UBQ v UBR: Child Custody, Care and Control, and Access Dispute after Relocation Attempt
In the divorce case of *UBQ v UBR*, the Family Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed issues related to child custody, care and control, and access. The plaintiff, UBQ (the Husband), sought orders to prevent the defendant, UBR (the Wife), from removing their two children from Singapore and requested a change in care and control arrangements. The court, presided over by Debbie Ong J, dismissed both SUM 326 and SUM 370, emphasizing the paramount welfare of the children and the need for both parents to foster a healthy environment despite their ongoing conflict.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
SUM 326 and SUM 370 were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Divorce case concerning child custody, care and control, and access, focusing on a mother's relocation attempt and its impact on the children's welfare.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UBQ | Plaintiff | Individual | SUM 326 Dismissed, SUM 370 Dismissed | Dismissed, Dismissed | Linda Joelle Ong, Tan Xin Er, Sylvie |
| UBR | Defendant | Individual | SUM 326 Dismissed, SUM 370 Dismissed | Neutral, Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Linda Joelle Ong | Engelin Teh Practice LLC |
| Tan Xin Er, Sylvie | Engelin Teh Practice LLC |
4. Facts
- The parties have two children, aged 14 and 12.
- The Wife had sole care and control of the Children.
- The Wife took the Children to the US in May 2021 without the Husband's consent.
- The Husband initiated Hague Convention proceedings to have the Children returned to Singapore.
- The Wife argued an Article 13 defense in the Hague Convention proceedings.
- The Children returned to Singapore in November 2021.
- The Husband sought orders to prevent the Wife from removing the Children from Singapore again.
5. Formal Citations
- UBQ v UBR, Divorce (Transferred) No 1861 of 2015(Summonses Nos 326 and 370 of 2021), [2022] SGHCF 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CFRC mediated agreement reached | |
| Tan JC's Order made | |
| Husband took out applications to prevent Wife and Children from going on their intended trip | |
| Appeals went before the Court of Appeal | |
| Husband took out applications to prevent Wife and Children from going on their intended trip | |
| Wife took the Children and left Singapore for the US | |
| Husband was to have Summer Break access to the Children | |
| Husband was to have Summer Break access to the Children | |
| Wife tried to have her Filipino helper apply for a visa to join her and the Children in the US | |
| Wife admitted the Children into an American school | |
| Wife and Children returned to Singapore | |
| SUM 326 was first heard on an urgent ex parte basis | |
| Hearing | |
| Hearing | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Child Custody
- Outcome: The court maintained the existing care and control order, with the Wife as the primary caregiver.
- Category: Substantive
- Child Access
- Outcome: The court dismissed the Husband's request for make-up access and uninterrupted access with the Children.
- Category: Substantive
- Relocation of Children
- Outcome: The court addressed the Wife's past relocation attempt and its impact on the children's well-being, emphasizing the need for stability.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Restraining order to prevent the Wife from removing the Children from Singapore
- Handover of the Children's passports to the Husband for safekeeping
- Banker's guarantee for the Wife's overseas travels with the Children
- Sole care and control of the Children to the Husband
- Appointment of a therapist to restore the relationship between the Husband and [A]
- Appointment of a Parenting Coordinator
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Child Custody
- Family Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNS v BNT | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 973 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters. |
| TAU v TAT | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1089 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that the child’s interests should not be sidelined during parental litigation. |
| CLB v CLC | High Court of the Republic of Singapore | No | [2022] SGHCF 3 | Singapore | Cited regarding an order sought by the husband not to speak to the children about court proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Care and control
- Access
- Hague Convention
- Relocation
- Parenting Coordinator
- Therapist
- Welfare principle
15.2 Keywords
- child custody
- divorce
- relocation
- access
- Singapore
- family law
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Divorce
- International Child Abduction
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Custody
- Care and Control
- Access
- Child Law