International Child Abduction Bill

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —

“Convention” means the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which was signed at The Hague on 25th October 1980;

“Court” means the High Court or a Judge thereof;

“Minister” means —

Unless the contrary intention appears, words and expressions used in this Act have the same meanings as in the provisions of the Convention set out in the Schedule.

For the purposes of the Convention, the Contracting States (other than Singapore) shall be those for the time being specified by the Minister by an order published in the Gazette.

An order under subsection (1) shall specify the date of coming into force of the Convention as between Singapore and any Contracting State specified in the order, and, except where the order otherwise provides, the Convention shall apply as between Singapore and that Contracting State only in relation to —

Where the Convention applies, or applies only, to a particular territory specified in a declaration made by a Contracting State under Article 39 or 40 of the Convention, references to that Contracting State in subsections (1) and (2) shall be construed as references to that territory.

For the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention, a decision of a judicial or administrative authority outside Singapore may be proved by a duly authenticated copy of the decision, and any document purporting to be such a copy shall be deemed to be a true copy unless the contrary is shown.

For the purposes of subsection (1), a copy is duly authenticated if it bears the seal, or is certified by a judge or officer, of the authority.

For the purposes of Articles 14 and 30 of the Convention, any document specified in Article 8 of the Convention or a certified copy of the document shall be sufficient evidence of anything stated in it.

A person who claims that, in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, either jointly or alone, under the law of a Contracting State, a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in Singapore within the meaning of the Convention may apply to the Central Authority of Singapore for his assistance in facilitating the voluntary return of the child or an amicable resolution of the dispute relating to the removal or retention of the child.

A person who claims that, in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, either jointly or alone, under the law of Singapore, a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in a Contracting State within the meaning of the Convention may apply to the Central Authority of Singapore to have his claim sent to the Central Authority of the Contracting State.

An application under subsection (1) or (2) shall be made in such form and manner, and shall contain such information and be accompanied by such documents, as may be specified by the Central Authority of Singapore.

The Central Authority of Singapore may accept an application under subsection (1) or (2) from —

The Central Authority of Singapore may refuse to accept an application under subsection (1) or (2) if it is not submitted in accordance with this section or section 21 or for any of the reasons specified in Article 27 of the Convention.

In this section, “person” includes an institution or other body.

A person who claims that his rights of access under the law of a Contracting State to a child in Singapore have been breached within the meaning of the Convention may apply to the Central Authority of Singapore for his assistance in facilitating an amicable resolution of the dispute relating to the exercise of such rights.

A person who claims that his rights of access under the law of Singapore to a child in a Contracting State have been breached within the meaning of the Convention may apply to the Central Authority of Singapore to have his claim sent to the Central Authority of the Contracting State.

An application under subsection (1) or (2) shall be made in such form and manner, and shall contain such information and be accompanied by such documents, as may be specified by the Central Authority of Singapore.

The Central Authority of Singapore may refuse to accept an application under subsection (1) or (2) if it is not submitted in accordance with this section or section 21 or for any of the reasons specified in Article 27 of the Convention.

A person who claims that, in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, either jointly or alone, under the law of a Contracting State, a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in Singapore within the meaning of the Convention may apply to the Court for an order that the child be returned.

An application under subsection (1) may be made by —

The applicant shall notify the Central Authority of Singapore of his application by forwarding a copy of his application to the Central Authority of Singapore as soon as practicable.

The Court may, if it determines that the child should be returned to the Contracting State, give leave for the child to be taken out of Singapore either unconditionally or subject to such conditions or undertakings as the Court may think fit.

In this section, “person” includes an institution or other body.

Where an application has been made to the Court under section 8 for the return of a child, the Court may, at any time before it determines the application, make such interim orders or give such interim directions as it thinks fit for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child or of preventing changes in the circumstances relevant to the determination of the application.

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Court may make interim orders or give interim directions for the care and control of or access to the child.

Without prejudice to the generality of section 10, where an application under section 8 for the return of a child is pending or has been dismissed by the Court, the Court may issue an injunction restraining any person from taking the child out of Singapore.

An application for an order under subsection (1) may be made by any person appearing to the Court to have sufficient interest in the matter.

When an application has been made to the Court under section 8 for the return of a child, no decision shall be made by any court in respect of the custody of, care and control of or access to the child in any proceedings until the Court has determined the application.

The reference to deciding on the merits in respect of the custody of, care and control of or access to a child in subsection (1) shall be a reference to making, varying, revoking or enforcing a custody order, a care and control order or an access order, as the case may be, in respect of the child.

Subsection (1) shall not affect or limit the Court’s power to make interim orders or give interim directions under section 10.

In this section, “court” includes the Syariah Court and the Appeal Board constituted under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap. 3).

The Court may, on an application made for the purpose of Article 15 of the Convention by any person appearing to the Court to have sufficient interest in the matter, make a declaration that the removal of a child from Singapore, or the retention of the child outside Singapore, was wrongful within the meaning of the Convention.

For the avoidance of doubt, section 35A of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap. 3) and section 17A(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) shall not apply to an application under subsection (1).

“authorised solicitor” means a solicitor on any panel established under section 4 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Cap. 160) who has been assigned by the Director to provide legal representation or legal advice to a person under this Part;

“Director” means the Director of Legal Aid appointed under section 3 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act and includes a Deputy Director and an Assistant Director of Legal Aid appointed under section 3 of that Act.