SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kee Lay Lian, Yoon Min Joo, Shawn Teo and Joshua Daniel Foo, Rajah & Tann Singapore
• feedback from the children’s school annexed to that report; and • student observation reports showing that both parents attended school meetings and maintained regular communication with the teachers (at [31] – [32]). Demonstrate that the non-relocating parent is more likely to facilitate meaningful access The courts pay close attention to which parent is more likely to facilitate a reasonable access plan. In XII (HC), the court held that the father was “more likely to facili - tate a strong access plan to help mitigate the risk of loss of the relationship” and found that “the probability of the children being able to see more of both parents was greater if they were based in Singapore” (at [53]). In TAA, the court noted that there was “no evidence of any discussion between the parents on the proposed move to Spain, nor on any arrangements on how access could continue” (at [23]). The court therefore found that the father had not demonstrated efforts to be supportive of access and this weighed heavily against his relocation application. Challenge the adequacy of the relocation plan The party seeking to resist a relocation application should scrutinise the applying parent’s relocation plan for gaps and speculation. Where the plan lacks spe - cific arrangements relating to employment, accom - modation, schooling, or financial sustainability, such deficiencies should be highlighted. In XUL, the court declined to accept a new arrange - ment proposed by the mother, finding that the pro - posal lacked details including how she would obtain permission to work in the UK, support herself and the child, and how long the arrangement could be sus - tained (at [31]). Practical Considerations – Preparation of Affidavits and Conduct of Proceedings Focus on the child, not on “attacking” the other parent In UXH v UXI [2019] SGFC 64 (UXH), the court observed that there would be less room for misgivings if parties had focused on the kinder aspects of each other and that “roles of both parents are complemen -
tary and it would serve no purpose to pit one parent against the other” (at [68] and [70]). Pertinently, the court commended the mother in that case for having “instructed her solicitors to avoid rehashing certain unpleasant past incidents of the parties and of the marriage” (at [58]). It would therefore be apposite for practitioners and parents alike to adopt a similarly dis - ciplined approach. On a similar note, the TJ Model requires that par - ties and practitioners “avoid provocative or inflam - matory conduct and language in correspondence, court documents and courtroom communications”. Moreover, affidavits should be concise, relevant, and focused on the child’s welfare. Filing voluminous affi - davits containing irrelevant information, unnecessary photographs, or video recordings, which may also be detrimental to the parent-child relationship, has been repeatedly criticised by the courts (see CLB v CLC [2022] SGHCF 3 at [41]). Corroborate assertions with independent evidence As alluded to above, bare assertions carry little weight. Where possible, practitioners should advise their cli - ents to substantiate their assertions with evidence from independent sources such as: • school reports and teacher feedback; • Custody Evaluation Reports or specific issues reports; • medical or developmental records; and/or • evidence of concrete steps taken (eg, school appli - cations, housing arrangements, coordination tools). Thoroughly consider the practical implications and avoid proposing new arrangements at the eleventh hour All proposals and plans should be thoroughly con - sidered and comprehensively set out in the affidavits from the outset. In XUL, the court disapproved of the mother’s counsel raising a new arrangement for the first time at the hearing. The court noted that the mother “had ample opportunity to run this suggestion as her primary case”, and that it was “not appropriate to decide in favour of relocation based on this late oral suggestion” as it would prejudice father and prolong uncertainty for the child (at [31]).
107 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook