Relocation Disputes in Family Law: Key Considerations from the Singapore High Court Judgment WRU v WRT [2024] SGHCF 23

Relocation Disputes in Family Law: Key Considerations from the Singapore High Court Judgment WRU v WRT [2024] SGHCF 23

Relocation disputes in family law often pose complex challenges, as courts must balance competing interests and ensure the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare. The recent Singapore High Court case, WRU v WRT [2024] SGHCF 23, offers significant insights into the legal principles and factors involved in such disputes. This article delves into the judgment and outlines key takeaways for legal practitioners and families facing similar issues.


In WRU v WRT, the appellant (Mother) sought to relocate her two children to the United States, where she intended to marry her new partner, Mr. B. The respondent (Father) opposed the relocation, arguing it would detrimentally impact his relationship with the children. The central issue was whether the relocation would serve the children’s best interests.

Detailed Facts of the Case

The appellant, WRU (Mother), and the respondent, WRT (Father), were married in 2011 and divorced in 2017. They have two children, G, aged 12, and K, aged 10, both Singapore citizens. Post-divorce, they agreed on joint custody, with the Mother having care and control of the children and the Father having reasonable access.

In 2023, the Mother, now engaged to Mr. B, an American citizen, sought to relocate to the United States to marry him. She argued that the move would provide a better standard of living and greater financial stability for the children, as Mr. B earned a substantial income in the US. The Mother had also made extensive preparations for the move, including researching schools and securing a larger home for the family in the US.

The Father opposed the relocation, expressing concerns about the potential loss of his relationship with the children. He cited his consistent efforts to maintain contact and argued that the Mother had not seriously considered alternative arrangements, such as Mr. B relocating to Singapore.

Procedural History and Decision Below

Initially, the Family Justice Courts dismissed the Mother’s application for relocation, emphasizing three main points:

  1. The relocation was seen as a matter of choice rather than necessity for the Mother.
  2. The existing, albeit weakened, relationship between the Father and the children was deemed salvageable.
  3. The children’s expressed wishes to relocate were not given significant weight due to their young age and potential lack of understanding of the implications.

The Appeal

On appeal, the High Court re-evaluated the case, focusing on several critical aspects:

  • Reasonable Wishes of the Primary Caregiver: The Court acknowledged that the Mother’s desire to relocate was understandable and not made in bad faith. The financial stability and support network provided by Mr. B in the US were considered beneficial for the children.
  • Children’s Wishes: The Court noted the children’s strong desire to relocate, highlighting the importance of considering their wishes in determining their best interests. Despite their young age, the Court found that their preferences should not be dismissed outright.
  • Loss of Relationship with the Father: The Court recognized the potential harm in the children’s relationship with the Father due to relocation but balanced this against the overall benefits of the move.

Legal Principles in Relocation Applications

The High Court underscored several legal principles relevant to relocation applications:

  1. Welfare of the Child: The child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. This principle involves assessing various factors, including the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological needs.
  2. Appellate Intervention: The Court emphasized that appellate intervention is warranted only if the trial judge has erred in law or principle or exercised discretion wrongly.
  3. Balancing Competing Interests: The Court must balance the primary caregiver’s reasonable wishes against the potential loss of relationship with the left-behind parent.

Relevant Factors Considered

The judgment highlighted several specific factors:

  • Primary Caregiver’s Wishes: The Mother’s well-being and her ability to provide a stable and supportive environment were given substantial weight.
  • Children’s Wishes: The Court found that the children’s expressed desires to relocate were genuine and significant.
  • Relationship with the Left-Behind Parent: The quality of the Father’s relationship with the children, rather than the quantity of access, was a critical consideration.

Detailed Analysis of Key Points

  1. Mother’s Financial Stability: The Mother argued that her fluctuating income as a sales representative in Singapore, coupled with the insufficient monthly maintenance of $900 from the Father, made it difficult to provide for the children. In contrast, Mr. B’s stable income in the US would allow her to be a full-time homemaker, thereby dedicating more time to the children.
  2. Father’s Relationship with Children: The Father contended that he had consistently tried to maintain a relationship with the children, despite the Mother’s claims to the contrary. He argued that the Mother’s influence might have affected the children’s expressed wishes to relocate. The Court, however, found evidence that the Father’s relationship with the children had deteriorated, partly due to his own actions and the children’s resentment towards him for opposing the relocation.
  3. Children’s Adjustment: The Court considered the children’s potential adjustment to life in the US, including the support network provided by Mr. B and his family. The evidence showed that the children had visited the US and were comfortable with the proposed arrangements, including schooling and living conditions.

Decision and Access Arrangements

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the Mother’s appeal, permitting the relocation, subject to robust access arrangements to maintain the Father’s relationship with the children. These arrangements included daily telephone/video access and extended periods of physical access during school holidays.


The WRU v WRT judgment provides a nuanced approach to handling relocation disputes, balancing the primary caregiver’s reasonable wishes, the children’s expressed preferences, and the left-behind parent’s relationship. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of a thorough and balanced assessment of all relevant factors to ensure the child’s best interests are served.

Contact IRB Law

For expert legal advice on family law matters, including relocation disputes, contact IRB Law LLP. Our experienced team is dedicated to providing comprehensive legal support tailored to your needs.


Call Now Button
× How can I help you?