UHB v UHA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Keen Onn
• Judgment Date: 02 March 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGFC 26
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 29 November 2017,30 November 2017
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 40 of 2016, Summons 4012 of 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in person
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Suchitra A\P K Ragupathy (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Permission for child to travel overseas
• Published date: 17 March 2018

District Judge Wong Keen Onn: Introduction

This is an appeal by xxx (referred to as the “Plaintiff” or “the father”) against the decision made on 30 November 2017 in Summons 4012 of 2017 dismissing his application for permission to bring the 12-year-old daughter (“the child”) to Australia from 21 to 30 December 2017.

Brief Background The parties’ background

The parties, who were never married to each other, are the parents of a 12-year-old girl, xxx, born on 18 August 2005 (referred to as “the child” or “daughter”). The child holds both Japanese and Australian citizenship. The Plaintiff (“the Plaintiff” or “father”) is an Australian citizen and a Singapore Permanent Resident. The Defendant-mother, Mdm xxx (“the mother” or “Defendant”) is a Japanese citizen.

From October 2007 to December 2014, the parties and the child lived in Singapore. During that time, the child attended the Australian International School in Singapore (AISS). In December 2014, pursuant to an agreement to enrol child to study in Japan for one (1) year improve her proficiency in the Japanese language, the mother and the child moved to Japan where the child attended Fukuoka International School there. The parties disagreed whether this move to Japan was a temporary one or a permanent re-location. In end 2015 /early 2016, the parties’ relationship deteriorated. The father wanted the child to return to Singapore but the mother refused to allow this and retained the child in Japan. The father then filed an OSG 40/2016 for the return of the child to Singapore and for other prayers.

On 26 April 2017, the Family Justice Court heard OSG 40/2016 and ordered that the parents shall have joint custody and shared care and control of the child and for the mother to bring the child back from Japan to Singapore by 1 July 2017. The Court also made other orders and interim access orders while the child was in Japan. On 1 July 2017, the mother complied with the Order and brought the child to Singapore. The father accompanied the mother and child on the same flight to Singapore and paid for their airfares.

However, since April/May 2017, both parties could not agree as to the school where the child should attend in Singapore and the application for a student pass. Since then, there had been multiple applications to the Court by both parties on various issues, namely, on application for a stay of the Order made in OSG 40/2016, applications for permission for the child to leave Singapore either for Japan or to Australia, and for applications relating to the enrolment of the child into an international school in Singapore. In particular, the father had, on 26 July 2017, made an urgent application (via SUM 2536/2017)¹, for a court order to bring the child overseas to Australia from 4 to 9 August 2017 to visit the paternal grandparents but this was refused by the Court on 1 Aug 2017. There was no appeal against that decision in SUM 2536/2017.

On or about 31 Oct or 1 Nov 2017, the child was granted a short-term student pass to attend part of the first term at Tanglin Trust School (TTS) only from 1 Nov to 24 Dec 2017². Parties agreed that an application for a student pass has been made for 2018 but it is still pending before the authorities.

Plaintiff’s Application in SUM 4012/2017

On 20 November 2017, the Plaintiff father filed an application (Sum 4012/2017) to allow him to bring the child to Australia on a 10-day trip from 21 to 30 December 2017 to visit and spend Christmas with the paternal grandparents. The Mother objected to this application on the general position that the father may not return to Singapore with the child.

As at the time of this application (SUM 4012/2017) on 20 November 2017, there were following pending appeals³ to the High Court: the appeal against the decision in OSG 40/2016 (DCA 122/2017); second, the appeal against the decision to dismiss an application (SUM 2356/2017) for a stay of the Order in OSG40/2016 and for the child to be allowed to return the child to Japan for the time being; and three, the appeal against the decision in SUM 2759/2017 to allow the father to be the sole parent to choose the child’s school while she is in Singapore and, in particular, to register the child to attend in Australian International school (AISS).

For this summons 4012/2017, the Plaintiff filed 2 affidavits on 20 November 2017 and 29 November 2017 (marked as “ASM-1” and “ASM-2”) and the Defendant filed a reply affidavit on 24 November 2017 (marked as “TI-1”). Parties made oral submissions in this case. I heard the matter on 29 November 2017. The next day, on 30 November 2017, I delivered my decision to dismiss the father’s application and gave brief reasons. The Plaintiff father has appealed against my decision. I now give the reasons for my decision.

Parties’ cases

Both parties made numerous allegations in their affidavits and repeated the evidence that was the subject matter for the relocation/return of the child and for custody care and control. Most of these were not relevant to the issue in Summons 4012/2017

Plaintiff-father arguments

The father claimed the mother had earlier given “in-principle approval to plan for the Christmas trip (in December) to Australia” and that was before the mother’s objection to the earlier trip proposed in August (which was rejected by the Court). But the mother subsequently changed her mind. So as of 17 November 2017, there was no written consent from the mother to allow the father to bring child to Australia. Hence, he made the current application for an order of Court for him to bring the chid to Australia⁴. The father’s arguments in support of his application are summarised as follows: The father submitted that he had given early notice of the trip in July and there was conditional approval but this was subsequently withdrawn without legitimate reasons. The “mother’s conduct was shameless and unprincipled” and “disgraceful”. He submitted that his solicitors had first written on 22 June 2017 to the Defendant’s solicitors seeking permission for the child to travel to Australia during Christmas to visit her grandparents as well as for a trip to Australia to visit her grandparents from 4 to 9 August 2017 (the latter trip did not materialise as the court had rejected that application⁵). At that time (on 22 June 2017), the child was still in Japan. When the father’s lawyers did not receive any reply, they wrote again on 3 July 2017 (2 days after the child returned to Singapore) for permission for the proposed 2 trips to Australia, and weekend trips in October, November and December 2017 to holiday destination in South-east Asia/East Asia. He said that the mother had given “in-principle approval subject to certain conditions” such as getting the child’s prior agreement etcetera⁶. He said he had decided in July to proceed with the booking and bought the air ticket for the child to travel to Australia. He contended that “he had discussed with the child for months” and “the child helped him planned the trip” (although he did not produce any objective evidence such as contemporaneous messages, correspondences or emails supporting this)⁷. When he mentioned in a message on 17 Nov 2017 that he will be bringing the child for Christmas in December 2017, the mother told him that she was “saying no” to the Christmas trip to Australia “because of the circumstances”⁸. He said it was not in the best interest of his daughter to refuse this application.⁹ According to the father, he said the mother was not consenting because he “getting orders to sue her”. Later he added the mother wanted to punish him for initiating Committal proceedings.¹⁰ Secondly, this was the usual family tradition (when the father and mother was still a couple) until 2014 for the child to join him on a Christmas trip¹¹ Third, he claimed that the child was keen on joining him and there “was no doubt that the child wants to visit Australia and see her paternal grandparents again”. The trip will not interfere with the child’s schooling as it is during the term break from 16 -31 Dec 2017 or the following Japanese New Year holiday”¹². The child has not seen the grandparents for the last 2 years and rest of his relatives. His father and mother are now 76 and 72 years old and are in very poor health, with the paternal grandmother suffering from chronic bronchiectasis and the grandfather from cardiomyopathy. He claimed that the grandmother is currently not fit to travel. If “he was not able to bring the child to visit the paternal grandparents soon, the child would not have the opportunity to see them again” ¹³ Fourth. he submitted that the mother’s arguments that he had tenuous connections to Singapore was patently ridiculous in views of the following information: he is a PR, he had worked for more than 10 years here, he is residing in Singapore with a Singapore based Korean girlfriend (whom he calls her “his fiancée”) in a rental house, that he has a car and has renewed the car COE¹⁴, and he now has “business interests in Singapore” with a company registered in Singapore (VALOR Sport and entertainment Pte Ltd or in short “VALOR”) and he had started work for a sports media venture to set up a fight sports league (for which he would be attending a meeting in New York with ESPN to discuss ESPN interest in acquiring his company’s sport content). He also added that he has not lived in Australia for the past 20 years and that he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts in Singapore. ¹⁵.

Mother’s arguments

The mother submitted that her earlier position on 3 July 2017, where she did not to object to the child being brought to Australia, was subject to certain conditions. Given the “breakdown in relations and communication between the father and mother since 30 June 2017”, there was no longer a common understanding between them for the child’s overseas trips. There were conditions to be met, such that...