SINGAPORE: A national serviceman took his father to court in a bid to get him to pay S$1,000 (US$747) a month while he was still at NS, to fund his future university studies.

The Family Court rejected his request, noting that the father seemed “visibly and genuinely sad” that his son had gone to court for this and that the young man had not called him for a long time.

The NSF, now 22, had mounted the case because it was concerned that his father’s funds might run out when it came time to start his studies at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT).

Her parents are divorced, and the NSF claimed her father had the funds available for the payments based on photographs posted online by her father’s second wife, showing her wearing a designer watch and handbag and counting wads of cash.

THE CASE

The young man was completing his NS at the time of the hearing and planned to apply in February or March 2025 for a course at the SIT, according to the ruling of October 30, 2024.

The result of the application would only be known in June or July next year, and the course would begin around August 2026, if successful.

The son filed the case to force 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 willing to pay the course fees, but that at that time he was facing financial difficulties.

You could only start making payments from 2026, when the course was expected to begin. He said he was willing to use money from his Central Provident Fund to pay the course fees, and said he had about S$240,000 in his ordinary CPF account, which would be more than enough.

While he was willing to pay the fees, the father felt that his ex-wife and the son’s mother should also make contributions.

The son brought 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 support to his child who has not can support himself or herself, orders said parent to pay monthly amounts or a lump sum for the support of that child.

District Judge Kow Keng Siong noted that such an order should not be made for a child who has reached the age of 21 unless the court is satisfied that providing such support is necessary.

Judge Kow said the son must prove two things for his application to be successful. First, the payments you are requesting must qualify as “reasonable support,” and the parent must have “neglected or refused” to provide the requested support.

Since the NSF has reached 21 years of age, the court can only order payments if “you would be receiving instruction in an educational establishment.”

Judge Kow noted that the Women’s Charter “does not specifically oblige parents to fund their children’s tertiary education.”

Secondly, the maintenance obligation under Section 69(2) does not require a parent to pay all the expenses of a child’s tertiary education.

Ultimately, a court retains the discretion to order a parent to pay their child’s tertiary education expenses and, if so, how much and when payments should begin.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE JUDGE

Judge Kow said the son had not shown that the requested payments were reasonable and necessary.

He noted that ordering the father to pay support in advance could create “a number of problems” as there was no certainty that the son would be admitted to the course.

The judge also highlighted that child support is “a shared parental duty” and that both father and mother have a joint responsibility for paying for their child’s education.

The mother worked as an independent renovation contractor and the judge had to consider the relative income, earning capacity and assets of both parents to determine what their respective contributions should be.

Regarding the son’s claim that his father had the funds to make the payments based on photographs 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 the bag that appear in his second wife’s online publications were purchased several years ago: the watch was bought 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 not discussed by the son showed that the father was actually in “a desperate financial situation,” the judge noted.

He was in debt to five banks and had several payment plans to pay off those 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 failed to pay a total of S$2,500 in child support for his son and daughter on time, 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 pay the course fees in advance would increase his current financial difficulties.

Judge Kow dismissed the application and made some concluding observations, firstly that the father did not express any anger towards his son for taking him to court.

“At all times, he spoke tenderly to the son. At the beginning of the hearing, the father had addressed the son as ‘dear’, before quickly correcting himself and addressing the son by his English name,” the judge said. “From my observation of the father, it is clear to me that he loved his son very much.”

He noted that the father was “visibly and genuinely sad that his son had resorted to the law to force him to fund the SIT course”.

“According to the father, the son had not called him for a long time, and the first time he learned of the latter’s intention to pursue an SIT course was upon receiving (notification of this case),” Judge Kow said.

“The father cried when he stressed that he was willing to help his son, ‘not because the law says so,’ but as a father.”

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 problems achieve better results through honest and direct communication,” said Judge Kow.

“Whatever the reasons for the apparent lack of communication between child and parent, it is never too late to hit the reset button.”

He said his son’s aspiration to pursue tertiary education could be a good opportunity to reconnect with his father.

“In my opinion, the father sincerely wants his son to be a better man than he is, even providing him with a tertiary education that he (the father) did not have. I urge the parties to start communicating directly with each other.” Judge Kow said.