XII v XIJ

Facts

The mother, an Australian citizen and accountant, and the father, a British citizen and partner in a Singapore law firm, married in Australia on 22 September 2014 and divorced there on 13 May 2024. Their two sons, aged 10 and 8, hold Australian citizenship. The family moved from Brisbane to Kuala Lumpur in May 2017 for the father's career and to Singapore on 30 July 2021, after which the parents lived apart under an arrangement splitting each week between them. The mother's dependent's pass ended, and her application for a Long-Term Visit Pass was rejected in December 2024.

In FC/OSG 60/2023 the mother sought care and control and permission to relocate the boys to Brisbane; the father cross-applied for shared care and control. After a Custody Evaluation Report, the District Judge refused relocation on 24 January 2025 and gave care and control to the father, with liberal access to the mother. She appealed in District Court Appeal No 14 of 2025, arguing that the shared care arrangement was a litigation-driven construct, that she was the primary caregiver, that Brisbane offered stability and family ties, and that the children's wishes were given undue weight and may have been influenced by the father.

Issues

1. Whether the District Judge erred in treating the parents as equal caregivers under a shared care arrangement
2. Whether relocation to Brisbane was in the children's best interests, weighing the mother's wishes, her plan, the children's wishes and the loss of relationship with the father
3. Whether care and control should remain with the father

Holding

The High Court (Family Division) dismissed the mother's appeal. The children remain in Singapore in the father's care and control, with the District Judge's access orders left in place. The court added orders that the father provide two return economy air tickets a year between Australia and Singapore and S$2,000 for each of those trips, with set daily and weekend access during those visits. There was no order as to costs.

Reasoning

The appellate court is slow to interfere in child welfare decisions. On the evidence, the shared care arrangement had operated since 2021 after extended discussion and was not forced on the mother. The father's use of his mother and a helper for logistics was not wrong in principle, and the custody report and school feedback showed him to be an engaged parent. Both were co-parenting equally, so there was no single primary caregiver.

The mother's wish to relocate was reasonable, but carried less weight because any transfer of her distress to the boys would be cushioned by the other caregiving parent. Her relocation plan was largely speculative: she had no job lined up, and the Bulimba property and the school places tied to it depended on the outcome of the Australian financial proceedings. By contrast, the boys had stable living and schooling arrangements in Singapore. The younger boy expressed no view and the elder wished to stay, siblings should not be separated, and there was no evidence of influence by the father. The boys had lived most of their lives outside Australia.

The loss of the boys' close bond with the father also weighed against relocation. Unlike the father in UYK v UYJ [2020] SGHCF 9, he could not easily work from Australia, and the mother appeared unable, for now, to move past her animosity towards him. He was more likely to facilitate access. With the mother unable to obtain a pass, shared care was not viable, so care and control stayed with the father. She may apply again if circumstances change.

From the judgment