Maintenance bid for children fails; judge says law should be changed
K.C. Vijayan 26 November 2009
The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid by the mistress of a dead businessman to get his estate to pay maintenance for their two children.
But Singapore’s highest court said its decision was made with regret, as its hands were tied by what it considered an unfair law.
In his judgment, released on Monday, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin called for the law to be changed, saying there were compelling reasons to do so.
‘It would be unfair to punish innocent children by denying them maintenance which a legitimate child would receive upon his father’s death, particularly where the father, as in the present case, has been supporting the child,’ he wrote.
The case concerns a married man who began a relationship with an employee nine years younger than him in 1996.
The woman later stopped working, and they had two daughters, born in 1999 and 2001.
The parties in the suit cannot be named to protect the children, who are now in primary school.
While the man was alive, he gave his mistress $3,000 a month to bring up the children.
But after his death in February last year, aged 60, the payments ended.
As he had not made a will, his mistress went to his grown-up children and asked for the payments to continue.
They hesitated initially, fearing that continuing with the payments would reveal the affair to their mother and devastate her.
But the widow eventually found out, and decided that smaller monthly sums would be provided for the girls’ upkeep, as they were not to blame for what had happened.
Unhappy with the reduced payments, the mistress, now 51, went to court to seek the $3,000 she received previously.
The High Court dismissed her case and she appealed.
Her lawyers, Mr. George Pereira and Mr. John Tan, argued that ‘legitimacy had gradually become an inconsequential factor in many aspects of Singapore law today’.
For example, the Women’s Charter requires a parent to maintain his children whether or not they are legitimate.
Similar provisions exist in other laws, such as the Pensions and the Legitimacy Acts, they pointed out.
But the three-judge Court of Appeal noted that Singapore law seemed to discriminate against illegitimate children in general.
Said Justice Chao: ‘Obviously, this flows from the perception that the family within marriage was considered to be the only acceptable social grouping in which to raise children.
‘We do not think that as far as Singapore society is concerned, our values in this regard have in any way changed.’
The court noted that in England, the corresponding law had been changed to benefit illegitimate children, possibly because a high number of children are born out of wedlock.
No such change has been made to the law here.
But the court also pointed out that while laws such as the Women’s Charter required a parent of illegitimate children to look after them while he is alive, no such requirement is made of his estate after his death.
Added Justice Chao: ‘Logically, we are unable to see why the law should not be changed to take that further step.
‘While we recognise that this issue does involve considerations of social policy, we would imagine that the balance should favour imposing a duty on the estate of the deceased parent.’
The court cited university professor Leong Wai Kum, who argued in his book, Elements Of Family Law In Singapore, that ‘no self-respecting society can lay the burden on the shoulders of innocent children to encourage the better behaviour of their parents of having children only during marriage’.
Lawyers contacted agreed that the current gap in the law should be addressed.
Said KhattarWong’s Lim Choi Ming: ‘It is a silent problem, but is prevalent here. Many prefer to keep it quiet to protect their privacy, prevent loss of face and other reasons.
‘This is the first time the problem has reached the Appeals Court.’
1 comment:
Court to mistress: Law can’t help you
Maintenance bid for children fails; judge says law should be changed
K.C. Vijayan
26 November 2009
The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid by the mistress of a dead businessman to get his estate to pay maintenance for their two children.
But Singapore’s highest court said its decision was made with regret, as its hands were tied by what it considered an unfair law.
In his judgment, released on Monday, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin called for the law to be changed, saying there were compelling reasons to do so.
‘It would be unfair to punish innocent children by denying them maintenance which a legitimate child would receive upon his father’s death, particularly where the father, as in the present case, has been supporting the child,’ he wrote.
The case concerns a married man who began a relationship with an employee nine years younger than him in 1996.
The woman later stopped working, and they had two daughters, born in 1999 and 2001.
The parties in the suit cannot be named to protect the children, who are now in primary school.
While the man was alive, he gave his mistress $3,000 a month to bring up the children.
But after his death in February last year, aged 60, the payments ended.
As he had not made a will, his mistress went to his grown-up children and asked for the payments to continue.
They hesitated initially, fearing that continuing with the payments would reveal the affair to their mother and devastate her.
But the widow eventually found out, and decided that smaller monthly sums would be provided for the girls’ upkeep, as they were not to blame for what had happened.
Unhappy with the reduced payments, the mistress, now 51, went to court to seek the $3,000 she received previously.
The High Court dismissed her case and she appealed.
Her lawyers, Mr. George Pereira and Mr. John Tan, argued that ‘legitimacy had gradually become an inconsequential factor in many aspects of Singapore law today’.
For example, the Women’s Charter requires a parent to maintain his children whether or not they are legitimate.
Similar provisions exist in other laws, such as the Pensions and the Legitimacy Acts, they pointed out.
But the three-judge Court of Appeal noted that Singapore law seemed to discriminate against illegitimate children in general.
Said Justice Chao: ‘Obviously, this flows from the perception that the family within marriage was considered to be the only acceptable social grouping in which to raise children.
‘We do not think that as far as Singapore society is concerned, our values in this regard have in any way changed.’
The court noted that in England, the corresponding law had been changed to benefit illegitimate children, possibly because a high number of children are born out of wedlock.
No such change has been made to the law here.
But the court also pointed out that while laws such as the Women’s Charter required a parent of illegitimate children to look after them while he is alive, no such requirement is made of his estate after his death.
Added Justice Chao: ‘Logically, we are unable to see why the law should not be changed to take that further step.
‘While we recognise that this issue does involve considerations of social policy, we would imagine that the balance should favour imposing a duty on the estate of the deceased parent.’
The court cited university professor Leong Wai Kum, who argued in his book, Elements Of Family Law In Singapore, that ‘no self-respecting society can lay the burden on the shoulders of innocent children to encourage the better behaviour of their parents of having children only during marriage’.
Lawyers contacted agreed that the current gap in the law should be addressed.
Said KhattarWong’s Lim Choi Ming: ‘It is a silent problem, but is prevalent here. Many prefer to keep it quiet to protect their privacy, prevent loss of face and other reasons.
‘This is the first time the problem has reached the Appeals Court.’
Post a Comment