S'pore court rejects mother's bid to force ex-husband to pay half of daughter's Australian university tuition

A Singapore Family Court has largely ruled in favour of a father who objected to paying half of his 22-year-old daughter's Australian medical school fees, stating that a court maintenance order is not a "blank cheque".

District Judge Kow Keng Siong ruled that the full costs of the overseas education were "not reasonable", given that the mother had made the decision unilaterally without the father's consent.

Divorce arrangements

According to judgment papers, the couple has been divorced for over a decade. Their daughter is currently a third-year medical student studying in Australia.

Under a 2012 consent order made during their divorce, the father was required to pay S$650 a month in general maintenance for his daughter, who was eight years old at the time.

The order also stated he had to cover 50 per cent of her educational and medical expenses.

However, the father objected as he said he never agreed to bear the education expenses for overseas study, which came to around S$401,000 for a 6-year medicine course.

The mother, who had been funding the overseas study, filed a court application to enforce these orders, claiming her ex-husband had failed to fulfil them.

Studying abroad

The mother argued that the father did not object when their daughter first brought up studying abroad.

She claimed he agreed to support her and offered to pay the tuition in monthly instalments because he could not afford a lump sum.

She further asserted that his explicit consent was unnecessary, as the original court order covered 50 per cent of tertiary education, local or otherwise.

The father strongly countered this, stating that when the order was signed in 2012, he never envisioned his daughter studying medicine abroad.

When the daughter received the Australian university offer in September 2023, she asked him to sponsor her or act as a guarantor for a S$200,000 bank loan.

The mother claimed that before the daughter started her course, she informed the father and he did not object. While he said he couldn't afford the educational expenses in lump sums, he could contribute towards the tuition in monthly instalments.

However, the father claimed that he did not agree to act as a sponsor or second guarantor for an education loan, expressing concern that the costs were beyond what both he and her mother could afford.

He urged her to wait for outcomes from local university applications instead.

Financial concerns

The father added that the funding arrangement was financially uncertain, as the bank loan did not cover the full cost of the tuition, accommodation, and living expenses.

The mother's own evidence showed that total monthly expenses in Australia amounted to an estimated S$11,700.

Furthermore, the father noted that after his daughter started her studies in Australia, he offered to use his Central Provident Fund (CPF) to pay for a local medical course if she successfully re-applied.

However, he declined to act as a second guarantor for the S$200,000 loan, to which the mother and daughter found another second guarantor and enrolled for the course due to the deadline.

The father also submitted that his daughter had sent him a message in 2023 saying she had decided not to study medicine and was considering other options, and claimed that the mother had "unduly influenced" the daughter to change her mind.

In response to this, the mother claimed that the father had increased his monthly maintenance to S$1,800 after the daughter began studying in Australia, he produced no clear written objection to her continuing, or to him contributing to the related expenses, and he also did not dispute three letters of demand sent by her lawyers in 2025 and 2026, each of which sought payment for the daughter's studies in Australia.

Judge's decision

Judge Kow stated that he did not accept either interpretation from both the father and the mother.

The father read the clause narrowly, submitting that it requires his express consent before any liability arises and is in any event confined to local tertiary expenses.

The mother read the clause broadly, contending that it is, in effect, a commitment given by the father in 2012 to bear half of whatever tertiary education the daughter would ultimately pursue.

"Neither interpretation is valid. I accept neither reading. [The clause] does not require the father's consent, but neither is it an open-ended commitment," he wrote.

He noted that the clause is not limited to local universities, and is wide enough to cover foreign tertiary education expenses.

However, the mother’s interpretation essentially treated the court order as a "blank cheque" and an advance approval for the father to shoulder half of any tertiary expenses incurred.

He also noted that the daughter was only 8 years old when the clause came into existence, and the parties could not have reasonably decided back in 2012 on the specific course she would pursue, or where she would study.

Covering half of the Australian expenses would require the father to fork out an estimated S$2,800 a month, taking up roughly 30 per cent of his S$9,500 monthly income.

The judge also noted that while tuition fees and compulsory university charges fall naturally within the clause, other expenses like accommodation, living expenses, travel, insurance, and loan-servicing charges are not automatically "tertiary fees" or "tertiary education related fees and expenses", merely because the daughter is studying overseas.

He also noted that the father's silence does not necessarily mean he had consented to the arrangements.

"Consent is the presence of agreement, not the absence of objection...What the Mother needed to show was that the Father had agreed. What she has shown is that he did not stop her. The two are not the same."

Judge Kow wrote:

"For completeness, I am mindful that the daughter is now an adult. She is entitled to choose her own educational path, and neither parent has a veto over her choice.

That said, her freedom to choose her path is distinct from whether either parent must legally bear the financial consequences of that choice. The law supports educational aspiration, but only within the bounds of reasonable maintenance."

Maintenance fee adjustments denied

The mother requested an increase to S$3,000 a month in general maintenance, stating that she had been financing the education via her credit card.

She added that the immense financial strain had severely impacted her physical and mental health.

The father asked to lower his monthly maintenance from S$650 to S$400 and reduce his share of educational and medical expenses to 30 per cent.

He argued his income of S$9,500 was only about 30 per cent of his ex-wife's, and noted that his share would have been a more manageable S$870 a month had the daughter studied locally.

Though Judge Kow acknowledged that circumstances had changed, he declined the requests from both sides, ruling that the financial stress the mother faced was substantially self-induced because she chose to support the Australian course and take on the loan despite the father's objections.

He also declined to reduce the father's S$650 maintenance fee, noting that there was noting there was no material change in the father's financial circumstances.

In closing

Judge Kow reminded the separated couple that beyond the legal arguments, they remain parents to a daughter they both love.

Addressing the mother, the judge praised her clear devotion and the heavy financial weight she had carried for her daughter, adding that the ruling should not diminish her sacrifices. He suggested she engage in open conversation with the father to plan for their daughter's future welfare.

Addressing the father, the judge noted that while his financial concerns were substantially upheld, his legal obligations under the original consent order and his daughter's ongoing needs do not disappear.

"What you do for her moving forward, beyond what the law requires of you, is yours to decide. Your actions will be remembered, either way."

The judge concluded by urging both parents to work together to resolve their daughter's immediate financial issues, stating that they should both be immensely proud of her academic achievements.