Woman to pay S$1,190 monthly child maintenance, after ex-husband wins care and control of 3 kids

He said: “In my view, the children’s welfare would be best served by granting care and control to the husband, with substantial access time to the wife. The key considerations in my mind were the urgent need for a stable routine, which included having good sleeping habits, and the need for close adult supervision.” 

He said that the two parents had different views on caregiving styles, with a more permissive stance by the woman and a firmer and more active stance by the man, who saw the need to discipline the children when they did something wrong.

Judge Chew said it was evident that both parents loved their children very much, adding that disagreements are common between parents – divorcing or otherwise.

He also said that it was not desirable for the children to continue with a relaxed routine coupled with “very permissive adult supervision”.

Their home environment was cluttered and messy, with barely enough space for all three children to sleep and do their homework, the judge noted.

“It was particularly concerning to me that the children remain unsupervised in their usage of such (mobile) devices and there was no limit on the amount of screen time they could have each night,” he added.

“At their young age, without proper adult supervision and guidance, the children have traded much of their sleep time for more screen time.”

He said such poor sleeping habits had already adversely affected the children, including their ability to stay awake and focused during classes.

“It was not desirable for the wife to be at home with the children, but simply (doing) her own things, without engaging the children or supervising them.”

It was important for parents to be actively involved in giving the young children structure, routines and developmental guidance instead of leaving them to “do their own things”, the judge added.

He also found it inappropriate for the children to go to school on their own without adult supervision or to be left at home alone.

This had taken place when the children were in primary school and younger, and was dangerous especially when the youngest child was able to leave home on his own at the ages of three and two.

Judge Chew found that the father would be able to provide a more structured environment and be more involved in guiding and supervising the children.

He did not find that the children were fearful of their father, as the mother alleged. Nor was there anything to suggest that he would harm them. Any decline in the relationship, if true, was because of the mother’s refusal to provide access to the father since March 2025.

As for the personal protection order matter, the judge said he believed that the father would be able to develop more suitable discipline methods for his firstborn, especially given that the son was becoming a teenager.

He urged the father to continue engaging with the son’s counsellors to promote stability and to help the father in the transition to full-time caregiving of his children.

Judge Chew emphasised that his decision did not disregard what the mother had done for her children so far.

He gave the woman more “generous access time” so that she could see her children regularly. She was granted access that included alternate weekends, up to two weekday evenings a week and certain holidays.

CHILD MAINTENANCE

The woman initially had a maintenance order against her ex-husband, for him to pay S$2,000 a month in child maintenance. She initially proposed that this sum continue and later said that she would not claim maintenance for herself.

The man proposed that they be responsible for the children’s expenses in proportion to their incomes. This would mean he footed a third of the children’s expenses.

Since the judge had granted care and control of the children to the man, the ex-wife would have to pay him child maintenance.

The main disputes were over the number of tuition classes and other classes that the children were attending.

The man’s position was that tuition was a luxury that the parents could not afford.

Judge Chew said he was more inclined towards allowing the monetary sums asserted by the man, since he was now the party claiming child maintenance.

He found that the reasonable monthly expenses of the three children came up to S$1,922.

However, he did not agree with the father’s computation that he was responsible only for one-third of the expenses.

The judge found that the man was earning S$5,000 a month as a private-hire driver, instead of S$4,200 as he claimed.

The woman earns S$8,300. Thus, the man was to bear 38 per cent of the children’s expenses, while the woman was to bear 62 per cent.

In short, the woman was to pay her ex-husband S$1,190 in monthly child maintenance.

She is also to inform her husband about whether she intends to retain the matrimonial flat. If so, she will have to pay him cash of about S$219,000 for him to transfer his rights, title and share in the flat to her within a certain period.

If not, the flat shall be sold in the open market within six months of the final judgment. The sales proceeds will be used to pay the outstanding loan to the Housing and Development Board, as well as legal costs and expenses.

The remainder of the proceeds is to be divided, with 58 per cent to go to the woman and 42 per cent to the man.

Judge Chew said he hoped that the parents tapped their respective strengths to journey with their children in the many years ahead.

“It is also my sincere wish that the parties can work together to co-parent the three very lovely children that they have, enabling them to flourish and mature,” he added.

“To do this, they must see themselves not as adversaries standing on opposite ends of the room. Instead, they are co-workers and co-partners in this journey of parenting.”