VDR v VDS

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLo Wai Ping
Judgment Date16 December 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] SGFC 142
CourtFamily Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date31 October 2018,06 September 2018,15 May 2019,05 December 2018,28 September 2018,13 November 2018
Docket NumberFC/D 5587/2015, HCF/DCA 98/2019
Plaintiff CounselMr Imran Hamid with Ms Yap En Li (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
Defendant CounselMs Bernice Loo with Ms Amanda Chua (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
Subject MatterFamily Law,Child,Relocation
Published date23 January 2020
District Judge Lo Wai Ping: Introduction

In 2015, the Plaintiff (“Father”) commenced divorce proceedings against the Defendant (“Mother”) based on the marriage having broken down irretrievably on account of her unreasonable behavior. The divorce was uncontested and final judgment was entered on 31 March 2016. At all times, the parties were represented by counsel.

By a consent order dated 28 December 2015, the parties agreed to have joint custody, care and control of their only child, a daughter who was 4 years old in 2015 (the “Daughter”). 2 years later, by a consent order dated 15 September 2017, retaining their shared care and control, the parties agreed on the living arrangements for the Daughter substantially on an equal basis. These two (2) consents orders are collectively referred to as the “Existing Consent Orders”.

On 22 May 2018, by way of summons 1746/2018 (the “Relocation Application”), the Mother applied for leave for the Daughter (then 7 plus years old in 2018) to relocate to Mauritius with her, and in connection with the application (in the event leave was granted for the relocation), the Mother also applied for the Existing Consent Orders to be varied so that she would have sole care and control of the Daughter instead of having shared care and control together with the Father.

After hearing counsel and given the concerns raised, I ordered a specific issues report (“SIR”) to assist the Court to have a better insight into the Daughter’s overall situation, her relationship with her parents and her needs and wishes. This independent assessment was conducted in 2019 by a psychologist with the Family Justice Courts’ Counselling and Psychological Services unit and included observations and interviews conducted with each parent and the Daughter.

At the end, after considering the submissions and the evidence including the SIR, I dismissed the Relocation Application on 15 May 2019 with costs awarded to the Father.

On 22 August 2019, the Mother filed an appeal against my decision having obtained an extension of time to do so and these are my grounds of decision.

I will first set out in brief the background and the law on relocation before explaining the reasons for my decision.

Background

In 2006, the parties met in London. In 2008, they moved to Singapore and have been residing in Singapore since. In 2009, the parties were married in Mauritius.

The Father (aged 40) is a British citizen and he had spent his adolescent years in Singapore when his father was posted to work in Singapore. The Mother (aged 39) was born in Mauritius and is both a Mauritian and French citizen. In 1999, the Mother, then 18 years old, left Mauritius to pursue her undergraduate studies in France. Thereafter, she continued with her post-graduate studies in UK and stayed behind in UK to work after graduation. Since 1999, the Mother has worked and resided out of Mauritius although she has visited Mauritius for holidays.

The Daughter was born in Singapore in 2011 about 2 years after the marriage. The Daughter holds British, French and Mauritian passports and has been living in Singapore since her birth.

At the time of the hearing, the Father was working in a foreign bank in Singapore and he has been working for that foreign bank for the past 16 years. The Mother was also working in another foreign bank in Singapore and she has been working for that bank for the past 4 years (since 2014). Prior to that, she had been working in the same bank as the Father (in London and then in Singapore) until the birth of their Daughter in 2011. By the end of December 2018, both parties have been living in Singapore for 10½ years.

At the time of the hearing, the Daughter was studying in an international school in Singapore. She is presently 8 years old.

This Relocation Application was the Mother’s second application for relocation. Her first relocation application was made in April 2017. The Daughter was then 6 years old. In that first application (“the 2017 London Relocation Application”), the Mother had wanted to relocate the Daughter with her to London, United Kingdom (“UK”). Then, she had received an attractive job offer to work in London. The application was contested by the Father on the basis that it was not in the Daughter’s interest to do so as Singapore was the child’s home and she needed stability, especially in this early stage of her life. This was despite UK being the Father’s own homeland and where the Father’s parents live. On 15 September 2017, the Mother withdrew her application (without prejudice to her rights to apply for relocation elsewhere in future) and a consent order was recorded with the agreement of the parties, essentially allowing the Daughter to spend about equal time with each parent. It provided that from 3 November 2017, the Daughter was on an alternate week arrangement with each parent. There was liberty to change the schedule if in the child’s best interest, by consent, and parties were to evaluate these arrangements every 6 months. This consent order was one of the Existing Consent Orders. I will elaborate on the terms in the later part of my decision.

But on 22 May 2018 (about 8 months after her withdrawal of the 2017 London Relocation Application and agreement to the terms in the consent order of 15 September 2017), the Mother filed the current Relocation Application without prior notice to the Father. The Father objected strongly to her Relocation Application and submitted that her proposed relocation of their Daughter with her to Mauritius was not in the welfare of the Daughter.

In all, 4 affidavits were filed for the Mother; the Father filed 1 affidavit in reply. The Mother’s 3 supporting affidavits were filed on 22 May 2018. Her first affidavit was her own (“M1”), her second affidavit contained 3 signed statements of her 2 sisters and a good friend (“M2”) and the third affidavit was by another good friend (“M3”). The Father’s affidavit in reply was filed on 16 July 2018 (“F1”) and it also contained statements by some friends. The Mother’s final affidavit was filed on 8 August 2018 (“M4”).

The Mother’s Case

Briefly, the Mother’s case was as follows: She had come here to Singapore in 2008 because of the Father’s career and to be with him. She stayed in Singapore following their marriage in 2009 and the birth of the Daughter in 2011. However, with their divorce in 2015, there was nothing left to tie her to Singapore as she did not have a meaningful career or close friends or family members here. Her current boyfriend F (a French national with whom she has been in a long-term committed relationship since November 2015 and still is) had also left Singapore in August 2016 and presently resides and works in London. She wanted to go back home to Mauritius to “pick up the pieces of her life in a place which is secure and stable (in the short term and also in the long term) for the child and [her] and where [she] can hope for a better future and more promising circumstances”. In Mauritius, they would receive the love and support of her family and close friends there. There were more career opportunities for her there. She would also remain as the Daughter’s primary caregiver and the secondary caregivers would be the child’s maternal grandparents and aunts. In her view, it was in the Daughter’s best interests to relocate with her to Mauritius as the Daughter was in need of “long-term meaningful and solid family and community support and interaction” and she could only get that in Mauritius. In terms of timing, it was also best for the Daughter to go with her now as the Daughter was still young and adaptable and had not yet put down her roots in Singapore. The Daughter was very close to her maternal extended family (grandparents, aunts and cousins) and very familiar with Mauritius (having been there for holidays in the past). The Daughter had also expressed her desire to live in Mauritius with her extended family and friends. In terms of education, the Daughter would not lose out as she would be placed in a school where she would be able to build long-term friendships and relationships and in an educational system with continuity into higher education. The Mother submitted how being forced to remain in Singapore (given all her major setbacks in career and her isolation without friends or family) would pose a challenge to her health and welfare and this would in turn impact the Daughter’s health and welfare as she was the child’s primary caregiver and had a closer relationship with her than the Father. As for the bond between the Father and Daughter, it was not as strong, robust and vibrant as the Father had opined. If relocation was granted, it was her view that the Father’s relationship with the Daughter could always be maintained and enhanced with the access plan she had proposed.

The Father objected strongly to the Relocation Application. The Father’s position was that the Relocation Application was not in the welfare of the Daughter for the following main reasons: The status quo (where parties have joint custody, care and control of the Daughter) was working out well for the Daughter in Singapore and it should not be changed at this time. If the application was allowed, there would be an irreparable loss of her relationship with her loving and devoted father. Singapore was a better place for her than Mauritius. Her home and network was in Singapore, the education system in Singapore was superior to that in Mauritius and she was well-settled in school in Singapore. The Relocation Application was self-serving and unreasonable. It was motivated by the Mother’s self-interest, without considering the Daughter’s welfare.

The law on relocation of children

The applicable legal principles in relocation applications have been set out by the Court of Appeal in BNS v BNT [2015] 3 SLR 973 (“BNS”). There is only one fundamental legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT