ULA v UKZ: Relocation Application, Child Custody, Care and Control
ULA (the Mother) appealed against the District Judge's decision to refuse her application for permission to relocate her child, R, to London. UKZ (the Father) opposed the relocation. The High Court allowed the Mother's appeal, finding that relocation to London would be in R's best interests, considering the Mother's improved work-life balance and the existing long-distance relationship between R and the Father.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding relocation of a child to London. The court allowed the mother's appeal, permitting relocation, considering the child's welfare.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULA | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Yap Teong Liang, Tan Hui Qing |
| UKZ | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ivan Cheong, Eugene Chan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Puay Boon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yap Teong Liang | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
| Tan Hui Qing | T L Yap Law Chambers LLC |
| Ivan Cheong | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
| Eugene Chan | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
4. Facts
- The Mother sought permission to relocate to London with R, her nine-year-old son.
- The Father, who lives in New Zealand with his wife and children, opposed the relocation.
- The parties have joint custody of R, with care and control to the Mother and liberal access to the Father, as per a consent order.
- The Mother received an international assignment in London from her employer.
- The Father and R have not lived in the same country for the past eight years.
- The Mother is R's primary caregiver.
- The Father visits Singapore to see R every six to eight weeks.
5. Formal Citations
- ULA v UKZ, HCF/District Court Appeal No 174 of 2017, [2018] SGHCF 19
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| R was born in Australia. | |
| Mother returned to Singapore with R. | |
| Mother and R returned to New Zealand. | |
| Mother and R moved to Singapore. | |
| Mother and Father discussed plans for Mother and R to move to London. | |
| Mother ended her relationship with the Father. | |
| Father applied for joint custody of R. | |
| Contact between the Father and R was re-established. | |
| Consent order recorded for joint custody to parties. | |
| Mother received assignment letter from employer. | |
| Mother applied to the Family Court for a variation of the Consent Order. | |
| District Judge refused the application for relocation. | |
| District Judge gave the grounds of her decision. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Relocation of Child
- Outcome: The court allowed the relocation, finding it to be in the child's best interests.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impact on child's welfare
- Impact on relationship with non-relocating parent
- Reasonableness of relocating parent's wish to relocate
- Child Custody
- Outcome: The court varied the access orders to facilitate the Father's access to the child in London.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Joint custody
- Care and control
- Access rights
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission for child to relocate to London
- Variation of access arrangements
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for relocation of child
- Application for variation of consent order
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNS v BNT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 973 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount in relocation applications and ought to override every other consideration. |
| TAA v TAB | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 879 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relocating parent’s reasonable wish to relocate is only relevant to the extent that there would be a transference of the relocating parent’s insecurity and negative feelings onto the child. |
| CX v CY (minor: custody and access) | N/A | No | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing appellate intervention in cases involving the welfare of children. |
| BG v BF | N/A | No | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court should play a “limited role”, reversing or varying the decision of the judge below only if it was exercised on wrong principles or if the decision was plainly wrong. |
| TSF v TSE | N/A | No | [2018] 2 SLR 833 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where no trial took place below and the parties gave their evidence by affidavit and through the production of documents – as was the case here – the appellate court may be said to be in as good a position as the first-instance court to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence. |
| AZB v AYZ | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 627 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the welfare of the child is often so inextricably intertwined with the general well-being and happiness of the primary caregiver that the court is loath to interfere with important life decisions of the primary caregiver, so long as they are reasonably made and are not against the interests of the child. |
| Chamberlain v de la Mare | N/A | Yes | Chamberlain v de la Mare (1983) 4 FLR 434 | N/A | Cited for the principle that if the court interferes with the way of life which the custodial parent is proposing to adopt so that he or she and the new spouse are compelled to adopt a manner of life which they do not want, and reasonably do not want, the likelihood is that the frustrations and bitterness which would result from such an interference with any adult whose career is at stake would be bound to overflow on to children. |
| UKZ v ULA | Family Court | No | [2018] SGFC 32 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision that was being appealed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Relocation
- Child custody
- Care and control
- Access rights
- Habitual residence
- Best interests of the child
- Primary caregiver
15.2 Keywords
- Relocation
- Child
- Custody
- Singapore
- Family Law
- London
- Appeal
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Relocation
- Child Custody
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Custody
- Relocation Law
- Children's Law