BR Law Corporation
br@brlawcorp.com +65 6899 9888
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • News and Insights
  • Join Us
  • Contact Us
br@brlawcorp.com +65 6899 9888

Preventing a Parent From Removing a Child From Singapore

 
14 August 2017
Foo Soon Yien
Picture
Picture
​An aggrieved party may make an application for the Court to issue an injunction restraining the other parent from taking the child out of Singapore where there is an agreement or order of court that one parent has custody, care and control of the child.
If there is no existing care and control order, the parent who seeks to restrain the other parent from removing the child from Singapore should file an application under section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act (“GIA”) for substantive orders in relation to custody, care and control of the child while simultaneously praying for the relevant injunction orders to restrain the other parent from removing the child from Singapore.

One such case where an injunction was granted was TOG v TOH [2016] SGFC 60. The mother and father were both British citizens, although they lived in Singapore for about 12 years and were married in Singapore. The child, a British citizen, was born in Singapore on 25 January 2011. The father said that the mother had abducted the child on 9 March 2016 and left for the UK, without his permission. The mother said the father had agreed that they would relocate to UK, as their employment passes would expire by the end of the year. The child was on a dependant pass.

The Court considered factors such as the child’s welfare, the degree of connection of the child with Singapore (factors such as his nationality, where he has lived for most of his life, his first language, his race or ethnicity, his religion, his culture, and his education are all relevant), and the length of time the child spent in Singapore or elsewhere in making its decision to grant the injunction.

In the case of TBI v TBJ [2014] SGDC 127, the Court held that considering the matters in their totality, Singapore was not the appropriate forum to determine the issues concerning the children because there were no connecting factors to Singapore. The Court also relied on the general rule regarding jurisdictional challenges involving children is that the jurisdiction is where the children habitually reside.

In ANT v ANU [2014] SGHC 229, the husband held an employment pass for work and the wife and children held dependant passes. The Court dismissed the wife’s application based on the Spilida test that Singapore is not the appropriate forum because, inter alia, none of the parties nor the children were habitually resident in Singapore.

Ultimately, the Courts will consider the degree of connection of the child with Singapore and what is in the best interests of the child.
​

Foo Soon Yien
Director, BR Law Corporation
foosoonyien@brlawcorp.com

Post date. Edit this to change the date post was posted. Does not show up on published site. 15/8/2017


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    We're Here To Help

    Our team welcome any comments or questions and will gladly assist you with your enquiry. You can call us on +65 6899 9888 or fill out our simple contact form. 

    Disclaimer

    The materials in these articles have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. If you require legal advice for your particular circumstances, please consult a suitably qualified legal counsel. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely or act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Whilst we endeavour to ensure that the information in these articles is correct, no warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy and we do not accept any liability for error or omission. The authors of the articles are or were employees of BR Law Corporation at the time of  publication, but may no longer be, now or in the future, in the employ of the firm.

    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Subscribe to our quarterly newsetter to keep up to date with a wealth of insights from the BR Law, BR Family Assets and BR Corporate services team.
    Subscribe to Newsletter

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Awards And Accolades
    Commercial Transactions
    Conveyancing
    Corporate Law
    COVID19
    Criminal Law
    Dispute Resolution
    Family And Matrimonial Law
    Intellectual Property
    International Law
    Personal Data Protection
    Probate And Administration
    Technology
    Wills And Trusts

    Archives

    February 2023
    November 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    June 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    January 2017
    September 2016
    March 2015
    January 2015
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

Firm Brochure

Download

Practice Areas

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter to keep up to date with a wealth of insights from the BR Law.
Subscribe to Newsletter

Contact Us

br@brlawcorp.com
 
Main Branch - Republic Plaza
9 Raffles Place
#08-03 Republic Plaza
Singapore 048619
+65 6388 1717 Telephone
+65 6394 7398 Fax

Branch Office - Bank of China
4 Battery Road #29-00
Bank of China
Singapore 049908
+65 6899 9888 Telephone
+65 6338 5377 Fax

Branch Office - United Square
101 Thomson Road
#26-02/04 United Square
Singapore 307591
+65 6336 1717 Telephone
+65 6394 7318 Fax

Awards and Accolades

Picture
Terms of Use​  •  Privacy Statement
​© Copyright 2018 BR Law Corporation. Registered in Singapore (UEN: 200312051N).