VPG v VPF and another appeal

[1] The present cross-appeals involve the care and control and relocation of the parties’ 3-year old child, [G]. The appellant in HCF/DCA 114/2020 is referred to as the “Mother”, and the appellant in HCF/DCA 115/2020 is referred to as the “Father”.

[3] Both parties appealed against the DJ’s decision. The Mother appealed against “the orders in respect of [G]’s legal documents and overseas travel with the parties and … the orders providing for parties to exercise shared care and control from January 2021, with overnight stays” (as clarified by her in her 6th Affidavit of 24 March 2021, at [6]). The Father appealed against the decision, raising these issues: “whether … it is in the best interest of the Child to return to Mumbai and … sole care and control is in the best interests of the Child” (Appellant’s Case in HCF/DCA 115/2020, at [29]).

[4] I begin with the appeal of the Father in which he sought sole care and control of [G] and for leave to have [G] relocate to India with him. If the appeal against the DJ’s decision refusing relocation is allowed, then the other decisions on shared care and holding of the child’s legal documents will be affected and must be dealt with in that context.

[5] The DJ explained that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in Singapore as:

[7] The Father had sought [G]’s return to India 3 months after [G] was moved to Singapore. The parties have only a transient connection to Singapore. I agree with the Father’s submission that the family’s connection to Singapore is tenuous. Both parties and the child are Indian citizens, with no permanent legal status in Singapore. The parties have only Employment Passes which do not give any secure long-term immigration status in Singapore. The child has lived in Singapore since only last year. These are highly relevant factors which did not seem to be given sufficient weight in the DJ’s considerations.

[9] The medical report from the Mother’s doctor dated 16 July 2020 states that she made a “remarkable recovery” and “is currently able to manage all daily living activities independently including eating, bathing, toileting…and moving around”. The fact that the Mother had difficulty with those daily living activities shows how severe her condition must have been. It must have been very trying for the Mother to have suffered the brain haemorrhage and endured the difficult road to recovery. It is understandable that she sought support from her extended family. But this is also a reminder why she should, all the more, support her child’s relationship with the Father. If the Mother has medical issues, the Father can take on a greater caregiving role especially during the times the Mother needs to focus on her health issues. Apart from her, the Father is [G]’s only other parent. The Mother’s extended family members are not [G]’s parents. While kinship support is good for a child, it cannot replace the role of the child’s parents in her life.

[10] I am of the view that the Father is capable of caring for [G] should [G] be returned to India. I accept that the Father has the support of his parents in India. While I agree that [G] is currently generally well cared for in Singapore with the assistance of the maternal relatives, I note that the Mother herself has stated that she has a “current condition” (Mother’s submissions in FC/OSG 86/2020, at [80]) which results in her having to stay in Singapore and leaves her reliant to some extent on her extended family. The reports from her doctor also include the qualification that she can care for the child with the support of her family. The Mother has also adduced further evidence on the allegedly less desirable parenting style of the Father, including giving [G] too much ice cream and chocolates, and allowing her too much TV screen time. Her submission is that shared care and control is not suitable due to their different parenting styles. I find that, ironically, her evidence is telling of her own pettiness and unwillingness to co-parent. I note that the Father’s counsel had highlighted at the hearing that it was the maternal grandparents’ unwillingness rather than the Mother’s unwillingness to support the Father’s role that had caused much ‘gatekeeping’ (limiting the Father’s access to [G]). On the evidence before me, I accept that much of the tension can be traced to the involvement of the Mother’s parents in the parenting of [G]. The current state of affairs where the Mother and her extended family engage in ‘gatekeeping’ is not as healthy for [G]’s welfare as the Mother appears to think it to be. Parental responsibility is a legal duty to be discharged by both parents. A strong parent is one who can support the child in having a close relationship with the other parent.

[11] In determining the relocation issue, the DJ appeared to give too much weight to the present living arrangements of the child. It is important that I highlight what I have said in UYK v UYJ [2020] 5 SLR 772 (at [51]–[52]):

[12] No one disagrees that Singapore is now the ‘current home’ of this young child. But that is not the only or dominant factor going to the child’s welfare in relocation applications, which involve far wider implications on the child’s life. If it was, relocations will hardly be allowed whenever young children are living in Singapore, living ordinary lives, schooling, and enjoying Singapore food, with no particular difficulties specific to life in Singapore.

[13] I allow the appeal in respect of the decision refusing leave for the Father to relocate [G] to India. I have stated above the considerations that lead to this conclusion. India is the ‘seat’ of this family. The parties and their child are all Indian citizens; they do not have permanent immigration status in Singapore. Even their stay in Singapore has not been long. The child had been residing in Singapore for only 8 months when the DJ made the decision that she should not be allowed to be relocated back to India. The parties are not even sufficiently connected to Singapore for a divorce to be filed in Singapore. I had observed in UYK v UYJ (at [62]):

[14] The present case has similarities with UYK v UYJ, where relocation was allowed. The issue of a relatively harsher environment due to the pandemic issues in the country to which the child was to be relocated was also raised in that case.

[15] As I have said earlier, the Father is a suitable parent to care for [G] should she return to India. India provides [G] with long-term stability. With a loving parent, she can adjust and settle into life in India. It follows that upon her relocation to India, the shared care and control arrangement in Singapore is no longer feasible. If the Mother is willing to return to India (with or without her extended family members), the parents can share in the care of [G] in India. But this scenario is not before me. I grant the Father care and control of the child and leave to relocate the child with him to India.

[16] The parties are directed to submit on the proposed arrangements that will increase the Father’s access including overnight access to the child, the time that relocation should occur, and the access arrangements for the Mother after relocation.

[Postscript: After the delivery of this decision, the Mother indicated that she will make plans to return to India, a heartening development.]