WRU v WRT: Child Relocation Dispute to the United States
In WRU v WRT, the High Court (Family Division) heard an appeal by the Mother against the District Judge's decision to dismiss her application to relocate her two children, G and K, to the United States with her. The Mother and Father divorced in 2017 and share joint custody, with the Mother having care and control. The Mother intends to relocate to the US to marry her partner. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the children's wishes and the Mother's well-being favored relocation, subject to access arrangements for the Father.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding relocation of two children to the US. The court allowed the mother's application, emphasizing the children's wishes and the mother's well-being.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WRU | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kulvinder Kaur, Kalvinder Kaur |
| WRT | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kulvinder Kaur | I.R.B. Law LLP |
| Kalvinder Kaur | I.R.B. Law LLP |
4. Facts
- The Mother and Father were divorced in 2017 and share joint custody of their two children.
- The Mother intends to relocate to the United States to marry her partner, Mr. [B], an American citizen.
- The children have expressed a desire to move to the US.
- The Father opposed the relocation, citing concerns about the loss of his relationship with the children.
- The Mother claims the Father has not fully utilized his access periods over the past six years.
- The Mother plans to be a full-time homemaker in the US, supported by Mr. [B]'s income.
- The children have spent some time in the US and are comfortable with Mr. [B] and his family.
5. Formal Citations
- WRU v WRT, District Court Appeal No 114 of 2023, [2024] SGHCF 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mother and Father married | |
| Mother and Father divorced | |
| District Judge dismissed the Mother's relocation application | |
| Father filed an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence | |
| Summons dismissed and parties' submissions on the appeal heard | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Child Relocation
- Outcome: The court allowed the mother's application to relocate the children to the United States, considering the children's wishes and the mother's well-being.
- Category: Substantive
- Welfare of the Child
- Outcome: The court determined that relocation to the US was in the best interests of the children.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 3 SLR 973
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to relocate children to the United States
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited regarding the test for further evidence |
| Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relaxation of the Ladd v Marshall requirements in the interests of justice |
| TSF v TSE | N/A | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 833 | Singapore | Cited regarding appellate intervention in decisions involving the welfare of children |
| CX v CY (minor: custody and access) | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Cited regarding appellate intervention in decisions involving the welfare of children |
| BG v BF | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | Cited regarding appellate intervention in decisions involving the welfare of children |
| VDX v VDY and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2021] SGHCF 2 | Singapore | Cited regarding appellate court's role in reversing decisions |
| BNS v BNT | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 973 | Singapore | Cited regarding the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child in relocation applications |
| UXH v UXI | N/A | Yes | [2019] SGHCF 24 | Singapore | Cited regarding factors the court may have regard to apart from the reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver and the child’s loss of relationship with the left-behind parent |
| AZB v AZC | N/A | Yes | [2016] SGHCF 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight to be attached to the wishes of the child |
| ZO v ZP and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 647 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight to be attached to the wishes of the child |
| WKM v WKN | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 158 | Singapore | Cited regarding how the court ought to consider child welfare reports |
| Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Case) | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [2017] 1 FLR 979 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the view that greater focus ought to be placed on the child’s wishes and feelings in determining the welfare of the child |
| UFZ v UFY | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1350 | Singapore | Cited regarding the children’s wishes playing a role in the court’s assessment |
| Tan Kah Imm v D’Aranjo Joanne Abegail | N/A | Yes | [1998] SGHC 247 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Mother has made concrete preparations and done most of what she could to ensure a smooth transition |
| AZB v AYZ | N/A | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 627 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presence of familial support is a factor that can weigh in favor of relocation |
| ULA v UKZ | N/A | Yes | [2018] SGHCF 19 | Singapore | Cited regarding the welfare of the children is inextricably tied together with the well-being of their primary caregiver |
| TAA v TAB | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 879 | Singapore | Cited regarding the applicant parent sought to relocate to a country that was not their own home country, and where the relocation application was ultimately dismissed |
| Re K (A Child) (International relocation: appeal against judge’s findings of fact) | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [2017] 1 FLR 1459 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the benefits of a status quo that no longer accords with the wishes of a child |
| WRT v WRU | Family Justice Courts | Yes | [2023] SGFC 38 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision that was appealed against |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 125(2)(b) of the Women’s Charter 1961 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Relocation
- Child welfare
- Access rights
- Primary caregiver
- Best interests of the child
- Specific issues report
15.2 Keywords
- relocation
- child
- family
- custody
- Singapore
- United States
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Relocation
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Child Relocation Law