SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lay Lian Kee, Min Joo Yoon, Shawn Teo and Sarah Tan, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
or Malaysia. The younger child was neutral but wanted to be able to see both parents frequently and equally. Of note in this case was that the mother’s visa appli - cation to reside long-term in Singapore had been rejected while there were real challenges for the father to relocate to Australia. The stark reality facing this family was that the parents would have to live in sepa - rate jurisdictions, at least in the foreseeable future. A shared care and control arrangement was no longer feasible. Either way, there would be a loss of relation - ship with the other parent, which would have to be mitigated by a generous access plan. However, the mother’s ability to co-parent if granted sole care and control in the event of relocation was a cause for concern. She was unable to recognise the father’s contributions to the children’s upbringing and could only see all sorts of reasons to find fault with his parenting. Her lack of insight on the importance of co-parenting and her belief that she had a superior right made the court doubt whether she would be able to support the father–sons bond, notwithstanding her assurance to the court that she would do so. She had also sought to reduce the father’s parenting time by seeking a sole care and control order (departing from their shared care arrangement) even if relocation was not granted, which only deepened the court’s doubt. In contrast, the father had consistently demonstrated a willingness to support the children in having a close relationship with the mother. The court found that as the father was more likely to share the children with the mother and facilitate generous access, the welfare of the children would be better served by allowing the children to be with the father in Singapore, with him having sole care and control over them. This arrange - ment would also align with the children’s wishes and avoid any unnecessary disruption to their lives. Balancing all factors, the court concluded that it would not be in the best interests of the children to relocate to Brisbane at this point in time and disallowed the mother’s application. However, the court stressed that a refusal to allow relocation at the time of applica - tion did not necessarily mean that a future relocation could never be possible. If circumstances changed such that relocation would be in the best interests
of the children, the mother could always renew her application. Summary The assessment of any relocation application con - tinues to be very much a child-centric enquiry, pri - oritising the welfare of the child determined through a multifactorial enquiry, rather than the interests and wishes of the parents. This is in line with, and likely shaped by, Therapeutic Justice (Therapeutic Justice Model) integrated into Singapore’s family justice system, which calls for the parties to take ownership of the family’s issues and co-operate with each other to find timely and enduring solutions to these issues. Particularly where children are involved, the parties are expected to prioritise the children’s welfare above their own and focus on their shared interests and future. This involves being will - ing to compromise in the spirit of give and take, and carrying out agreed or ordered arrangements with a co-operative spirit. The holistic child-centric approach to adjudicating the issue of relocation underscores the essential role of family law practitioners in helping their clients con - sider whether their intended applications preserve and protect their children’s welfare, and in presenting their case in a manner that demonstrates this child-centric approach to the court. This would include having clear parenting plans upon the relocation, and post-reloca - tion access plans to preserve the children’s relation - ship with the non-relocating parent, as recommended in the 2024 chapter of this guide. Following the case of XII v XIJ , family law practition - ers should also advise on the critical importance of parents adopting and demonstrating to the court a willingness to co-parent and support the child in hav - ing a close relationship with the non-custodial parent. Diminishing the other parent’s contributions as a par - ent, fault-finding or insisting on having a superior right over the other parent would cast doubt in the court’s mind as to the ability of the parent seeking relocation to support the child’s bond with the parent who would be left behind, and should be avoided in not only affi - davits and legal submissions presented to the court, but also correspondence exchanged through lawyers and directly between the parties.
110 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook