In the matter of B (child of TII)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Guy Ghazali
• Judgment Date: 26 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGFC 151
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: FC/OSG 134/2015
• Published date: 24 January 2016
• Year: 2015
• Hearing Date: 20 October 2015,27 October 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Kelvin Lee [WNLEX LLC]
• Subject Matter: Family law,Guardianship,Child out of jurisdiction
• Citation: [2015] SGFC 151

District Judge Guy Ghazali: Introduction

This is an application under section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap. 122). The applicant is the mother of the child. There is no respondent to the application. The father of the child is deceased.

This is an application by the mother to be appointed statutory guardian of the child and/or to be granted the right to apply for letters of administration on behalf of the child.

The matter first came before me on 20 October 2015. I adjourned the matter for one week for the mother’s Counsel to address me on the issue of jurisdiction. After hearing the mother’s Counsel on 27 October 2015, I dismissed the application on the basis that the child was out of jurisdiction and had no connection to Singapore.

Dissatisfied with my order, the mother has now appealed against my decision. I now set out the reasons for my decision.

The application

In support of her application, the mother filed one affidavit, namely, her affidavit dated 16 September 2015. Other than stating that the applicant is the mother of the child, that the father of the child passed away on [xxx] 2006 and that the child is a beneficiary of the father’s estate, the text of the said affidavit does not contain any information on the child including whether the child is resident in Singapore or whether she has connections to Singapore. The affidavit exhibits a copy of the child’s passport that shows that the child was born on [xxx] 2007 in Taiwan and is a citizen of the Republic of China.

The mother’s Counsel confirmed to the Court at the hearing on 20 October 2015 that the child has no connection to Singapore¹. The mother’s Counsel also informed the Court that the mother does not have connection to Singapore and neither did the child’s father².

Notwithstanding the above, it is the mother’s position that there are ongoing probate proceedings in the Singapore courts involving the father’s estate. Although this is not contained in the mother’s affidavit, I was informed by the mother’s Counsel that whilst the child is a beneficiary of the father’s estate, the mother is not. In the circumstances, the mother considers it necessary to take out the present application so that she can satisfy Rule 229 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 for purposes of the ongoing probate proceedings relating to the father’s estate.

Rule 229 comes under Part 14 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 on “Probate Proceedings”.

In particular, the mother’s Counsel brought my attention to Rule 229(1) which provides that where the person to whom a grant would otherwise be made is an infant, administration for the infant’s use and benefit until the infant attains the age of 21 years shall be granted to both parents of the infant jointly or to the statutory guardian or testamentary guardian of the infant or to any guardian appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the express language of Rule 229(1) (inter alia that the guardian can be appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction), the mother’s Counsel took pains to point out to me that in order to satisfy Rule 229(1), the mother has to obtain an order from the Singapore court to be appointed statutory guardian of the child.

“Statutory guardian” is defined in Rule 206(1) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 as a guardian of an infant appointed by the court under section 5, 6 or 8 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap. 122) or a person granted custody, care and control of an infant under...