WSH v WSI and another matter

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jason Gabriel Chiang
• Judgment Date: 06 December 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGFC 40
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons (Guardianship) No. 8 of 2023 & Originating Summons (Guardianship) No. 40 of 2023
• Hearing Date: 11 July 2023,10 August 2023,31 August 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGFC 40
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Father, Litigant-in-Person
• Defendant Counsel: Mother, Litigant-in-Person
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Guardianship of Infants Act 1934,Guardianship,Relocation,Return of Children,Custody,Care and Control,Access,Children Maintenance
• Published date: 14 December 2023

District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang: Introduction

The breakdown of any long-term relationship can bring about significant complications. The breakdown of a union involving transnational parties has the potential to bring about even more complex issues, particularly when there are disputes over the care arrangements of young children and where they should live.

This matter involved competing applications under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (“GIA”), by both the Father and the Mother, who were divorcing transnationals, in relation to two (2) young children: the 1st son aged 6 (“Eldest Son”) and the 2nd son aged 2 (“Youngest Son”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Children”). The Father filed FC/OSG 8/2023 (“OSG 8”) and the Mother filed FC/OSG 40/2023 (“OSG 40”). The Father is the Plaintiff in OSG 8 and the Defendant in OSG 40 (the “Father”) and the Mother is the Plaintiff in OSG 40 and the Defendant in OSG 8 (the “Mother”).

At the crux of this case, the Court was given the heavy task of intervening when the transnational parents could not reach a consensus on the care arrangements for their two (2) young Children, including which of two (2) countries they would reside in. Additionally, the Court also had to grapple with the issues of the custody, care and control of and access to the Children and the sharing of parental responsibilities for the maintenance of the Children.

Facts The Parties

The Father is in his early 40s. He was an Indian Citizen but acquired Singapore Citizenship in 2005 after completing his university studies in Singapore. He is, however, still considered as an Overseas Citizen of India (“OCI”; a form of permanent residency available to people of Indian origin and their spouses which allows them to live and work in India indefinitely).

The Mother is in her mid-30s and is an Indian Citizen. She, however, acquired Singapore Permanent Residency (“PR”) Status in 2013. Her PR status was then renewed in 2018.

Parties were married on 8 July 2012 in Singapore, and shortly thereafter, had further wedding celebrations in India. Parties only resided together in Singapore from March to December 2012 for about 9 months. Then, in 2013, the Mother relocated to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) for a period of time, with the Father making regular weekend trips to visit the Mother in the UAE. In 2014, the Parties jointly relocated to Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America (“USA”) for the Mother’s Master of Business Administration (“MBA”) studies. The Father initially only found work a state away in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, in August 2014 and would do weekly commutes to be with the Mother. He then managed to find work in Boston, USA, in May 2015 and continued to work there until 2020. The Father also managed to get a USA Green Card (i.e. USA Permanent Residency Status).

The Eldest Son was born in Boston, USA on xxx 2017. The Parties continued to reside there for another 3 years thereafter. In April 2020, the Father found a new and better job in Singapore, and the Father, the Mother and Eldest Son relocated to Singapore. This was during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Mother continued to work for her USA-based company remotely, before subsequently finding work with a Singapore multinational technology company headquartered in Singapore. In June 2021, the Parties purchased a luxury condominium at the seafront (the “Matrimonial Home”), which was held in the Father’s sole name as the Mother was only a Singapore PR and not a Singapore Citizen. The Father applied for Singapore Citizenship for the Eldest Son, but this was withdrawn, purportedly because the Mother did not want the Eldest Son to have Singapore citizenship. This was disputed.

In July 2021, the Eldest Son, the Father and the Mother, who was then 33 weeks’ pregnant with the Parties’ 2nd child flew to Houston, Texas, USA, for the birth of the Youngest Son on 23 August 2021. After the birth, they continued to reside there for about 3 months before returning to Singapore. It is disputed as to whose idea this was for them to have the birth of the Youngest Son in Houston, USA, but the intention was to allow the Youngest Son to have USA Citizenship, similar to the Eldest Son.

Thus, at all material times, the Children were USA citizens and were residing in Singapore under Long-Term Visit Passes (“LTVPs”). The Father did eventually apply for the Children to be Singapore PRs, purportedly without the Mother’s Consent in November 2022, after they had already left for India and this Singapore PR Status was only approved in July 2023 in the middle of the contested proceedings.

Background to the dispute

In March 2022, Parties encountered marital issues. Both Parties accused the other of committing abuse. In any event, it is undisputed that the Mother took the Children to India. The Parties had initially been planned for a short trip of about a week, but the Mother stayed there with the Children for about 3 months. This was the Parties’ 1st separation. Parties managed to reconcile and the Mother and the Children returned to Singapore in May 2022.

On 20 November 2022, there was an alleged event of family violence, where the Mother claimed that the Father had, among other things, strangled her. The Father also alleged that the Mother was violent to him. These allegations were disputed. While the Mother initially filed for a personal protection order in Singapore, she did not pursue it. The Mother purportedly raised these allegations for determination in Indian proceedings. As of the reporting of this decision, there has been no court determination on these allegations either in Singapore or in India.

After this alleged event in November 2022, the Mother took the Children and left the Matrimonial Home to reside with a friend in Singapore. After a couple of days, she decided to take the Children overseas to India to be with her family. This was a few days earlier than an overseas trip that had been planned prior to the incident. The Father subsequently travelled to India to try to reconcile with the Mother but was unsuccessful and returned to Singapore by himself. The Mother and the Children then failed to return to Singapore from India in early January 2023 as previously planned.

On 17 January 2023, the Father promptly filed for the guardianship of the Children in OSG 8 and, among other things, requested for the Children to be returned to Singapore. At the 1st Case Conference for OSG 8 on 25 January 2023, by consent, the Father was granted interim virtual access.

Subsequently, the Father also filed for divorce in Singapore on 21 February 2023 (“Divorce Proceedings”). As at the time of this decision, pleadings have completed and Parties were due to proceed with a contested divorce trial. However, both parties have filed multiple interim applications, which is elaborated on subsequently in paragraph 28.

The Mother, on 27 March 2023, also filed for the guardianship of the Children in OSG 40, which included seeking on order for the Court to allow the Children to continue residing in India.

The Parties attempted Court-mandated mediation for OSG 8, OSG 40 and the Divorce Proceedings holistically, but were unable to resolve their issues.

Overall, parties filed multiple affidavits for the contested OSG 8 and OSG 40 proceedings:

S/N	Date	Affidavit
(a)	17 Jan 23	Father’s Supporting Affidavit for OSG 8
(b)	19 Jan 23	Father’s Affidavit of Service in OSG 8
(c)	27 Mar 23	Mother’s Supporting Affidavit for OSG 40
(d)	24 Apr 23	Father’s Reply Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(e)	24 Apr 23	3 Affidavits in support of the Father by his elder brother, a friend and by friends jointly as a couple
(f)	2 May 23	Father’s Supplementary Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(g)	15 May 23	Mother’s Reply Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(h)	15 May 23	4 Affidavits in support of the Mother by her father, mother, younger sister and brother-in-law
(i)	19 Jun 23	Father’s 2nd Supplementary Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(j)	28 Jun 23	Mother’s Reply Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(k)	4 Aug 23	Father’s Translator’s Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(l)	17 Aug 23	Mother’s Affidavit in responses to queries from the Court in OSG 8 & 40
(m)	25 Aug 23	Father’s 2nd Translator’s Affidavit in OSG 8 & 40
(n)	25 Aug 23	Father’s Affidavit in responses to queries from the Court in OSG 8 & 40
(o)	25 Aug 23	Father’s Indian Lawyer’s Affidavit to update on Indian Proceedings

The Mother filed her 1st Written Submissions with a Bundle of Authorities annexed on 30 June 2023 (“Mother’s 1st Submissions”), and the Father filed his 1st Written Submissions on 3 July 2023 (“Father’s 2nd Submissions”) with a separate Bundle of Authorities.

Given the expressed urgency, this matter had been fixed for a half-day hearing for 11 July 2023. Both the Father and the Mother initially had legal representation, but by the time of this hearing, both of them had discharged their lawyers and were self-represented. The Father filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person on 20 June 2023 for OSG 8 and the Divorce Proceedings. The Mother then filed her Notice of Intention to Act in Person on 8 July 2023 for OSG 8, OSG 40 and the Divorce Proceedings, after the 1st Written Submissions had been filed by her lawyers. The Father then filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person in OSG 40 on 9 July 2023. With regard to the Mother’s initial lawyer and then, replacement lawyer, the Father made certain allegations of conflict of interest, before the Mother had discharged their services. In any event, throughout the proceedings of OSG 8 and OSG 40, both the Father and the Mother confirmed with the Court that while they did not have legal representation for the contested...