S'pore father seeks court order for ex-wife to bring kids to 4-day church camp, says S$370 registration fees would be wasted

A father failed in his bid to obtain a court order compelling his ex-wife to ensure that their two children attend a church camp, with a Family Court judge stressing that the court should not be used to enforce one parent’s religious preferences over the other’s objection.

In a judgment dated May 26, 2026, District Judge Kow Keng Siong dismissed the father’s application, which sought to make the mother ensure the children’s attendance at the four-day camp, “personally transport” them to and from the camp daily, and bear half of the registration fees and ancillary costs.

Father said camp would benefit children

The former couple obtained an interim judgment for divorce in January 2025.

They have two children — a son born in March 2016 and a daughter born in August 2017.

It was undisputed that the children were baptised and enrolled in Christian schools, according to court documents seen by Mothership.

The parents also had joint custody of the children, while the mother had care and control over them.

According to the judgment, the camp aimed to build “courage, faith, and character” in young children grounded in the Bible, and involved scripture-based learning through art, drama and play.

The father argued that the children would benefit from attending the camp, as it would support their religious development, instil courage, faith and resilience in them, and provide wholesome activities for their creative and physical development.

He also said it would allow them to build friendships and a sense of belonging in a structured Christian environment.

The father further alleged that since May 2024, the mother had shown a consistent pattern of obstructing the formation of the children’s Christian faith by failing to bring them to various Christian activities.

He said he had “reasonable grounds to apprehend” that she would withhold her consent to the children’s participation in the camp unless the court made a specific and enforceable order.

The father also said he had already paid S$370 in registration fees for the camp, which would be wasted if his application was dismissed.

Judge Kow noted, however, that while the father’s summons was confined to orders relating to the children’s attendance at the camp, he later expanded in his written submissions the orders sought.

These included compelling the mother to ensure that the children attend 12 other church events, weekly Mass, and to provide photographic proof “bearing a date and time stamp and GPS location” that she had done so.

Mother cited children’s welfare

The mother opposed the application.

She denied obstructing the formation of the children’s Christian faith, saying she had not brought them to some Christian activities because of their school schedule.

She argued that the children’s attendance at the camp was a “scheduling decision” that fell within her authority as the parent with care and control.

She also said an order compelling her to personally transport the children to and from the camp each day would be “oppressive and unreasonable”.

The mother also raised concerns about the children’s emotional state and wishes.

According to the judgment, she said the son had recently expressed suicidal ideation and was under active counselling by two entities.

He had also told her that he felt stressed about attending the camp.

The daughter had similarly told the mother that she was reluctant to attend the camp.

Court not meant to resolve every parenting disagreement

In dismissing the application, Judge Kow said two key principles applied: the welfare of the children, and judicial restraint in making coercive orders.

The welfare of the children included their religious and emotional well-being, he said.

However, he added:

“Not every parenting disagreement over child-related issues requires court orders to break the impasse. This is especially true where the issue involves religious matters.

“The Court is not intended to function as a day-to-day surrogate parent tasked with resolving every ordinary parenting disagreement. The child’s natural parents should be the ones making decisions for the child."

This was especially so for disputes involving a child’s religious faith, which Judge Kow described as “often a deeply personal matter” touching on identity, conscience and values.

“The courtroom is ill-equipped to determine which parent’s religious preference for the child should prevail.”

No evidence absence from camp would harm welfare

Judge Kow found that the father had failed to prove that the orders he sought were necessary.

He accepted that the father honestly believed the camp would benefit the children by supporting their Christian upbringing and teaching positive values.

However, the judge added that many activities — whether educational, sporting, artistic, cultural or religious — may benefit a child.

“Courts do not, on this basis alone, routinely transform one parent’s preferred conception of good parenting into a legally enforceable obligation imposed upon the other,” he said.

Judge Kow also found that the proposed orders were “unduly intrusive”, as they required the mother to enrol the children in the camp, personally transport them daily for four days, and bear part of the costs.

“Court orders are not tools to be exploited by one parent to impose his or her conception of ideal parenting on the other parent,” the judge said.

There was also no evidence that the children’s absence from this particular camp would materially compromise their welfare.

Judge Kow noted that the camp was not compulsory, and that there was no evidence the mother was trying to erase the children’s Christian identity, given that they remained enrolled in Christian schools.

He accepted that the mother’s decision not to send the children to the camp was based on welfare concerns, rather than any attempt to undermine the father’s relationship with the children.

Application dismissed

Judge Kow ultimately dismissed the father’s application.

The judge said the application raised a broader question beyond a “narrow parenting disagreement” over a single event: whether it was appropriate for a parent to use the court’s coercive powers to compel his children’s participation in a religious activity over the other parent’s objection.

It also raised the issue of whether the court should pass judgment on which parent’s religious preference for the children was the correct one.

“In family disputes touching on religion, identity and conscience, judicial restraint is often the wiser choice,” he said.

“The Court protects the child’s welfare – not the parents’ preferences over the practice of religion.”