VLI v VLJ: Child Custody, Care and Control, and Singapore Citizenship Application
In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the case of VLI v VLJ involved an appeal by the Mother against the District Court's decision regarding custody, care and control of their child, and the application for Singapore citizenship. The Mother sought sole custody, care and control with supervised access for the Father, and an order compelling the Father to apply for Singapore citizenship for the child. The High Court, presided over by Justice Debbie Ong, granted joint custody to both parents, sole care and control to the Mother, and reasonable access to the Father. The appeal to compel the Father to apply for Singapore citizenship was dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Oral Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding child custody, care and control, and application for Singapore citizenship. The court granted joint custody to both parents, sole care and control to the mother, and reasonable access to the father.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLI | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | Koh Tien Hua |
| VLJ | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Reasonable access granted | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Koh Tien Hua | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The Mother sought sole custody, care and control of the Child with supervised access to the Father.
- The Mother wanted the Father to be compelled to apply for Singapore citizenship for the Child.
- The Father did not wish to apply for Singapore citizenship for the Child.
- The parties had separated in June 2020.
- The Mother has been the primary caregiver of the Child since separation.
- The Father had not had access to the Child since the parties separated.
- The Child is two years old.
5. Formal Citations
- VLI v VLJ, District Court Appeal (Family Division) No 141 of 2021, [2022] SGHCF 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties separated | |
| Father made attempts to see the Child for the Child’s 1st birthday | |
| District Court Appeal (Family Division) No 141 of 2021 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Custody
- Outcome: The court granted joint custody to both parents.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690
- [2005] SGCA 37
- Care and Control
- Outcome: The court granted sole care and control to the Mother.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 5 SLR 1089
- Access
- Outcome: The court granted reasonable access to the Father, to be arranged between the parties.
- Category: Substantive
- Child's Right to Apply for Citizenship
- Outcome: The court held that there is no constitutional right for a child to be granted an application for citizenship.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 3 SLR 874
8. Remedies Sought
- Sole custody
- Care and control
- Supervised access
- Order compelling Father to apply for Singapore citizenship for the Child
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CX v CY | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sole custody is ordered only in exceptional circumstances and that courts should not intervene unnecessarily where there is no actual dispute between parents over serious matters relating to the child's upbringing. |
| CX v CY | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 37 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there is no actual dispute between the parents over any serious matters relating to the child’s upbringing, it may be better to leave matters at status quo, and not to make any custody order. |
| TAU v TAT | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1089 | Singapore | Cited to differentiate between custody and care and control. |
| UKM v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited by the Mother to support the argument that the welfare of a child includes the opportunity for a child to apply for Singapore citizenship. Distinguished by the court due to differing facts. |
| UYK v UYJ | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 772 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the court should not assess and compare the sufficiency of systems and quality of life of various countries when determining where a child should be raised. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Custody
- Care and control
- Access
- Singapore citizenship
- Welfare principle
- Parental responsibility
15.2 Keywords
- family law
- child custody
- citizenship
- singapore
- appeal
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Citizenship
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Custody
- Care and Control
- Access
- Child Citizenship