BDU v BDT: International Child Abduction Act & Hague Convention Interpretation

In BDU v BDT, the High Court of Singapore addressed an appeal concerning the International Child Abduction Act, involving a Singaporean mother, a German father, and their child. The father sought the return of their son, E, to Germany under the Hague Convention. The District Court ordered the return, and the mother appealed. The High Court, led by Judith Prakash J, dismissed the mother's appeal, finding that the child's habitual residence remained in Germany and that the mother had not established a grave risk of harm to the child if returned, despite her claims of domestic violence and psychological distress.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses the International Child Abduction Act, interpreting the Hague Convention on international child abduction. The appeal was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BDUAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostPoonam Mirchandani, Ashok Chugani
BDTRespondentIndividualApplication GrantedWonPatrick Tan, Lynette Heng Hui-Lin

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Poonam MirchandaniMirchandani & Partners
Ashok ChuganiMirchandani & Partners
Patrick TanPatrick Tan LLC
Lynette Heng Hui-LinPatrick Tan LLC

4. Facts

  1. The mother is a Singaporean and the father is German; they married in Denmark in 2009.
  2. The child, E, was born in Germany in 2010 and holds both Singaporean and German nationalities.
  3. The family lived in Germany until January 2012, when they visited Singapore for Chinese New Year.
  4. The father returned to Germany in February 2012, but the mother and child remained in Singapore.
  5. The father obtained a German court order granting him sole paternal authority over E.
  6. The father applied to the Singapore court for E's return under the International Child Abduction Act.
  7. The mother opposed the return, claiming domestic violence and psychological harm.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BDU v BDT, Originating Summons No 236 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 157 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 106

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mother and father got to know each other over the internet.
Mother travelled to Germany to meet the father in person.
Mother and father married in Denmark.
E was born in Germany.
Mother and E visited Singapore.
Family returned to Germany.
German court made an interim order that the father was to have the sole right to determine E’s place of abode.
German court ordered that the parties should jointly exercise the right of determination of E’s abode.
Family travelled to Singapore to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Father returned to Germany.
Father applied to the German court.
German court made an interim order that the exercise of “paternal authority” over E was to be transferred to the father alone.
The Central Authority contacted the mother.
Father and paternal grandfather arrived in Singapore to take the child back to Germany.
Mother commenced proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Act for sole custody, care and control of E.
Father brought an application under the Act for a return order in respect of E.
District Judge’s decision was delivered.
Parties’ second child, J, was born in Singapore.
Mother filed her appeal.
Emergency legal aid certificate was issued to the mother.
Mother applied to the High Court for leave to file a further affidavit and to append thereto a further report from Dr Lim.
Mother commenced divorce proceedings in the Family Court on the basis of the father’s alleged unreasonable behaviour.
Mother filed documents.
Appeal came on for hearing.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Wrongful Retention of Child
    • Outcome: The court found that the child was wrongfully retained in Singapore by the mother.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Habitual Residence of Child
    • Outcome: The court determined that the child's habitual residence remained in Germany.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Grave Risk of Harm to Child
    • Outcome: The court found that the mother had not established a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Germany.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 1 AC 144
      • [2012] 2 AC 257
      • [2001] HCA 39
      • [1996] 2 NZLR 517
      • [2003] 1 NZLR 349

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order for the return of the child to Germany

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for return of child under the International Child Abduction Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Law
  • International Child Abduction

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re H (Abduction: Acquiescence)House of LordsYes[1998] AC 72EnglandExplained the Convention as an international treaty establishing procedures for the prompt return of children wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence.
In re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal)Supreme CourtYes[2012] 1 AC 144EnglandLaid down several propositions as to how applications under the Convention were to be dealt with, particularly regarding Article 13(b).
In re DN/AYes[2007] 1 AC 619N/ACited within In re E, regarding the principle that authorities of the requested state are not to conduct their own investigation and evaluation of what will be best for the child.
DP v Commonwealth Central AuthorityN/AYes(2001) 206 CLR 401AustraliaCited within In re E, regarding the principle that there is no need for Article 13 to be narrowly construed because by its very terms, it is of restricted application.
In re S (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody)Supreme CourtNo[2012] 2 AC 257EnglandOverruled the Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge, making the position somewhat less clear-cut regarding the consideration of the availability of adequate protective measures in the returning country as a factor.
In re SEnglish Court of AppealNo[2011] EWCA Civ 1385EnglandAllowed an appeal, on the basis, inter alia, that the trial judge had not adequately explained why (in the absence of expert evidence) the proposed protective measures were insufficient; overruled by In re S (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2012] 2 AC 257.
DP v Commonwealth Authority; JLM v Director-General NSW Department of Community ServicesHigh CourtYes[2001] HCA 39AustraliaAuthoritatively settled the interpretation of Article 13(b) in Australia, laying down several propositions.
A v Central Authority for New ZealandFull Bench of the Court of AppealYes[1996] 2 NZLR 517New ZealandHeld that in most instances where the best interests of the child are paramount in the country of habitual residence the Courts of that country will be able to deal with any possible risk to a child.
El Sayed v Secretary for JusticeHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 NZLR 349New ZealandThe resisting mother successfully relied on violence and threats on the father’s part. The court did not analyze whether Australia, the place of habitual residence, had sufficient legal safeguards in place to ensure the protection of the children’s best interests.
C v C (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad)N/AYes[1989] 1 WLR 654N/ALord Justice Butler-Sloss stated that “If the grave risk of psychological harm to a child is to be inflicted by the conduct of the parent who abducted him, then it would be relied upon by every mother of a young child who removed him out of the jurisdiction and refused to return. It would drive a coach and four horses through the Convention, at least in respect of applications relating to young children”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Child Abduction Act (Cap 14C, 2011 Rev Ed)Singapore
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1984 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • International Child Abduction Act
  • Hague Convention
  • Wrongful retention
  • Habitual residence
  • Grave risk of harm
  • Article 13(b)
  • Protective measures
  • Undertakings
  • Parental authority
  • Custody rights

15.2 Keywords

  • child abduction
  • hague convention
  • family law
  • singapore
  • germany
  • international law

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • International Law
  • Child Abduction

17. Areas of Law

  • Family Law
  • International Child Abduction
  • Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction