SINGAPORE: A full-time national serviceman took his father to court in an attempt to get the latter to pay S$1,000 (US$747) a month while he is serving NS, in order to fund his future university course fees.
The Family Court rejected his application, noting that the father appeared “visibly and genuinely sad” that his son had turned to the law for this, and that the young man had not called him for a long time.
The NSF, who is now 22, had mounted the case as he was concerned that his father’s funds might be depleted when the time came for him to begin his course at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT).
His parents are divorced, and the NSF made the submission that his father had the available funds for the payments based on photos posted online by his father’s second wife, showing her with a branded watch and bag and counting stacks of cash.
THE CASE
The young man was serving his NS at the time of the hearing and planned to apply in February or March 2025 for a course at SIT, according to a judgment dated Oct 30, 2024.
The outcome of the application would be known only in June or July next year, and he would begin the course around August 2026, if successful.
The son initiated the case to compel his father to start paying him S$1,000 a month while he was still doing his NS.
He planned to use the payments to fund the SIT course, estimated at more than S$30,000.
His father stated during the hearing that he was surprised and “confused” by the court case as his son had not informed him of his plans to apply for the course.
However, the father made it clear that he was fully prepared to pay the course fees, but was facing financial hardship at the time.
He could start making payments only from 2026, when the course was expected to begin. He said he was prepared to tap on the money in his Central Provident Fund to pay the course fees, saying he had about S$240,000 in his CPF Ordinary Account, which would be more than enough.
While he was prepared to pay the fees, the father felt that his ex-wife and the mother of the son should also be making contributions.
The son initiated the case under Section 69(2) of the Women’s Charter, which states that: The court may, on due proof that a parent has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for his or her child who is unable to maintain himself or herself, order that parent to pay monthly sums or a lump sum for the maintenance of that child.
District Judge Kow Keng Siong noted that such an order is not to be made for a child who has attained 21 years of age unless the court is satisfied that providing such maintenance is necessary.
Judge Kow said the son must prove two things for his application to succeed. First, the payments he seeks must qualify as “reasonable maintenance”, and the father must have “neglected or refused” to provide the maintenance sought.
As the NSF has attained 21 years of age, the court may order the payments only if he “would be receiving instruction at an educational establishment”.
Judge Kow noted that the Women’s Charter “does not specifically oblige a parent to fund his or her child’s tertiary education”.
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.
Ultimately, a court retains the discretion on whether to order a parent to pay for their child’s tertiary education expenses, and if so, how much and when payments should begin.
JUDGE’S FINDINGS
Judge Kow said the son had failed to prove that the payments sought were both reasonable and necessary.
He noted that ordering the father to pay maintenance in advance could create “a host of issues” as there was no certainty the son would be admitted into the course.
The judge also highlighted that child maintenance is “a shared parental duty” and that both father and mother have a joint responsibility in supporting the son’s course fees.
The mother was working as a freelance renovation contractor, and the judge had to consider both parents’ relative income, earning capacity and assets in order to determine what their respective contributions should be.
On the son’s submission 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 shown in his second wife’s online posts had been bought 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.
Evidence undisputed by the son showed that the father was in fact in “dire financial straits”, noted the judge.
He was indebted to five banks and was on various repayment plans to discharge these debts. The father said he had incurred these debts while running his construction business.
About a year before the hearing, the father had traded in his 2021 Mercedes E Class, valued at about S$400,000, for a 15-year-old Mercedes S Class valued at about S$50,000.
He had also not been timely in paying a total of S$2,500 in maintenance for his son and daughter, and would pay the arrears in sums of S$3,000 and S$5,000 when he could.
The judge therefore accepted that ordering the father to make the advance payments for the course fees would add to his current financial hardship.
Judge Kow dismissed the application and made some closing observations, firstly that the father did not express any anger towards his son for hauling him to court.
“At all material times, he spoke tenderly to the son. At the beginning of the hearing, the father had in fact addressed the son as ‘dear’ – before he quickly corrected himself and addressed the son by his English name,” said the judge. “From my observation of the father, it is clear to me that he loved the son dearly.”
He noted that the father was “visibly and genuinely sad that the son had turned to the law to compel him to fund the SIT course”.
“According to the father, the son had not called him for a long time, and the first time that he came to know of the latter’s intention to pursue an SIT course was on receiving (notice of this case),” said Judge Kow.
“The father teared when he stressed that he was prepared to help the son – ‘not because the law says so’ – but as a parent.”
The judge said the son should remember his father’s love and words.
“The law is a blunt tool and has its limits. Experience has shown that issues achieve better outcomes through honest and direct communication,” said Judge Kow.
“Whatever may have been the reasons for the apparent lack of communication between the son and father, it is never too late to press the reset button.”
He said the son’s aspiration to pursue tertiary education could be a good opportunity for him to reconnect with his father.
“In my view, the father sincerely wants to make the son to be a better man than he is – including by providing the latter a tertiary education that he (the father) did not have. I urge the parties to start communicating directly with each other,” said Judge Kow.
