Father wins right to choose son’s primary school in court tussle with ex-wife

“However, the benefit here is distinct and relevant only insofar as it improves the child’s opportunity to obtain a place in the school,” said Judge Goh.

The third factor is the distance the child lives from the school, which the judge said was a “useful factor” in evaluating the issue, especially when the court is being asked to choose between a school that is very close and a school that is very far.

The impact of distance is particularly significant in the morning when the child has to wake up in the wee hours to attend primary school assembly, which usually starts at 7.30am, he said.

The distance will also have an impact on places given in priority to children who live within 1 to 2km of the school.

Another factor is which parent bears the greater share of responsibility in caregiving for the child, as this parent understands the child’s schedule and needs and strong weight would generally be given to their choice of school.

Other factors include availability of places and conduct of the parents – behaviour which negatively affects the ability of the child to be enrolled would be taken into account, said Judge Goh.

THE DECISION

In this case, Judge Goh allowed the father to decide on the primary school. If there is no available spot at the school of his choice, the child will be registered at any other school where the father can secure a place.

The judge said he regarded travelling time and the time needed to prepare the boy for school as key factors.

Both parents opted for schools which were no more than five minutes from them.

However, they lived 30 to 40 minutes away from each other, so it would mean that the boy had to travel about 30 minutes each way when he stayed with the other parent.

The mother proposed a school, unnamed in the judgment, seven to 10 minutes from the boy’s current preschool.

While this was in the interest of maintaining status quo, the judge did not think this was in the boy’s best interests.

“Preschool start timings were more flexible and later than those of primary school. (The primary school) was also 20 minutes from both parents’ homes,” said Judge Goh.

He said giving the father sole authority to choose the school would give the boy three mornings a week where he need not wake up as early to get to school.

“This was a clear advantage the father had over the mother,” said the judge. “The father would also be able to prepare (his son) for three full days of school … as opposed to the mother who only needed to prepare him for two full days of school.”

Judge Goh said the weight given to this factor is unique to this case, as most of the other factors were neutral.

The mother argued that the judge should place weight on the father’s purported conduct in the proceedings, claiming to be the first to raise the issue in April 2026.

She claimed it was the father’s unwillingness to engage productively with her that resulted in the applications being filed.

However, the judge found that while the father was unwilling to fully compromise with the mother, his conduct did not resemble the unpleasant behaviour of a father in another case she cited.

The judge granted S$1,000 in costs to the father, who was represented by Ms Carrie Gill Kaur from Harry Elias Partnership.

The mother, who was represented by Mr Shawn Teo from Rajah & Tann, has filed an appeal against the decision.