SINGAPORE: A mother who sought to transfer her two children to an international school against her ex-husband's wishes has failed in her bid to do so, after a High Court judge rejected her reasons such as childcare arrangements and potential corporal punishment in local schools.
In a judgment issued on Wednesday (Apr 24), High Court Judge Choo Han Teck dismissed the mother's appeal and upheld earlier decisions made by a district judge.
Justice Choo said the woman's reasons were insufficient to transfer the children, noting for instance that the older child was doing well in the local school.
None of the parties involved in the case were named in the judgment.
The mother is a teacher at an international school where she sought to enrol her children, while the father is a lawyer. Both are Singapore permanent residents.
After the divorce, they were awarded joint custody over the children, with sole care and control to the mother. The father is required to pay maintenance to his ex-wife for her and the two children, which includes paying their school fees directly to the school.
The daughter, 9, and son, 7, have been attending the same local primary school since Primary 1.
In taking her appeal to the High Court, the mother asserted that the district judge had not adequately considered her arguments.
She said the children should attend the international school where she worked so that she could care for them when they were dismissed from school.
At the local school, the children were dismissed much earlier and so a childminder was needed to fetch them and care for them until she returned home from work.
Having the children at the international school would allow them to "spend more meaningful time with her" and reduce the cost of hiring a caregiver, the mother submitted.
She added that her scheduled term breaks did not align perfectly with the children's and so there was insufficient time for the children to spend holidays with relatives overseas.
These reasons were inadequate to Justice Choo, who found that the situation could be overcome by sharing caregiving duties with the father.
He pointed out that the daughter was "thriving" in her current environment, based on school reports and feedback from the teachers, and that the son could do similarly well.
"There must be sufficiently compelling reasons that the move to international school is in the best interests of the children," said the judge.
According to the mother, her children expressed their wish to attend the international school, and her son "vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction at attending (the local primary school)".
The lower court had felt that the court case should not have been discussed with the children, nor should they have been given the impression that they could attend the international school.
Justice Choo said he agreed "entirely" with this point, adding that the children "should be given every opportunity to enjoy the school they are in".
As part of her arguments, the mother raised her concern with the fact that physical punishment was allowed in the local primary school.
She asserted that international schools eschewed physical punishment in favour of "restorative practices" to deal with student behaviour. Corporal punishment was against the children's upbringing at home and could cause them “serious physical and psychological harm”, she submitted.
Justice Choo said this was not a sufficient reason for moving the children.
"The Ministry of Education has guidelines on corporal punishment and prescribes it primarily for male students who commit serious offences, and it is only meted out when other corrective actions have been exhausted," he said.
There was also no evidence to show that the children were likely to be subject to corporal punishment, he added.
"In any event, the different approved modes of punishment in school is not a sufficient ground where the children have already been enrolled."
According to the mother, both parents did not want their children to go through the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Given that the children would eventually attend an international school, she argued that transferring them now rather than later would be beneficial.
While the father considered the possibility of moving them to an international school in the future, he objected to the application to send them now.
Justice Choo agreed with the lower court that it was not in the children's best interests to move them now.
The mother also attempted to argue that her staff discount for school fees would result in "substantial financial savings" if the children attended her school.
However, the judge noted that the current school fees at an international school were still higher and cost savings would only come into play after the mother's fifth year of employment, when she would get a greater staff discount.
"As (the district judge) rightly held, affordability is not the yardstick for a change of school or school system. The key consideration is ultimately the best interests of the children," said Justice Choo.
"I am not satisfied that the potential financial savings that the wife seeks to achieve are determinative of the children’s best interests, given my finding above that they are and can do well in the local school."
Continue reading...
In a judgment issued on Wednesday (Apr 24), High Court Judge Choo Han Teck dismissed the mother's appeal and upheld earlier decisions made by a district judge.
Justice Choo said the woman's reasons were insufficient to transfer the children, noting for instance that the older child was doing well in the local school.
None of the parties involved in the case were named in the judgment.
The mother is a teacher at an international school where she sought to enrol her children, while the father is a lawyer. Both are Singapore permanent residents.
After the divorce, they were awarded joint custody over the children, with sole care and control to the mother. The father is required to pay maintenance to his ex-wife for her and the two children, which includes paying their school fees directly to the school.
The daughter, 9, and son, 7, have been attending the same local primary school since Primary 1.
MOTHER'S ARGUMENTS
In taking her appeal to the High Court, the mother asserted that the district judge had not adequately considered her arguments.
She said the children should attend the international school where she worked so that she could care for them when they were dismissed from school.
At the local school, the children were dismissed much earlier and so a childminder was needed to fetch them and care for them until she returned home from work.
Having the children at the international school would allow them to "spend more meaningful time with her" and reduce the cost of hiring a caregiver, the mother submitted.
She added that her scheduled term breaks did not align perfectly with the children's and so there was insufficient time for the children to spend holidays with relatives overseas.
These reasons were inadequate to Justice Choo, who found that the situation could be overcome by sharing caregiving duties with the father.
He pointed out that the daughter was "thriving" in her current environment, based on school reports and feedback from the teachers, and that the son could do similarly well.
"There must be sufficiently compelling reasons that the move to international school is in the best interests of the children," said the judge.
According to the mother, her children expressed their wish to attend the international school, and her son "vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction at attending (the local primary school)".
The lower court had felt that the court case should not have been discussed with the children, nor should they have been given the impression that they could attend the international school.
Justice Choo said he agreed "entirely" with this point, adding that the children "should be given every opportunity to enjoy the school they are in".
As part of her arguments, the mother raised her concern with the fact that physical punishment was allowed in the local primary school.
She asserted that international schools eschewed physical punishment in favour of "restorative practices" to deal with student behaviour. Corporal punishment was against the children's upbringing at home and could cause them “serious physical and psychological harm”, she submitted.
Justice Choo said this was not a sufficient reason for moving the children.
"The Ministry of Education has guidelines on corporal punishment and prescribes it primarily for male students who commit serious offences, and it is only meted out when other corrective actions have been exhausted," he said.
There was also no evidence to show that the children were likely to be subject to corporal punishment, he added.
"In any event, the different approved modes of punishment in school is not a sufficient ground where the children have already been enrolled."
PARENTS AGAINST PSLE
According to the mother, both parents did not want their children to go through the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Given that the children would eventually attend an international school, she argued that transferring them now rather than later would be beneficial.
While the father considered the possibility of moving them to an international school in the future, he objected to the application to send them now.
Justice Choo agreed with the lower court that it was not in the children's best interests to move them now.
The mother also attempted to argue that her staff discount for school fees would result in "substantial financial savings" if the children attended her school.
However, the judge noted that the current school fees at an international school were still higher and cost savings would only come into play after the mother's fifth year of employment, when she would get a greater staff discount.
"As (the district judge) rightly held, affordability is not the yardstick for a change of school or school system. The key consideration is ultimately the best interests of the children," said Justice Choo.
"I am not satisfied that the potential financial savings that the wife seeks to achieve are determinative of the children’s best interests, given my finding above that they are and can do well in the local school."
Continue reading...