Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

Amidst his parent's divorce, a Singapore undergraduate, 22, took his case before the courts in the hopes that his father will be ordered to pay to maintain his lifestyle, which included his university education fees and living expenses.

The son was no longer entitled to maintenance from his father once he had turned 21.

But he alleged that his father was neglectful in his parenting.

According to a judgement released on Apr. 26, the family courts ordered the father to bear the cost of the son's education expenses, which included tuition fees, hostel fees and study material related expenses.

The father was also ordered to pay the son S$600 a month until his son attains his first university degree.

Background information

The father had previously enjoyed a stable job as a teacher and was able to ensure a comfortable financial situation for his family.

However, he encountered professional and legal troubles which led to a nine-month unemployment.

He then took up another teaching job in Indonesia, earning up to S$6,500 a month.

He shuttled to and fro from Indonesia and Singapore every weekend. After three years, he returned to Singapore for good and took up a job at a school, earning around S$7,000 a month.

The father was the sole breadwinner of the family.

In 2019, the mother commenced divorce proceedings against the father. The son was 19 at that time.

The father was ordered to pay her S$1,000 per month from March 2020.

However, when the son turned 21 in 2021, the maintenance order was no longer enforced.

Later that year, the son then filed an application seeking maintenance for himself under Section 69(2) of the Women's Charter.

During that time, the son had completed national service, and enrolled in an engineering course in university.

The course made it compulsory for students to stay at a hostel for their first two terms.

Due to his studies and extra-curricular activities, the son was unable to take up a part-time job to support himself.

Son claimed father was neglectful, judge said otherwise

The son submitted several payments by his father, which include:

• A lump sum of S$91,757 for his education fees;
• a lump sum S$87,840 for his living expenses;
• a one-time travelling expense of S$3,000;
• S$1,532.95 for expenses incurred prior to his university enrolment
• and S$350 a month for his insurance policy

The son claimed that his father was a neglectful parent, as he had hardly spent any quality time with the family when the son was growing up.

In addition, he said that his father often prioritised his work over his family.

During the period where his father worked in Indonesia, when he would come back to Singapore over the weekends, he would spend his weekends giving tuition instead of with his family.

Furthermore, the son emphasised that the father was inconsistent in his commitment to pay for his younger son's education, which contributed to the younger son's decision to drop out of school due to the stress at home and poor academic results.

Thus, the son requested for a lump sum to ensure that a repeat of the past situation would not occur.

However, District Judge Sarah Chua was not persuaded by the son's argument.

She said as the sole breadwinner of the family, it was understandable that the father had to commit time and effort to earning a living and to meeting his family's financial needs.

While he did not spend much time with his family, it was inappropriate to label the father as a "neglectful" parent as he had been contributing to the family's welfare financially.

There was also evidence to suggest that the father was constantly checking in on his family's welfare and children's progress even when he was overseas.

She had also described the son's accusation about his father's history of defaulting on payments as "tenuous at best", as his father had complied dutifully with the interim order.

Father thought the claims were excessive

The father had been earning a monthly net income of S$7,088. In terms of assets, the father has S$52,570.20, but owed a loan of S$73,500 to his brother.

As an educator himself, the father supported the decision for his son to pursue a tertiary education, but maintained that unexpected expenses since divorce proceedings had disrupted his financial plans.

The father was willing to support his son's tertiary education fees but only through his Central Provident Fund (CPF) funds as that was what he was able to afford.

The court found that the father had sufficient financial ability to support the son's education expenses with some financial planning.

Judge's decision

Judge Chua ordered the father to contribute S$600 a month to the son's living expenses until he attained his first university degree.

She also ordered the father to be solely responsible for the son's tertiary education costs and related expenses.

Judge Chua added that it was the duty of parents to maintain their children, as it is set out in Section 68 of the Women's Charter, by providing them with accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable with regard to their means.

"If not for the father's suggestion, I would have been minded to order costs against the son," Judge Chua said.

She elaborated by pointing out that the orders sought by the son were largely unfounded in principle and unsupported by facts.

She also observed that the son had initially sought to inflate the claim against his father.

However, she accepted the father's suggestion for the parties to bear their own costs to avoid further acrimony within the family.

Top photo via Istock