VLI v VLJ [2021] SGHCF 27

Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Facts

1 The Wife appealed against the District Judge’s decision to dismiss her application for the Husband to do all that is necessary to enable her to obtain a Long Term Visit Pass (“LTVP”) pursuant to s 5 read with s 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (“GIA”).

Court’s Decision:

2 The District Judge’s decision was upheld, and the High Court Judge likewise declined to order that the Husband reinstate, restore or re-apply for the Wife’s LTVP and do all that is necessary to ensure the Wife’s LTVP is obtained.

3 An application for an order compelling the other party to apply for an LTVP for oneself is not in itself an application for the custody, access, or maintenance of the child. The onus is on the party applying for such an order to show how it is one that is related to a custody application under s 5 of the GIA such that the order sought is also an appropriate order that is in the child’s welfare: at [8] and [13].

4 The decision of where to raise their children is a personal matter for the parents. The parent who decides to relocate with the child has to make the necessary preparations to raise the child in that country. The court only interferes in parties’ disputes in such instances where their relationship has broken down to protect the child’s welfare and assist the family in moving forward: at [14].

5 One who wishes to obtain a long term immigration status so as to live in Singapore ought to approach the Ministry of Manpower or the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority instead of the court: at [15].

The full text of decision can be found here. 


This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.