WLE v WLF [2023] SGHCF 14

Outcome: Orders Made.

Facts

1           Parties were married for 22 years and have two children aged 22 and 19 (“the Children”).

Court’s Decision:

2            In calculating financial contributions, instead of carrying out an arithmetic exercise in futility, the more sensible way is to allow some slack by either side — the give and take, commonly referred to as the broad-brush approach for attaining a just and equitable division under s 112 of the Women’s Charter.: at [9].

3            Evidence shows Wife’s involvement in the Children’s lives — their education, well-being and day to day needs. Just because her care and love went unappreciated, or even rebuffed by her children and husband does not make them untrue or without value.: at [13].

4            Maintenance for the child should not include items of expenditure that the parent with care and control would in any case have to incur even if that parent did not have care and control. For example, standard household expenses, such as MCST Fees, property taxes, Wi-Fi, property insurance and home phone bills. Conversely, items such as utilities and groceries can reasonably increase proportionately with the number of household members.: at [18].

5            Maintenance is ordered, not to indulge the child with luxuries, but to provide for her reasonable financial needs. Maintenance is also not a corporate reimbursement scheme where every item of expenditure is proved and claimed by the parent who has care and control of the children against the other parent.: at [19].

6            The fact that an item of expenditure has been paid for does not necessarily mean that it is a reasonable expense for which maintenance must be ordered. The law does not hold back a parent from indulging the child, but it also cannot compel the other parent to contribute to such indulgence. In the unfortunate breakdown of a family, the question of maintenance is limited to a test of reasonableness.: at [21].

7            What is relevant for the apportionment of the maintenance obligation is not one’s last earned income, but one’s earning capacity.: at [24].

8            Having come of age, it cannot be said that it is “necessary” within the meaning of s 69(5) of the Charter to make an order of maintenance for the son’s daily living expenses. Since there is no longer a legal obligation to maintain a child after he becomes an adult, the contributions by the parents are to be regarded as purely voluntary, at their own discretion.: at [26].

The full text of the decision can be found here.

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.