VLI v VLJ: Guardianship of Infants Act & Welfare of Child in Singapore
In VLI v VLJ, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, the appellant, VLI, appealed against the District Judge's decision to dismiss her application under the Guardianship of Infants Act for sole custody, care, and control of her child and an order compelling the respondent, VLJ, to reinstate her Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application for the LTVP was essentially a personal preference to stay and work in Singapore and that the court was not the appropriate forum to seek such an order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning a mother's application for a Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) to remain in Singapore, linked to the welfare of her child. The court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yoon Min Joo | Harry Elias LLP |
| Koh Tien Hua | Harry Elias LLP |
4. Facts
- The parties met in Bangkok in 2019.
- The Wife is an Israeli citizen and an architect.
- The Husband is a Singaporean working as a service engineer.
- The parties married in Singapore on 2 April 2020.
- The marriage broke down by July 2020.
- The Wife sought an order to compel the Husband to reinstate her Long Term Visit Pass.
- The Child is an Israeli citizen.
5. Formal Citations
- VLI v VLJ, District Court Appeal (Family Division) No 25 of 2021, [2021] SGHCF 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties met in Bangkok | |
| Child born | |
| Wife met Husband's parents over Chinese New Year | |
| Parties registered their marriage in Singapore | |
| Marriage broke down | |
| Husband terminated lease of condominium in Bishan | |
| Husband refused to complete application for Wife's LTVP | |
| OSG 102/2020 filed | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Guardianship of Infants Act
- Outcome: The court held that it did not have the power under the Guardianship of Infants Act to compel the Husband to apply for the Wife's LTVP.
- Category: Substantive
- Welfare of Child
- Outcome: The court found that the Wife's application for an LTVP was not sufficiently tied to the Child's welfare.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for sole custody, care and control of the child
- Order for the Husband to reinstate the Wife's Long Term Visit Pass
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Child Custody
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UYK v UYJ | General Division of the High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2020] SGHCF 9 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that decisions about where to live and raise children are personal and for parents to decide. |
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
- Guardianship of Infants Act
- Long Term Visit Pass
- Welfare of the child
- Custody
- Singapore
- Israeli citizen
15.2 Keywords
- family law
- guardianship
- child custody
- long term visit pass
- immigration
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Family Law | 90 |
| Children's Welfare | 90 |
| Child Custody | 80 |
| Guardianship of Infants Act | 75 |
| Child Support | 70 |
| Long Term Visit Pass | 60 |
| Immigration | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Immigration Law
- Child Custody