SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Loh Wai Mooi, Wang Liansheng, Petrina Tan and Vaithieiswariy Kumar, Bih Li & Lee LLP
the application; instead, a party can commence the same immediately, by filing the application supported by an affidavit. The supporting affidavit must state: 1) the particulars of the access order; 2) the particulars of the respondent; 3) the particulars of the respondent’s alleged breach of the access order; 4) whether any previous ECAO applications have been filed in respect of the access order; 5) whether any previous applications for committal orders have been filed in respect of the access order; and 6) if (4) or (5) were answered in the affirmative, what the status or outcome of those applications were. In many ways, an ECAO application is a subset of an application for a committal order, in that such appli ‑ cations deal specifically with addressing breaches of child access orders (whereas the application for a committal order can be made whenever there is a breach of an order of the court). In the section below, another form of enforcement (dealing with breaches of maintenance orders) is also discussed. Having specific carve-outs for certain types of applications allows the provisions regard ‑ ing available remedies to be unique to the situation in question. That said, it bears highlighting that once a parent elects to file their application under the ECAO, they are no longer able to bring an application for a com ‑ mittal order to be made in respect of the same breach. As such, where a breaching party may have failed to comply not only with access orders, but other orders (eg, for the transfer of certain assets or the child’s schooling arrangements), the application for a com ‑ mittal order would allow all types and instances of alleged breaches to be determined in the same appli ‑ cation (unlike an ECAO application).
Considering the difficulties involved with parenting post-divorce and the unfortunate reality of access issues being more frequent, ECAO applications may become commonplace. Familiarity with both the ECAO and committal regimes will assist in determin ‑ ing which route best serves the needs of a parent, in
light of the prevailing circumstances. Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Introduction
In the past, enforcement of maintenance orders has been a common challenge. The process was often complex for litigants-in-person to navigate, and the outcomes may not necessarily have provided the relief the applicants were seeking. Moreover, respondents in such enforcement proceedings could thwart the process by withholding information or failing to com ‑ ply with the requirements of the process. To tackle the problems, a new Maintenance Enforce ‑ ment Process (MEP) was implemented with effect from 16 January 2025. The new MEP is designed to: • deter non-payment of maintenance; • make enforcement easier where there is non-pay ‑ ment of maintenance; • facilitate sustainable maintenance outcomes; and • increase access to justice for applicants, especially those who are self-represented. In the new MEP system, a new role/agent is intro ‑ duced. This role/agent is known as the maintenance enforcement officer (MEO). MEOs oversee each and every enforcement case and are empowered to obtain information from the respondents, their employers, selected public institutions and financial institutions. The most important power of an MEO is that they can obtain information from third parties such as banks and public agencies, without having a court order. This obviates the need to depend on a respondent to voluntarily provide their financial documents. Past maintenance enforcement proceedings often saw respondents evade payment by claiming inability to pay (without supporting evidence) or by withholding financial details (to the extent that it was difficult to assess the financial situation of the respondent).
206 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook