Divorced woman must contribute to children's education: Appeals court
Source: Straits Times
Date Published: 25 Oct 2018
Author: Selina Lum
Even if their relationship is strained, it is her responsibility as a parent to facilitate the completion of the last leg of their education.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a divorced woman has to contribute to the education expenses of her two adult sons, from whom she has been estranged since she left home when they were in their teens.
But her responsibility as a parent should not extend to an overseas university education, said the court.
The ruling on Monday was made in a long-drawn divorce case involving matrimonial assets of about $5.8 million. It reversed a decision by the High Court that the woman, 62, did not have to contribute to the maintenance of her sons, aged 27 and 24, who are studying in a university in the United States. They are studying for their first degree after completing their polytechnic education.
Last year, the High Court dismissed an application by the sons for maintenance from their mother. It cited two reasons: Their father, now 55, who owns an electronics component company, had previously agreed to pay for their university studies and he was in a financially stronger position.
However, a three-judge apex court disagreed and allowed the sons' appeal for maintenance.
On Monday, the Court of Appeal said: "In our judgment, these two reasons cannot excuse the wife's responsibility for the maintenance of her children. Even if their relationship is strained, it is her responsibility as a parent to facilitate the completion of the last leg of their education."
It said that under the law, parents have a duty to maintain their children, including those above the age of 21 who are receiving an education. It added that the woman, who worked as a school teacher for many years and had largely relied on the husband to provide for the family during the marriage, was likely to be financially capable of contributing to her children's studies.
However, her responsibility should not extend to an overseas university education, said the court, which comprised Judge of Appeal Steven Chong and Justices Belinda Ang and Quentin Loh.
The court noted that her sons did not inform or consult her on their decision to study in the US, and it was only during divorce proceedings that she found out about their further studies.
Hence, the court assessed her contribution to be $64,248, based on the cost of a local university education for a foreign student.
As for the ex-husband's appeal for a larger share of the matrimonial assets, it was dismissed by the court, which upheld the High Court's decision that the assets valued at $5.8 million, including a $3.8 million house , should be equally divided between them.
The couple married in 1990 when the man, then 27, was a postgraduate student in the US and the woman, then 34, was a teacher in Singapore.
In June 2009, the woman left the family home, when the sons were 18 and 15 years old. Two months later, the man filed for divorce on the basis of her unreasonable behaviour, citing "improper association" with another party. She counterclaimed, alleging unreasonable behaviour on his part, citing several acts of family violence. Their 21-year marriage ended in November 2011.
Ancillary proceedings to deal with the division of assets were prolonged when the woman sought to introduce evidence to counter the man's claim that she had misappropriated money from their bank accounts
Source: Straits Times
Date Published: 25 Oct 2018
Author: Selina Lum
Even if their relationship is strained, it is her responsibility as a parent to facilitate the completion of the last leg of their education.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a divorced woman has to contribute to the education expenses of her two adult sons, from whom she has been estranged since she left home when they were in their teens.
But her responsibility as a parent should not extend to an overseas university education, said the court.
The ruling on Monday was made in a long-drawn divorce case involving matrimonial assets of about $5.8 million. It reversed a decision by the High Court that the woman, 62, did not have to contribute to the maintenance of her sons, aged 27 and 24, who are studying in a university in the United States. They are studying for their first degree after completing their polytechnic education.
Last year, the High Court dismissed an application by the sons for maintenance from their mother. It cited two reasons: Their father, now 55, who owns an electronics component company, had previously agreed to pay for their university studies and he was in a financially stronger position.
However, a three-judge apex court disagreed and allowed the sons' appeal for maintenance.
On Monday, the Court of Appeal said: "In our judgment, these two reasons cannot excuse the wife's responsibility for the maintenance of her children. Even if their relationship is strained, it is her responsibility as a parent to facilitate the completion of the last leg of their education."
It said that under the law, parents have a duty to maintain their children, including those above the age of 21 who are receiving an education. It added that the woman, who worked as a school teacher for many years and had largely relied on the husband to provide for the family during the marriage, was likely to be financially capable of contributing to her children's studies.
However, her responsibility should not extend to an overseas university education, said the court, which comprised Judge of Appeal Steven Chong and Justices Belinda Ang and Quentin Loh.
The court noted that her sons did not inform or consult her on their decision to study in the US, and it was only during divorce proceedings that she found out about their further studies.
Hence, the court assessed her contribution to be $64,248, based on the cost of a local university education for a foreign student.
As for the ex-husband's appeal for a larger share of the matrimonial assets, it was dismissed by the court, which upheld the High Court's decision that the assets valued at $5.8 million, including a $3.8 million house , should be equally divided between them.
The couple married in 1990 when the man, then 27, was a postgraduate student in the US and the woman, then 34, was a teacher in Singapore.
In June 2009, the woman left the family home, when the sons were 18 and 15 years old. Two months later, the man filed for divorce on the basis of her unreasonable behaviour, citing "improper association" with another party. She counterclaimed, alleging unreasonable behaviour on his part, citing several acts of family violence. Their 21-year marriage ended in November 2011.
Ancillary proceedings to deal with the division of assets were prolonged when the woman sought to introduce evidence to counter the man's claim that she had misappropriated money from their bank accounts
