VET v VEU: Guardianship of Infants Act - Same-Sex Couple, Parental Responsibility, and Welfare of Children
In VET v VEU, the Family Justice Courts of Singapore heard an application by VET, the biological father of two children, to appoint VEU, his same-sex partner, as guardian of the children and to share custody, care, and control. The court, presided over by Debbie Ong J, dismissed the application, holding that the Guardianship of Infants Act does not allow for the appointment of a guardian when a fit parent is present and that such an appointment was not in the children's best interests. The court emphasized the importance of parental responsibility and the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismissed an application by a same-sex couple to appoint a non-parent as guardian, emphasizing parental responsibility and child's welfare.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VET | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Koh Tien Hua, Shaun Ho |
| VEU | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Koh Tien Hua | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
| Shaun Ho | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and defendant are a same-sex couple married in the US in 2018.
- Plaintiff is the biological father of two children born through surrogacy.
- Plaintiff adopted the children, one in the US and one in Singapore.
- Defendant cares for both children with assistance from a domestic helper.
- Plaintiff sought to appoint the defendant as guardian of the children.
- Defendant consented to the application to be appointed guardian.
- The application was driven by convenience, not necessity.
5. Formal Citations
- VET v VEU, Originating Summons (Guardianship of Infants Act) No 1 of 2019, [2020] SGHCF 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Boy conceived through in-vitro fertilisation and birthed in the US by a surrogate mother. | |
| Parties married in the United States. | |
| Plaintiff's application to adopt the boy was granted by the High Court (Family Division). | |
| Girl born through a surrogate mother in California. | |
| Plaintiff legally adopted the girl in the US. | |
| Plaintiff applied to the Family Court for the defendant to be appointed a guardian of both children. | |
| Oral arguments heard. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Appointment of Guardian
- Outcome: The court held that it does not have the jurisdiction to appoint a guardian when there is a fit parent present.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the court to appoint a guardian
- Welfare of the child
- Parental responsibility
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 3 SLR 874
- [2019] 3 SLR 640
- [2018] 5 SLR 1089
- Parental Responsibility
- Outcome: The court held that parental responsibility is not a voluntarily delegable responsibility.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Delegation of parental responsibility
- Best interests of the child
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 2 SLR(R) 529
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 392
- Welfare of the Child
- Outcome: The court held that the appointment of the defendant as a guardian was not necessary for or in the children’s welfare.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Paramount consideration in guardianship matters
- Child's well-being
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 3 SLR 874
- [2018] 2 SLR 833
8. Remedies Sought
- Appointment of guardian
- Joint custody
- Shared care and control
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Guardianship under the Guardianship of Infants Act
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
- Child Custody
- Guardianship
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UKM v Attorney-General | High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the welfare of the child being the most exhaustive sense of that word. |
| UMF v UMG and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 640 | Singapore | Explained that section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act is an enabling provision through which parents and court-appointed guardians may apply for custody of, access to and maintenance of a child. |
| TAU v TAT | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1089 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parental responsibility is one of the most fundamental obligations in family law. |
| TSF v TSE | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 833 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a child’s welfare refers to her well-being in every aspect, that is, her well-being in the most exhaustive sense of that word. |
| L v L | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that the parental responsibility to safeguard the welfare of children is not dependent on the married or unmarried status of her parents. |
| Lim Chin Huat Francis and another v Lim Kok Chye Ivan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 392 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that the parental responsibility to safeguard the welfare of children is not dependent on the married or unmarried status of her parents. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutes must be interpreted purposively and in determining the purpose, primacy should be accorded to the text of the provision and its statutory context over any extraneous material. |
| UNB v Child Protector | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the state may intervene in the parenting of children only as a last resort. |
| UXH v UXI | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHCF 24 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parents know their child best and are the most suitable persons to make decisions and bear responsibility for their child. |
| Re C (minors) (wardship: adoption) | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 All ER 395 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that appointing a guardian would be inconsistent with the continuation of wardship in the UK. |
| Re Aliya Aziz Tayabali | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 894 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that not making a custody order can also be in the welfare of the child. |
| Re G (guardianship of an infant) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 229 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that not making a custody order can also be in the welfare of the child. |
| CX v CY (minor: custody and access) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts do not intervene unnecessarily in the parent-child relationship where there is no actual dispute between the parents over any serious matters relating to the child’s upbringing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3 | Singapore |
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) s 6(3) | Singapore |
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) s 10 | Singapore |
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 46(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Guardianship
- Parental responsibility
- Welfare of the child
- Same-sex couple
- Surrogacy
- Custody
- Care and control
- Wardship jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Guardianship
- Parental Responsibility
- Same-Sex Couple
- Singapore Law
- Family Law
- Child Welfare
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Guardianship
- Children's Rights
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Guardianship Law
- Children's Law