to my school work and future educational ambitions.

I would like to thank everyone in the office for the warm hospitality they have showed me. It was a pleasure to lend my assistance to the lawyers Mr. Lim Seng Siew, Ms. Susan Tay and Ms. Mylene Chua in the small ways I could. The majority of my time in the office was spent with Serene, Sandra, Isabel, Melissa, Pam, Kathy, Cheryl and Chloe. Each of them in their own unique way have always been looking out for me and I am very appreciative for it. The 6 months have been very special to me as I have mentally grown tremendously and picked up many important skillsets that are relevant for the future.

Article By: PracticeForte Advisory Affiliate Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esquire

As my late pupil master said, you can complain all you like about how exacting and demanding – even unforgiving – legal practice can be, but litigation practice is never described as “boring”.

I started practice thinking like a lay person – that lawyers rejoice more in finding loopholes than upholding principles. I am surprised to have met more people who champion substantive justice than I expected.

My first experience of substantive justice was a trial in which my client succeeded in showing dishonesty perpetrated by the Defendants– more in spite of, rather than because of me.  The odds seemed stacked against us– why would someone pull a stunt such as bringing an impostor to pretend to be a co-owner signing a sale and purchase agreement for a property when a simple check will reveal that the co-owner’s name is different? Further, having gone through this charade, was it plausible that this impostor would pretend to sign the document but in fact leaving the portion for signing blank, hoping the buyers would not notice it?

Suffice to say, a perceptive judge noted that the “proof of the pudding” was that it worked. The normally astute buyers were pre-occupied with ensuring they could move into the property and having moved in immediately, did not take a second look at the partially unsigned agreement.

That is not to say that unblemished souls abound among this flock of “frocksters” in black robes. Far from it.

I remember occasions when I attended a mediation session expecting to reach an amicable settlement, only to be bamboozled by a party bent on being the immoveable object. Mediators being what they are, will “persuade” my client to settle at a much lesser sum than they should rightly be awarded. Expectedly, I am left with a client thinking I am hopeless.

Thus, I have learnt to my chagrin that many a time, when my opposing counsel describes me as “learned friend”, he meant “learn well, friend” or, simply, “fool”.

Another learning journey for the pre-millennial lawyer is the evolution of digital technology and proliferation of case management conferences initiated by the courts in disposing of the thousands of cases brought before the courts. In the past, the common law system was largely considered adversarial – parties are left to conduct their cases as they and their lawyers saw fit subject to rules of ethical behaviour.

The advent of technology and algorithms meant that, like mental calculation, the computers and digital system now predict outcomes of cases just as well, if not better.

It may well be said that in the not-too-distant future, AI rules (and rock) the legal world.

So, will I and my fellow purveyors of legal system have a place in this seemingly dystopian future? Perhaps, as long as my own sense of humour cannot be replicated.

Until then, my response to clients asking me to make a prediction about the outcome of their cases: Sir, if my guesswork is anywhere near the accuracy you want, I am better off picking winning numbers for the lottery and will not practice law for a living.”

I thus come full circle: why do we keep at it? As my old boss said: because it is never boring.

A postscript to people managing small practices: your intern, trainee or junior associate may be your best client, publicist or your successor in the tradition of the independent, knight errant-lawyer of old. It is time to connect with, guide, mentor and befriend them. Even if you do not retain them, nor receive recognition for your efforts, it makes you a better human being, an undertaking many lawyers forget.

This article is written by Emelia Kwa & Isabel Chew Lau, associates of OTP Law Corporation

If you want a grim illustration of how cross-border child cases can devolve, you need look no further than the recent Court of Appeal case of TSF v TSE. That case concerned an epic battle between parents for the custody of their child. It was a battle that spanned four years and two jurisdictions: Singapore and England. There, the parents had brought the child from England to Singapore when he was around a year old, to be looked after by his paternal grandparents while the mother completed her studies. Half a year later, the parents returned to Singapore, supposedly to pick the child up and return to England. But this was not to be. Unbeknownst to the mother, the Singaporean father had hatched a plan to initiate divorce proceedings in Singapore and obtain sole custody, care and control of the child. He also sought to prevent the mother, who was a Mongolian national, from removing the child from Singapore. These applications were served on the mother upon her arrival in Singapore, catching her by surprise. Thus began a lengthy series of applications. Though Singapore was not yet a Hague Convention country, the mother elected to bring proceedings in England for the return of the child. The English court did indeed grant her applications and ordered the return of the child not once, but more than ten times. Yet, the multiple orders were for naught. The father first appeared and took out multiple applications to contest the English proceedings. When this failed, he deigned to follow the English orders completely, even when he was found to be in contempt of court. He and his parents simultaneously continued proceedings in Singapore in a bid to keep the child here. The mother was largely absent from these proceedings until she filed an application here for an order mirroring the terms of the English order (what is known as a “mirror order”) for return of the child to England. It was this application that eventually took centre stage in the tussle. Other than the actual dispute over relocation itself, both parents faced other legal obstacles that complicated matters. Interspersed with the main proceedings were criminal proceedings faced by the father. For one, he was tried and acquitted for his alleged marital rape of the mother. He was also jailed for his false statement to the Singapore Consulate-General in Dublin that he had lost his passport. In fact, his passport had been impounded by the English courts, and he was only able to return to Singapore after apparently travelling as a stowaway to Turkey and obtaining a travel permit back to Singapore. The mother, too, was jailed out of her desperation to retrieve the child from Singapore. She had hired an agency operated by a former mercenary to forcibly take the child and bring him back to England. They entered Singapore illegally and, after a scuffle, managed to remove the child from his grandparents. However, this attempt was ultimately thwarted by the police. Following both parents’ offences, they were unable to freely travel to the jurisdiction where the other parent was residing. As the Court of Appeal identified, this sadly meant that “the options available to this court regarding the child’s care arrangements are presented in stark terms, since the parent not granted care and control of the child is likely to have limited interaction in person with the child.Overturning the decisions of the judges in the High Court and Family Court, the Court of Appeal ultimately gave judgment in favour of the father, finding that awarding care and control of the child to the father in Singapore was in the best interests of the child.

The Court’s decision

Why was the father successful?

Primarily, when deciding appeals involving the welfare of children, the court highlighted that they must be slow to overturn a decision just because they did not agree with it. Instead, decisions should only be reversed or varied if it was exercised on the wrong principles, or was plainly wrong (for e.g., if the judge had exercised his discretion wrongly).

Since a child’s welfare was at the heart of the case, the welfare principle was of utmost importance. This meant that court should determine what is in the best interests of the child in relation to the following non-exhaustive factors:

• Relationship with parents and caregivers

This was a neutral factor since both parents had shared a strong bond with their child and both had done their best to remain involved in his life.

• The child’s needs and the capacity to prove for them

Here, the emotional, developmental and material needs of the child were considered. Despite the physical distance between the mother and child, they were able to maintain a warm relationship. However, the father seemed better equipped to handle all three needs. This was since the child had been raised in Singapore by the father and the paternal grandparents, all of whom were emotionally close with the child. The child had also been coping well with the autism intervention programmes in Singapore. The father also had a full-time job. In contrast, the child’s only emotional support in England would be the mother, the court could not assess the adequacy of the autism programmes in England and she also lacked stable employment.

• The parents’ character and conduct

The court found that the father’s behaviour was worse in comparison. This was since he had misled the mother as to his intention to return to Singapore originally, he ignored the need to preserve the bond between the mother and child and seemed unable to assess the correctness of his actions.

Nevertheless, due to the court’s intervention, he has since realised that the child should have regular contact with the mother. This resulted in daily Skype session between mother and child as well as liberal physical access to the mother when she is in Singapore. This gave the court hope that with suitable encouragement and incentives, the father would be a better role model for his son and assess what is in the child’s interests.

• Ensuring a continuing co-parental relationship

In general, it is in a child’s best interests for him to maintain a good relationship with both parents. In this regard, the court favoured the mother as she seemed to recognise that the father should have a role in the child’s life. She had undertaken to facilitate regular Skype access between the child, the father and the paternal grandparents.

In contrast, the father and the paternal grandparents had taken active steps to separate the mother from the child previously. The father also had a poor track record in facilitating the mother’s access to the child.

• Impact of change and need for stability

The courts emphasised that a child needs stability in his relationship and environment. This case was special in that the court also had to consider the child’s autism spectrum disorder and the additional adjustment difficulties his condition may cause him to have. Overall, this is an intensely fact-sensitive exercise to undertake.

This factor weighed heavily in favour of the father since moving to England with the mother would mean a different country, climate, social environment and the lack of all aspects of settled daily life created over five years. Moreover, the Court Counsellor had serious concerns about the child’s ability to adapt to a drastic change of environment and caregiver. This was especially since he had made good progress in his intervention programme, and disruption to it may result in his progress stagnating.

• Other considerations

The father and child were both Singapore citizens and thus had no threat of disruption to their lives. In contrast, the mother was neither a citizen of the United Kingdom nor Singapore, which made it uncertain if she would have a stable place to stay.

The child would also be subject to national service even if he was sent to live overseas with his mother. This would make it difficult for him to adjust to an unfamiliar environment and pose the threat of him becoming a defaulter, which attracts criminal liabilities.

Lastly, the child appeared quite content with his living and family conditions and did not feel a need or desire to visit his mother in person. The court recognised that this may change as he grows older.

In conclusion

Relocation cases can be complicated and be long fought – not just because of the difficulties each of the parents may face but also because of the many facts and relationships that the courts must consider when making their decisions. This case serves as a reminder: no matter how difficult the case may be, at the end of the day, it is the court’s priority to figure out what they deem to be in the child’s best interests even if it’s between a rock and a hard place.