UYK v UYJ: Child Relocation, Care and Control Dispute to UK

In UYK v UYJ, the Family Justice Courts of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the relocation of a child, C, to the United Kingdom. The appellant, UYK (the Father), appealed against the District Judge's decision to grant care and control to the respondent, UYJ (the Mother), and allow C to relocate with her to the UK. Both parties and C are British citizens. Justice Debbie Ong dismissed the Father's appeal, upholding the District Judge's orders. The primary legal issue was whether the Mother should have care and control of C, and whether C should be allowed to relocate with her to the UK.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court allows mother to relocate with child to the UK, dismissing father's appeal. The case involves a dispute over care, control, and relocation.

1.7 Decision Date

5 July 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
UYK	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Loo Ming Nee Bernice of Allen & Gledhill LLP Shawn Teo Kai Jie of Drew & Napier LLC Khoo Boo Teck Randolph of Drew & Napier LLC Cheong Zhihui Ivan of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP Ho Jin Kit Shaun of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP Koh Tien Hua of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP Hoon Shu Mei Sumathi of Hong Shumei Khoo Seok Leng Sarah-Anne of Qiu Shuling Sharon Ki Su Jon of Drew & Napier LLC
UYJ	Respondent	Individual	Care and control granted, relocation allowed	Won	Yap Teong Liang of T L Yap Law Chambers Tan Hui Qing of T L Yap Law Chambers Wong Kai Yun of Chia Wong Chambers LLC Chan Xian Yi Jonathan of Zeng Xianyi

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Debbie Ong	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Loo Ming Nee Bernice	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Shawn Teo Kai Jie	Drew & Napier LLC
Khoo Boo Teck Randolph	Drew & Napier LLC
Cheong Zhihui Ivan	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Ho Jin Kit Shaun	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Koh Tien Hua	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Hoon Shu Mei Sumathi	Hong Shumei
Khoo Seok Leng Sarah-Anne	Qiu Shuling
Sharon Ki Su Jon	Drew & Napier LLC
Yap Teong Liang	T L Yap Law Chambers
Tan Hui Qing	T L Yap Law Chambers
Wong Kai Yun	Chia Wong Chambers LLC
Chan Xian Yi Jonathan	Zeng Xianyi

4. Facts

The appellant (Father) and respondent (Mother) are not legally married and have a child, C, who is five years old.
Both parties and C are British citizens.
The central dispute concerned the Mother’s wish to relocate with C to the United Kingdom.
The District Judge awarded the Mother care and control of C and granted the Mother leave for C to relocate with her.
The Father appealed against that decision.
The parties met in London, UK, in 2004.
The Mother primarily lived and worked in London from 1997 to 2018, and C resided with her in London from 2014 till 2018.
The Father left the United Kingdom to live in Monaco sometime in end March 2014 largely due to the tax benefits available there.
The parties came to a decision in 2017 to move to Singapore in January 2018 with C, to live as a family unit in Singapore.
Prior to the move to Singapore, the parties signed a Joint Letter of Intention dated 17 December 2017.
The parties’ relationship broke down when they were living together in Singapore.
The Mother brought C to London on a planned family vacation, and the Father joined them from 5 October 2018.
The Father left London on 11 October 2018, and the Mother did not return to Singapore with C.
The Father then commenced proceedings in the UK under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c 60) (UK) which implemented the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.
The English High Court ordered that C should be returned to Singapore, and the Mother returned with C to Singapore in January 2019.

5. Formal Citations

UYK v UYJ, District Court Appeal No 124 of 2019, [2020] SGHCF 9

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-01	Parties met in London, UK
2014-01-01	Mother conceived their child, C, in January 2014 on her fifth IVF attempt
2014-10-10	C was born
2014-01-01	C resided with the Mother in London from 2014 till 2018
2014-03-01	Father left the United Kingdom to live in Monaco
2017-01-01	Parties decided to move to Singapore in January 2018 with C, to live as a family unit in Singapore
2017-12-17	Parties signed a Joint Letter of Intention
2017-12-30	Father travelled to Singapore
2018-01-08	Mother and C travelled to Singapore
2018-02-01	The Mother alleged that the Father had physically assaulted her
2018-09-27	Mother brought C to London on a planned family vacation
2018-10-05	Father joined them from 5 October 2018
2018-10-11	Father left London
1985-01-01	Father commenced proceedings in the UK under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c 60) (UK)
1980-01-01	The English High Court ordered that C should be returned to Singapore, and the Mother returned with C to Singapore in January 2019 under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980
2019-01-01	Mother returned with C to Singapore
2019-01-21	The Mother filed FC/OSG 12/2019
2019-01-29	The Father filed FC/OSG 15/2019
2019-10-03	The decisions in FC/OSG 12/2019 and FC/OSG 15/2019 was issued by the DJ on 3 October 2019
2019-01-01	The Father filed FC/SUM 3421/2019 for a stay of part of the orders given by the DJ, and also appealed against part of the DJ’s decision
2020-02-17	Father filed HCF/SUM 44/2020
2020-02-17	Mother served the Respondent’s Case
2020-02-18	Mother filed HCF/SUM 47/2020
2020-01-09	Father filed SUM 5/2020
2020-02-04	Mother filed an affidavit in reply to the Father’s affidavit
2020-02-11	Father filed SUM 36/2020
2020-02-14	Father filed SUM 41/2020
2020-02-19	SUM 5/2020, SUM 36/2020 and SUM 41/2020 were heard
2020-02-20	Decision delivered through a Registrar’s Notice dismissing all three summonses
2020-02-25	Father filed HCF/SUM 54/2020
2020-02-26	DCA 124/2019 was heard
2020-03-06	SUM 54/2020 was dismissed
2020-04-14	The Court of Appeal dismissed the Father’s application in CA/OS 10/2020
2020-03-24	Father filed HCF/SUM 97/2020
2020-06-18	SUM 97/2020 was heard
2020-06-29	I dismissed the Father’s appeal on 29 June 2020 and upheld the DJ’s orders
2020-07-06	Grounds of Decision

7. Legal Issues

Child Relocation
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to allow the Mother to relocate with the child to the UK.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 3 SLR 973
  - [2015] 2 SLR 879
Care and Control of Child
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to grant care and control of the child to the Mother.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside the District Judge’s order allowing the relocation of C
Sole care and control of C
Shared care and control of C

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Family Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
UYJ v UYK	District Court	Yes	[2019] SGFC 132	Singapore	Sets out the reasons for the District Judge's decision to award the Mother care and control of C and grant the Mother leave for C to relocate with her.
UYT v UYU and another appeal	High Court Family Division	Yes	[2020] SGHCF 8	Singapore	Cited for the principle that family law is a misnomer for a happy family and that the court's role is to protect the child's welfare and assist the family in moving forward.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862	Singapore	Cited for the law on the grant of leave to appeal.
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 341	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even where the Ladd v Marshall test applied, the court should determine if there are any other reasons for which the Ladd v Marshall requirements should be relaxed in the interests of justice.
Ladd v Marshall	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	Cited for the test applied for adducing new evidence.
BNS v BNT	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 973	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles applicable to the parental relocation of children and the paramount consideration of the child's welfare.
TAA v TAB	High Court Family Division	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 879	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles applicable to the parental relocation of children and the paramount consideration of the child's welfare.
BNT v BNS	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 859	Singapore	Cited as a prior decision to TAA and BNS where the majority of reported decisions in Singapore have allowed relocation.
UXH v UXI	High Court Family Division	Yes	[2019] SGHCF 24	Singapore	Cited as a case where relocation was not granted because the parents and children had been living in Singapore as their home for a substantially long period of time.
UFZ v UFY	High Court Family Division	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 1350	Singapore	Cited as a case where relocation was granted because the mother was returning to her home country after the breakdown of the parents’ relationship.
TSF v TSE	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 833	Singapore	Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s order allowing the child to be relocated to the UK to live with his mother because the mother's immigration status in the UK was not permanent.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c 60) (UK)	United Kingdom
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Relocation
Care and control
Child welfare
Joint Letter of Intention
Parental alienation
Habitual residence
Well-settledness
COVID-19 pandemic

15.2 Keywords

Family Law
Child Custody
Relocation
Singapore
United Kingdom

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	95
Child Custody	90
Children's Welfare	85
Relocation of Child	75
Divorce	30

16. Subjects

Family Law
Child Custody
International Relocation