Family Justice Courts Case Highlights

The change of a name or surname of a child was a serious matter that requires compelling reasons before the court will allow for such change. There is a list of non-exhaustive factors that the court will consider. While a child’s name is a symbol of his identity, it is not the only connection between the child and his or her parent and a change of surname is not necessary for the child to know that he or she is a parent’s child.

The paramount consideration in a relocation application is the welfare of the child. The reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver as well as the concern that the relocated children will have less access and interaction with the left-behind parent are important factors but not determinative. The court may still disallow a relocation application if it is unreasonable and done in bad faith.

It is inappropriate for one to seek a long term immigration status in Singapore for oneself through an application under s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed1934), if the order sought is not linked to the custody application and in the child’s welfare. Additionally, the location where a child is raised is a parental decision in which the courts interfere only to ensure the child’s welfare and assist the family in moving forward.

The current living arrangements of a child or willingness of both parties to stay in Singapore are neither conclusive nor dominant factors when the courts decide on relocation orders. The family’s connection with Singapore and how long the child has been in Singapore are also important factors. Further, well-settledness in a country is not an immutable circumstance that can never change and the weight to be placed on this factor will depend on other related circumstances.

A relocation order is more likely to be granted if the family has no close ties in Singapore, though a relocation would mean that one party may have reduced physical access with the child. Shared care and control is not merely a label, and may be ordered if appropriate on the circumstances.

The parents’ conflict and the spirit in which they carry out the orders on care and control could affect the child’s welfare more than the specific arrangements in those orders.

In an application for relocation, the welfare of the child is paramount and should override any other considerations. There is no presumption for or against relocation. When making its decision, the court undertakes a fact-centric exercise.

Section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) does not empower the courts to appoint guardians outside of the circumstances in sections 6 and 10.

The Family Justice Courts may exercise wardship jurisdiction, and in so doing, it possesses all the necessary powers to make orders for a child’s welfare.

There is neither any legal principle against shared care and control, nor a legal presumption that this arrangement is always in a child’s welfare.