A national service member in Singapore attempted to sue his father for paying S$ 1, 000 ( US$ 747 ) per month while he was stationed in Singapore to cover his upcoming university tuition costs.
The father appeared “visibly and truly sad” about his son turning to the police for this, and that the younger man had never called him in a while, the Family Court noted.
He was 22 when the NSF started the investigation because he was concerned that his father’s funds might run out before his studies at the Singapore Institute of Technology ( SIT ) would begin.
Based on photos of his father’s second woman, who carried a branded watch and case, and counting stacks of cash, the NSF claimed that his parents had the funds to make the payments because his parents are divorced and that the NSF had verified this.
THE Event
According to a view dated October 30, 2024, the young man planned to apply for a lessons at SIT in February or March 2025 while serving his Na at the time of the reading.
If successful, he may begin the course in August 2026 and only be able to find out the results of the application in June or July of next year.
While the boy was pursuing his NS, the boy initiated the investigation, compelled his father to begin making him S$ 1, 000 per month.
The payment, which are estimated to cost more than S$ 30, 000, were intended to be used to pay for the SIT program.
His father testified at the hearing that the court case had not revealed his plans to enroll in the course, so his father claimed he was shocked and” confused.”
The parents, however, made it clear that despite being financially pressed at the time, he was still fully committed to paying the training fees.
He was only able to begin receiving payment in 2026, the course’s launch date. He claimed that his CPF Ordinary Account, which would be more than enough, may allow him to use the funds from his Central Provident Fund to pay the training costs.
The father believed that his ex-wife and the son’s family may also contribute, even though he was willing to pay the fees.
The case was brought under Section 69 ( 2 ) of the Women’s Charter, which states that: The court may order a parent to pay monthly or lump sums for the child’s maintenance upon timely receipt of the evidence that the parent has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance to that child.
If the court determines that providing for maintenance is needed, district judge Kow Keng Siong noted that such an purchase cannot be made for a kid who has reached the age of 21.
According to Judge Kow, the boy had provide two evidence for success in his application. Second, the obligations he seeks may count as “reasonable maintenance”, and the parents may have “neglected or refused” to provide the repair sought.
The court does merely grant the payments if the NSF “would be receiving instruction at an academic creation” because he is now 21 years old.
According to Judge Kow, the Women’s Charter “does not particularly require a parent to support his or her child’s secondary schooling.”
Second, the obligation for maintenance under Section 69 ( 2 ) does not require a parent to pay for all the expenses of a child’s tertiary education.
Finally, a prosecutor retains the choice on whether to buy a family to pay for their child’s secondary education expenses, and if so, how much and when payments really started.
JUDGE’S Studies
The son, according to Judge Kow, lacked the necessary evidence to support the son’s claim that the payments were needed and reasonable.
He noted that having the father give preservation in advance could lead to” a lot of problems” because the son’s acceptance into the program was a “certitude.”
The judge also emphasized that paying for the father’s tuition is” a shared parental obligation” and that both the parents and the mother are jointly responsible for paying the brother’s tuition.
The judge had to weigh the parents ‘ respective incomes, earning potential, and assets in order to determine what their respective contributions should be. The mother was a freelance renovator.
The judge ruled that the father’s assertion that his parents had the funds to pay his father’s debt based on photos that his father’s second family posted online was based on speculation.
The parents claimed that his second wife had purchased the watch and bag many years prior, with his second wife purchasing both the watch and bag in 2019.
The parents claimed that his second wife and he kept their money separate.
The judge noted that the son’s uncontested data demonstrated that the father was actually in “dire economic straits.”
He had different payment plans to pay off these debts and had a credit card account with five banks. The father claimed to have been owed these amounts while running his development company.
About a year before the hearing, the parents had traded in his 2021 Mercedes E Class, valued at around S$ 400, 000, for a 15-year-old Mercedes S Class valued at about S$ 50, 000.
He had also not been fast in paying a full of S$ 2, 500 in maintenance for his son and daughter, and had paid the debt in quantities of S$ 3, 000 and S$ 5, 000 when he could.
So, the judge accepted that the father’s existing financial strain would increase if he was ordered to make the course fees in advance.
Judge Kow disregarded the software and made some final studies, starting with the father’s rejection of his son’s legal action.
” At all content occasions, he spoke gently to the child. The father had actually addressed the child as “lovely” at the beginning of the reading, but he immediately corrected himself and used the son’s English name, according to the judge. ” From my assessment of the parents, it is obvious to me that he loved the boy dearly”.
He stated that the parents was “visibly and truly depressed that the child had asked the judge to pay for the SIT course.”
The son’s parents claimed that the father had never called him in a while, and that the father had just received a notification of the son’s intention to enroll in an SIT program.
The father yelled out when he said,” Not because the law says so, but as a parent,” when he said,” The father was ready to help the son.”
The prosecutor said the boy may realize his father’s love and terms.
The law has its limitations because it is a sharp instrument. According to Judge Kow, experience has shown that honest and direct communication improves results for problems.
It’s never too late to press the delete key, according to the saying “neverever the reasons for the obvious lack of communication between the child and the parents”
He claimed that the father’s desire to pursue a secondary education might provide him with a great chance to reconnect with his father.
The father, in my opinion, sincerely desires to give the son a higher education than he does, including by giving him ( the father ) a higher education. Judge Kow urged the events to begin establishing direct communication channels.