SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kee Lay Lian, Yoon Min Joo, Shawn Teo and Joshua Daniel Foo, Rajah & Tann Singapore
Conclusion The modern law on child relocation in Singapore is ultimately concerned with one fundamental ques - tion: what outcome, viewed holistically, best serves the welfare of the particular child? Practitioners who internalise this child-centric approach will appreciate that relocation cases are not adversarial contests in which one parent prevails over the other. Rather, they are exercises in demonstrating, both to the court and to the other parent, that the proposed arrangement is in the child’s best interests. In such proceedings, the most effective advocates are therefore those who approach the case not as a contest to be won, but as a process directed towards achieving the outcome that best serves the child’s interests. This requires them to present their clients’ cases in a spirit of cooperation, focus relentlessly on the child’s welfare, and demonstrate through both their conduct and submissions a commitment to the child’s long-term interests. As astutely put by Debbie Ong J (as she then was) in VDX v VDY [2021] SGHCF 2 (at [40]): “Family law practitioners must be aware of the ways, both overt and subtle, in which they can influence the parenting dispute – these include the language used in correspondence and the mindset they bring to the proceedings. If both parties’ counsel can work as a team in problem-solving their clients’ parenting mat - ters, they would have played a critical role in the deliv - ery of therapeutic justice in our family justice system”.
In UXH, the court criticised the mother for not having given sufficient thought to the consequences of the relocation on the son’s NS obligations (at [83]). The mother had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about National Service requirements, later making what appeared to be “incidental” and “hasty” deci - sions about renouncing Singapore Permanent Resi - dence status for herself and the children, which did not inspire confidence (at [83] and [86]). Practitioners should therefore advise their clients to thoroughly evaluate the practical implications of their proposed arrangements, including, but not limited to, immigration status, citizenship obligations, health care, and educational continuity, and to clearly dem - onstrate in their affidavits that these issues have been The TJ Model, now formally integrated into Singa - pore’s family justice system, requires all parties to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with its objectives. Under the TJ Model, lawyers are expected to explain its principles to their clients, encourage a focus on long-term and holistic interests rather than short-term legal gains, facilitate constructive problem- solving, adopt a cooperative and non-adversarial approach, and present clear, concise submissions. Significantly, the TJ Model provides that, where a practitioner has conducted himself or herself in accordance with its aims, the judge may commend the lawyer at the conclusion of the proceedings and/ or in the written grounds of decision. In this regard, examples of commendable conduct include: • taking active steps to de-escalate acrimony; • working with the court and the other party to devel - op practical solutions; and • advancing sensible proposals and submissions. Conversely, an unduly adversarial approach may attract adverse costs consequences, and the TJ Mod - el expressly provides that, in exercising its discretion on costs, the court will consider whether a party “has conducted himself/herself in line with the aims of TJ”. carefully and responsibly considered. The therapeutic justice imperative
108 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook