SINGAPORE: A national serviceman sued his father in an attempt to get him to pay S$1,000 (US$747) a month while he was still in Nova Scotia to fund his future school fees academics.

The family court rejected his request, noting that the father seemed “visibly and genuinely sad” that his son had gone to court for this and that the young man had not called him for a long time.

NSF, now 22, set up the deal because he feared his father’s funds would run out by the time he began his studies at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT).

Her parents are divorced, and the NSF argued that her father had the funds available for the payments, based on photos posted online by her father’s second wife, showing her with a watch and a designer bag and counting money. piles of money.

THE CASE

The young man was serving his NS at the time of the hearing and was planning to apply in February or March 2025 for training at the SIT, according to a judgment dated October 30, 2024.

The result of his application will not be known until June or July next year, and if successful, he will start classes around August 2026.

The son initiated the action to force his father to start paying him S$1,000 per month while he was still doing his NS.

He planned to use the payments to fund the SIT course, estimated to cost more than S$30,000.

His father said during the hearing that he was surprised and “confused” by the lawsuit because his son had not informed him of his intention to enroll in the course.

However, the father made it clear that he was fully prepared to pay the tuition fees but was then facing financial difficulties.

It would only be able to start making payments from 2026, when the course was due to start. He said he was prepared to dip into his Central Provident Fund money to pay the course fees, saying he had about S$240,000 in his CPF ordinary account, which would be more than sufficient.

Although he was willing to pay the fee, the father felt his ex-wife and his son’s mother should also contribute.

The son initiated the action under section 69(2) of the Women’s Charter, which states: The court may, if it is duly proved that a parent has neglected or refused to provide maintenance reasonable to her child who is incapable of supporting herself or herself, order this parent to pay monthly sums or a lump sum for the maintenance of this child.

District Judge Kow Keng Siong noted that such an order should not be made for a child who has reached the age of 21, unless the court is satisfied that such maintenance is necessary.

Justice Kow said the son had to prove two things for his claim to be successful. First, the payments he is seeking must qualify as “reasonable support” and the father must have “neglected or refused” to provide the requested support.

Since the NSF has reached the age of 21, the court can only order payments if he is “likely to be educated at an educational institution.”

Justice Kow noted that the Women’s Charter “does not specifically require a parent to finance their child’s higher education.”

Second, the maintenance obligation under section 69(2) does not require a parent to pay all expenses related to a child’s higher education.

Ultimately, the court retains discretion whether or not to order a parent to pay their child’s higher education expenses and, if so, to determine the amount and when payments should begin.

JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS

Judge Kow said the son had failed to prove that the requested payments were both reasonable and necessary.

He noted that ordering the father to pay child support in advance could create “a multitude of problems” because there was no certainty the son would be admitted to the course.

The judge also emphasized that child support is “a shared parental obligation” and that the father and mother have a joint responsibility in financing the son’s education costs.

The mother worked as an independent renovation contractor, and the judge had to consider the relative income, earning capacity and assets of both parents to determine what their respective contributions should be.

Regarding the son’s claim that his father had the funds to make the payments based on photos posted online by his father’s second wife, the judge said the son’s belief was based on speculation.

According to the father, the watch and bag featured in his second wife’s online posts were purchased several years ago: the watch was purchased by him in 2018 and the bag by his second wife in 2019.

The father said he and his second wife kept their finances separate.

Undisputed evidence from the son showed that the father was in fact in a “dire financial situation,” the judge noted.

He was in debt to five banks and was following various repayment plans to pay off those debts. The father said he incurred the debts while running his construction business.

About a year before the hearing, the father had exchanged his 2021 Mercedes E-Class, worth about S$400,000, for a 15-year-old Mercedes S-Class worth about S$50,000.

He had also failed to pay a total of S$2,500 worth of maintenance for his son and daughter on time, and he would pay the arrears of S$3,000 and S$5,000 when he could.

The judge therefore accepted that ordering the father to pay advances for school fees would add to his current financial difficulties.

Justice Kow dismissed the application and made some closing observations, firstly that the father expressed no anger towards his son for dragging him to court.

“At all material times, he spoke tenderly to his son. At the start of the hearing, the father had actually addressed his son ‘dear’ – before quickly correcting himself and addressing his son by his English first name,” the court said. judge. “From my observation of the father, it is clear to me that he loved his son very much.”

He noted that the father was “visibly and genuinely sad that his son had turned to the law to force him to fund the SIT course.”

“According to the father, the son had not called him for a long time and the first time he learned of the latter’s intention to take an SIT course was upon receiving (notification of this matter),” Judge Kow said.

“The father cried when he stressed that he was ready to help his son – ‘not because the law says so’ – but as a parent.”

The judge said the son must remember his father’s love and words.

“The law is a blunt tool and has its limits. Experience has shown that issues are best resolved through honest and direct communication,” Justice Kow said.

“Whatever the reasons for the apparent lack of communication between son and father, it’s never too late to hit the reset button.”

He said the son’s aspiration to pursue higher education could be a good opportunity for him to reconnect with his father.

“In my opinion, the father sincerely wants to make his son a better man than he is – in particular by providing him with a higher education that he (the father) did not have. I urge the parties to begin communicating directly with each of them. other,” Judge Kow said.