WRU v WRT [2024] SGHCF 23

Outcome: Appeal Allowed.

Facts

1          The parties married in 2011 and divorced in 2017. They have two children, presently aged 12 and 10 years old. The Mother has care and control of the children. The Mother now intends to relocate with the children to the United States, where her new partner Mr [B] resides.

Court’s Decision:

2          The paramount consideration in relocation applications is the welfare of the child. While this principle seems simple at first glance, the challenge lies in determining whether relocation would be in the best interests of the child: this requires a balancing of many factors which are driven by competing and often irreconcilable considerations.: at [12].

3          Two important considerations that may often be diametrically opposed are (a) the reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver, and (b) the loss of relationship between the left-behind parent and the children. There is no legal presumption in favour of allowing relocation when the primary caregiver’s desire to relocate is not unreasonable or founded in bad faith. Nor is the loss of relationship between the left-behind parent and the children treated as having determinative weight or as being decisive in every case.: at [13].

4          Although there is no legal presumption in favour of allowing relocation when the child wishes to relocate, research supports the view it is more often than not beneficial for the parties and the children for the children to be given a voice on arrangements that are made for them.: at [18].

5          The welfare of the children is inextricably tied together with the well-being of their primary caregiver. Insofar as the relocation would enable the Mother to benefit from Mr [B]’s support network, it would indirectly benefit the children too, since she is their primary caregiver and the parent on whom they depend on for their daily needs.: at [25] to [26].

6          Although the children are young, they are able to form views on their likes and dislikes, and some weight ought to be given to their wishes. The Mother’s evidence is corroborated by the findings of the Specific Issues Report. This would go some way towards ameliorating any concerns of how relocation may uproot the children from their lives in Singapore and how well the children may adapt to their new environment. Both children are at an age where, all things being equal, they should find it relatively easier to adapt to new surroundings.: at [32] to [33].

7          The strength of the relationship between the Father and the children at present, and the corresponding harm which would be suffered by the children as a result of the loss of relationship, are not such as would warrant denying the relocation application.: at [41].

The full text of the 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.