SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lay Lian Kee, Min Joo Yoon, Shawn Teo and Sarah Tan, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
the context of the welfare of the child, with no one factor taking precedence over another. Recent decisions on international child relocation Since the above-mentioned, the courts have con - tinued to adopt the child-focused, multifactorial approach when determining whether relocation is in the best interests of the child. VZJ v VZK In the High Court (Family Division) case of VZJ v VZK [2024] SGHCF 16, the parties, who were both Sin - gaporeans and married in Singapore, had been liv - ing separately and apart since the mother moved to Hong Kong with their only child of the marriage eight years prior to the matter coming up for hearing. The father sought for the child, who was 11 years old at the time of the hearing, to be returned to Singapore as he argued that the mother had failed to obtain a relocation order when she moved with the child to Hong Kong and to return to Singapore after the initial, one-year period that he had consented to regarding the child’s relocation. The court found the father’s argument to be miscon - strued for the following reasons: • a relocation order by the court was necessary only if the parties were unable to reach a consensus on the issue; • the father did not (and could not) dispute the fact that he had consented to the initial move; and • he had not taken any steps to procedure the return of the child for nearly eight years if indeed he had only consented to the relocation for the first year. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the father did not consent to the child’s continued resi - dence in Hong Kong after the first year, on the facts of the present case the court did not find it to be in the child’s interest for him to be separated from his mother and immediately returned to Singapore, given the circumstances: • the child had been residing in Hong Kong with the mother for nearly eight years (ie, for the most part of his young life); • the mother had been the primary caregiver; and
• the child was of a young age and needed stability. It would be highly disruptive and probably traumatic for the child to be separated from the mother and uprooted from his current and well-settled residence in Hong Kong. In the circumstances, the court found that it was in the best interests of the child to continue residing in Hong Kong for now with the mother, subject to the child’s obligations vis-à-vis enlistment for National Service (which the mother acknowledged and accepted). Further, pending enlistment for National Service, in the event the mother wished to move the child out of Hong Kong (whether back to Singapore or to another jurisdiction), any decision to relocate the child was to be made by consensus between the parties; failing which, a court order may be necessary. XII v XIJ In the most recent Family Justice Court decision, XII v XIJ [2025] SGFC 40, the mother was an Australian citizen and the father was a UK citizen. During the 11-year marriage with two children (aged 9 and 10), the family had moved from Brisbane to Kuala Lumpur to Singapore, but within a week of their relocation to Singapore the parties’ relationship had broken down. They lived in separate residences and had a shared care arrangement for the children. The mother filed divorce proceedings in Australia and filed a relocation application in Singapore to return to Brisbane with the children. Although the court was satisfied that the mother’s wish to relocate to Australia was not unreasonable or founded in bad faith, the court found her wish to be incompatible with the interests of the children. Other than the fact that the children were Australian citi - zens, the mother had not shown how the relocation to Australia would benefit the children compared to the status quo. Her relocation plan appeared to serve her interests rather than those of the children. While her wish to restart her career and life was understandable, this had to be balanced against other relevant factors as the paramount consideration was the welfare of the children. The children shared a close relationship with the father and the older child, in particular, had expressed a clear wish to continue living in Singapore
109 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook