UMF v UMG and UMH

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jinny Tan
• Judgment Date: 07 June 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGFC 52
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: OSG Suit No. 182 of 2017
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 14 June 2018
• Hearing Date: 03 April 2018,21 May 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Mohamed Hashim Bin Abdul Rasheed of M/s A Mohamed Hashim
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Muhammad Fadli Bin Mohammed Fawzi and Ms Rebecca Vathanasin of M/s I.R.B. Law LLP
• Subject Matter: Guardianship of Infants Act Care and Control Access
• Citation: [2018] SGFC 52

District Judge Jinny Tan: Introduction

The Defendants are the natural parents of the child in question.

The Plaintiff is the paternal aunt-in-law of the 2nd Defendant (i.e. the sister-in-law of the 2nd Defendant’s father).

The Plaintiff filed this application for custody, care and control of the child. The Defendants strenuously opposed the application and filed a summons vide Summons No. 3146/2017 for the return of their child.

Orders made

After hearing arguments, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on the grounds that she did not have the locus standi to make the application under Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (“the Act”).

Appeal

The Plaintiff has since appealed against my decision.

I therefore now give my reasons for the decision I have reached.

The Law

The Plaintiff is making this application based on Section 5 of the Act.

Section 5 of the Act provides that:-

“The court may, upon the application of either parent or of any guardian appointed under this Act , make orders as it may think fit regarding custody of such infant, the right of access thereto and the payment of any sum towards the maintenance of the infant and may alter, vary or discharge such order on the application of either parent or of any guardian appointed under this Act”.

Based on a literal reading of Section 5 of the Act, the application can only be made by either parent or by any guardian appointed under the Act.

The Plaintiff here is not the natural parent, neither is she a guardian appointed under the Act.

As such, by a literal reading, it appears that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to make any application under Section 5 of the Act for orders relating to custody, care and control and access to the child.

The facts in the case of CZ v. DA¹ [2004] SGHC 216 are quite similar to our current case here. In CA, the grandmother of the child applied for guardianship, custody, care and control of the child and the natural parents of the child objected to the application. The grandmother had alleged that the parents had neglected and abused the child. The natural parents denied the allegations.

The District Judge dismissed the grandmother’s application for guardianship, custody, care and control after examining a number of English cases. The District Judge found that:-

“the approach laid down by all the English cases above in a custodial fight between natural parents and a third party or non-immediate family member is this. The Court starts from the position that the natural parents have the primary right to have custody of their child and it is the basic right that the child to be brought up by the parents who gave him life. It then considers whether the parents are suitable care-givers of the child. The court is not permitted to conduct a comparison or balancing exercise between both households. The question is not which is the better home for the child, or whether the child has a brighter...