UKZ v ULA
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Kathryn Thong |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] SGFC 29 |
| Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | OSG 53/2017, SUM 3409/2017 |
| Published date | 14 March 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 21 August 2019,12 November 2019,15 November 2019,23 September 2019,14 August 2019,30 August 2019 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Ivan Cheong and Eugene Chan (Eversheds Harry Elias LLP) |
| Defendant Counsel | Mr Yap Teong Liang (T L Yap Law Chambers LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Family law,Guardianship of Infants Act,Relocation,Choice of school,Access |
| Citation | [2020] SGFC 29 |
These are consolidated grounds of decision that deal with (a) my decision for parties’ 10-year-old son, R, to be enrolled in a London school which I shall refer to as Allsworth, and (b) my orders on the Plaintiff Father’s access to R in London. Though my decision on both matters were rendered on different days, given that they are closely related and were both argued together, I find it expeditious to render my grounds collectively.
Parties are unmarried and have joint custody of R, with care and control to the Mother, under a consent order made in June 2017.
In his judgment
Quite expectedly, parties disagreed which school R should attend in London. The discrete issues before me was which school as proposed by the parties would be in R’s best interests for him to be enrolled in, as well as the Father’s access in London.
I eventually decided on the Mother’s proposed school of Allsworth. As I stated in my brief grounds to counsel, all the schools put forth by parties were good schools. What tipped the scales in Allsworth’s favour was the Mother’s subtle consideration of how R would assimilate into Allsworth, and the fact that unlike the three schools proposed by the Father, R had already secured a place at Allsworth having sat for the necessary assessments. Further, given that parties had been litigating over the relocation and related matters since July 2017, I found it was in R’s overall best interests to finalise his school sooner, rather than later, which would be the inevitable scenario if he were to be subjected to further assessments for enrolment in other schools.
BackgroundAt the time of the hearing, R had just turned 10, and was studying at a Singapore international school which I shall refer to as “SIS”. The school term for Allsworth was to commence in early September 2019.
Some context to the litigation is necessary to appreciate parties’ overall circumstances and crucially, R’s. Back in June 2017, a consent order was recorded for parties to have joint custody of R and the Mother, care and control of R. The Father is based in New Zealand and has largely been so since R’s birth.
In July 2017, the Mother sought to relocate to London with R. In November 2017, I dismissed the Mother’s application. In December 2018, the learned JC Tan allowed the Mother’s appeal.
Dissatisfied with JC Tan’s decision, the Father sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
Sometime in February 2019, prior to JC Tan’s and the Court of Appeal’s respective decisions to deny leave, the Mother arranged for R to sit for an assessment test at SIS for enrolment into Allsworth. Clearly she did not inform the Father of this arrangement, as on 27 February 2019, the Father expressed his shock through his solicitors that he had been informed by SIS that arrangements were being made for R to sit for an assessment for enrolment into a London school. In the dark as to which school this was, the Father requested that the Mother withdraw her request for R to sit for such a test. He stressed that they were to jointly discuss R’s London school as directed by JC Tan.
On 5 March 2019, the Mother responded through her solicitors that the test was for entry into Allsworth, which had already been raised as a potential school back in 2017 in the relocation application. It was thus surprising that the Father claimed he was unaware of the school the Mother wished to enrol R in. In any event, she invited the Father to respond within 7 days as to alternative schools.
On 22 March 2019, the Father’s solicitors wrote back that Allsworth was simply mentioned “in passing” in the relocation application and it was disingenuous to suggest that the Father should have known it was her intent to enrol R there. He iterated his position that the Mother did not try to engage with him on R’s arrangements since JC Tan’s decision on 5 December 2018. The letter added that the Father planned to visit Allsworth to ascertain its suitability and that he would be engaging a London-based educational consultant specialising in helping families select schools for relocation.
In addition, the Father requested for information including but not limited to matters such as the Mother’s working hours and care arrangements, and reasons why she thought Allsworth was suitable. The Mother did not reply and the Father’s solicitors wrote again on 15 April 2018.
On 18 April 2019, the Mother responded to the Father’s various queries. She also enclosed a report on Allsworth published in ‘The Independent Schools Inspectorate Report 2018’ (“ISIR”), and highlighted that a consultant had recommended the school. She also asked for the identity of the Father’s educational consultant.
On 29 April 2019, the Father stated again his written objections to R sitting for the assessment test to enrol at Allsworth, as leave to relocate was premised on parties agreeing on R’s school and access arrangements. By this time, more than two weeks had passed since the Court of Appeal denied the Father leave to appeal. (For completeness, I point out that I not read JC Tan’s order for relocation as being conditional on the choice of school having been finalised, but nothing turns on this).
On 16 May 2019, the Mother’s solicitors wrote to the Court seeking an urgent case conference as Allsworth would be commencing its school term in the first week of September 2019 and there was no agreement on R’s choice of school. The Mother was concerned that the Father was seeking to defeat JC Tan’s order to relocate to London.
On 29 May 2019, pursuant to the Mother’s request for a case conference, the Father wrote to the Court categorically denying attempting to stymie the relocation and expressed his preliminary concerns that Allsworth would not serve R’s best interests as it appeared to be of the same, inferior ilk, as another school the Mother had also proposed in her relocation application.
At a case conference on 31 May 2019, the Father sought time to engage a consultant and come back with his proposals. I directed parties to file their respective affidavits to address specified areas of concern / queries of the Court.
Parties’ positions at the hearing Counsel for the Father, Mr Ivan Cheong, urged this Court to consider that under the UK education system, R would soon be progressing from a
There were two main prongs to the Father’s case: (i) when R should be introduced into the UK education system and (ii) which schools – both preparatory and senior ones – would be in R’s best interests to enrol in.
On the first prong, the Father explained that the educational consultants he had engaged had advised that it would be unusual and possibly challenging for R to transit to another school from August 2019 onwards. This was because under the UK education system, the UK equivalent of his current grade/standard at SIS was the last year before students enter senior school in the UK. Entry into senior school entailed sitting for entrance examinations at the start of the calendar year that a student turns 11 years old.
What all this meant was that if R, who turns 11 in July 2020, was to commence at Allsworth in September 2019, he would have to sit for his senior school entrance examinations by January 2020, so that he could enrol in senior school by September 2020.
The Father raised concerns that R would be transferring out of SIS at an unusual juncture, given that this would be the last year before senior school. This, he suggested, would add further stress to the relocation. He was also concerned that R would find it difficult integrating into a new school when he was entering it in the last year, where strong bonds would have already been forged between his peers.
In view of the above, the Father made two proposals. Option 1 was for R to remain in Singapore at SIS and to sit for his senior school entrance examinations in Singapore. After all, R was thriving at SIS. The Father suggested he could engage his educational consultants to tutor R in Singapore as they had a Singapore office and wealth of experience in helping students secure a placement in UK senior schools. Thereafter R could commence senior school education in September 2020 in the UK.
Option 2 was for R to secure a place in an appropriate London
Option 1 was the Father’s preferred option as it would be less destabilising and avoided the uncertainty under Option 2 as to whether R could secure a place at the Father’s chosen London preparatory schools. But if the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial