UBQ v UBR: Child Custody, Care and Control, and Overseas Travel Security

In the divorce case of *UBQ v UBR*, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the Father against the High Court's decision dismissing his applications regarding the welfare of their two children. The Father sought sole care and control, restrictions on the Mother's overseas travel with the children, and reunification therapy. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the existing care and control orders and travel arrangements, emphasizing the children's welfare and the need for stability.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court 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

Divorce case concerning child custody, care and control, and security for overseas travel. The court dismissed the father's appeal, affirming the mother's care and control and travel arrangements.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UBQAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
UBRRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Hoo Sheau PengJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization

4. Facts

  1. The parties are divorced and have two sons.
  2. The Mother has sole care and control of the Children.
  3. The Father sought sole care and control of the Children.
  4. The Father sought to restrain the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore.
  5. The Mother took the Children to the US in May 2021 without the Father's consent.
  6. The Father commenced proceedings in the US under the Hague Convention for the return of the Children.
  7. The US Federal Judge ordered the return of the Children to Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UBQ v UBR and another matter, , [2023] SGHC(A) 10

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties married in the United States of America.
Older son ([A]) was born in the United States of America.
Younger son ([B]) was born in Singapore.
Mother moved out of the matrimonial home and commenced divorce proceedings.
Mother withdrew her divorce proceedings and relocation application after mediation.
Father commenced divorce proceedings.
Interim judgment was granted.
Mother made a second relocation application.
Mother filed an application for an expedited decision on her relocation application.
Father filed an application for the appointment of a Child Representative.
Tan JC granted the Father's application for a Child Representative.
Singapore entered into the “Circuit Breaker” period.
Tan JC made an interim order restraining the Children from being taken out of Singapore.
Tan JC dismissed the Mother’s application to relocate the Children and made orders regarding the ancillary matters.
Father filed an application to restrain the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore during the 2020 winter break.
Tan JC granted the Father's application to restrain the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore during the 2020 winter break.
Father applied again to restrain the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore.
Mother and the Children left for the US.
Father commenced proceedings in the US under the Hague Convention for the return of the Children to Singapore.
Father withdrew his application to restrain the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore.
US Federal Judge ordered the return of the Children to Singapore.
Mother returned to Singapore with the Children.
Father filed an application seeking an injunction restraining the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore.
Judge granted an interim injunction restraining the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore.
Father filed an application to vary the AM Orders on care and control, as well as access arrangements.
SUM 326 and SUM 370 heard inter partes.
SUM 326 and SUM 370 heard inter partes.
Judge dismissed SUM 326 and SUM 370.
Father filed the Appeal against the Judge’s decision.
Father filed an application for a stay of the Judge’s dismissal of SUM 326.
Gill J granted the Father’s stay application.
Mother appealed against Gill J’s decision.
AD 48 was allowed.
Mother took the Children to the US.
Mother returned with the Children.
Father filed an application for permission to adduce a judgment of the US District Court on costs relating to the Hague Proceedings.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Child Custody
    • Outcome: The court affirmed the existing care and control orders, maintaining sole care and control with the Mother.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Restrictions on Overseas Travel
    • Outcome: The court declined to impose additional restrictions on the Mother's ability to travel with the Children.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Variation of Care and Control Order
    • Outcome: The court declined to vary the existing care and control order.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction restraining the Mother from taking the Children out of Singapore
  2. Order for the Mother to hand over the Children’s passports to the Father for safekeeping
  3. Order for the Mother to furnish security of $100,000 for each child to ensure his return to Singapore
  4. Sole care and control of the Children to the Father
  5. Appointment of a therapist to conduct therapy aimed at restoring the Father’s relationship with [A]

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Litigation
  • Child Custody

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BNS v BNTHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 973SingaporeCited for the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount in matters concerning custody or upbringing.
Ladd v MarshallNot AvailableYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the requirements for permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.
BNX v BOE and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 215SingaporeCited regarding the appellate court’s discretion to admit evidence.
ANJ v ANKHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to reverse or vary a decision made by the judge below unless it can be demonstrated that the judge has committed an error of law or principle.
TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matterHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to reverse or vary a decision made by the judge below unless it can be demonstrated that the judge has committed an error of law or principle.
TSF v TSECourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 833SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to reverse or vary a decision made by the judge below unless it can be demonstrated that the judge has committed an error of law or principle.
Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng ChowCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the principle that the power to order maintenance is supplementary to the power to divide matrimonial assets.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 21 r 7 of the Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Care and control
  • Access
  • Overseas travel
  • Hague Convention
  • Relocation
  • Welfare of the child
  • Parenting co-ordinator
  • Reunification therapy

15.2 Keywords

  • child custody
  • divorce
  • family law
  • relocation
  • overseas travel
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Child Custody90
Care and Control90
Access to Children90
Children's Welfare85
Divorce70
Maintenance60
Overseas Travel50
Appointment of therapist40

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Child Custody
  • Divorce