SINGAPORE: A woman turned to court to get her ex-husband to pay for expenses including half of their daughter's Australian university bill, as a previous maintenance order required him to bear 50 per cent of their daughter's educational expenses.
However, a Family Court ruled largely in favour of the father, saying it would be wrong to legally compel the father to financially support the mother's personal choice, which was made despite his objection.
The father had raised concerns about his daughter attending an overseas university rather than a local one because of the financial commitment.
District Judge Kow Keng Siong said in a judgment made available on Wednesday (Jul 1) that the financial commitment was substantial at more than S$401,000 (US$310,000) for a six-year medicine course.
Footing half of it means the father would have to contribute about S$2,789 per month, which is about 30 per cent of his S$9,500 monthly income.
The parents were divorced over a decade ago, and have a daughter who is turning 22 this year.
She is a third-year medical student in Australia. Her mother has been paying for her overseas education but wants her ex-husband to shoulder some of the expenses.
The father objected, as he never agreed to bear these overseas education expenses.
As part of the divorce arrangement, orders were made for the father to pay S$650 per month for his daughter's maintenance, and 50 per cent of her educational and medical expenses.
The mother lodged an application to enforce these orders, claiming her ex-husband had defaulted on the maintenance as well as the educational and medical expenses.
She also applied to increase the father's contribution towards their daughter's general maintenance, citing the higher costs of her studies in Australia.
The father, on the other hand, sought to reduce his contributions.
The mother said her ex-husband had increased monthly payments to S$1,450 per month from around March 2018 and again to S$1,500 per month from February 2021 at their daughter's request.
Using these higher figures, the mother said the father did not always pay these amounts in full, and that he had reverted to paying only S$$650 from November 2025. She sought arrears of about S$10,000 using the higher figures.
The father said he had made the increased payments voluntarily for needs as they arose but these did not vary the court's order for S$650. He said he was not in arrears at all but had instead overpaid by more than S$81,000 using the S$650 figure.
Judge Kow found the higher figures were not enforceable.
The mother claimed that her ex-husband had defaulted on paying their daughter's educational expenses and owed nearly S$54,000.
She argued that the father had agreed to support his daughter's overseas studies. Before the daughter began her course in Australia in 2024, he did not object and said he would contribute in monthly instalments as he could not afford lump sums.
The woman argued that his consent was unnecessary as the court order obliged him to bear 50 per cent of their daughter's education expenses, and this was not confined to local universities.
However, the father argued that when the court order was made in 2012, he did not envisage that their daughter would study medicine overseas.
He accepted that after his daughter received an offer from an Australian university in September 2023, she told him she intended to study medicine there and asked if he could sponsor her or act as a second guarantor for an education loan.
He did not agree, however, expressing concern that the costs were beyond what he and her mother could afford.
He also asked if she could wait for the outcome of her applications to the National University of Singapore or Nanyang Technological University.
But the daughter and mother proceeded with arrangements to study in Australia despite his concerns, said the father.
He said the proposed funding arrangement was financially uncertain because the S$200,000 education loan offered by a bank fell short of covering the full cost of the course, accommodation and living expenses.
He said he could not have agreed to such an open-ended obligation. At the same time, there was uncertainty about whether the daughter herself wanted to study medicine. He cited a WhatsApp message where she said she had decided not to and was considering other options.
The father argued that the mother had unduly influenced the daughter to change her mind.
Judge Kow said the mother's interpretation of the 50 per cent court order was akin to treating it as a blank cheque and an advance approval by the father to bear half of whatever tertiary expenses the daughter would incur.
He said this interpretation was untenable.
Judge Kow said the daughter was now an adult and entitled to choose her own educational path, but this is distinct from whether either parent must legally bear the financial consequences of that choice.
"The law supports educational aspiration, but only within the bounds of reasonable maintenance," he said.
He said it was not reasonable to require the father to bear 50 per cent of his daughter's educational expenses in Australia for several reasons.
First, the medicine course was not reasonably foreseeable in 2012, when the girl was only eight.
Second, the financial commitment was highly onerous for the father, who would have to contribute 30 per cent of his S$9,500 monthly income to foot half the educational expenses.
There are also other costs involved, and the mother's own evidence showed that total monthly expenses in Australia, including accommodation, were estimated at about S$11,700.
Judge Kow said lower-cost local alternatives were considered. For example, after the daughter began studying in Australia, her father told her that he could use his Central Provident Fund to pay for a local medicine course if she re-applied for one successfully.
The mother also sought over S$35,000 as arrears in medical expenses from 2013, but the judge allowed only about S$2,590 for the daughter's medical expenses from 2025 and 2026.
The mother sought an increase for her daughter's maintenance from S$650 to S$3,000 a month, citing the overseas studies and how she has been bearing her daughter's costs largely alone.
The woman said she has been funding payments with her credit card, and the financial strain has affected her physical and mental health and increased her own medical expenses.
The father asked to decrease the sum from S$650 to S$400 a month and to reduce his share of educational and medical expenses from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.
He said his gross and net income was about 30 per cent of his ex-wife's, so his contributions should be pegged to this ratio.
He also said his 30 per cent share would have been about S$870 per month if his daughter had studied medicine at a local university, instead of an estimated S$2,900 per month.
Judge Kow accepted that circumstances have changed but they did not justify the increase sought by the mother.
He said he had already found that 50 per cent of the costs of the medicine course in Australia are not reasonable to impose on the father.
He added that the financial stress on the mother arose substantially because she chose to support the course in Australia and service the loan.
However, Judge Kow declined to reduce the maintenance paid by the father.
The father had submitted figures showing that he spent about S$5,186 on personal expenses, S$1,500 on child maintenance and S$3,000 on payments to his current wife.
The judge said the figures do not add up, as this results in a monthly deficit of about S$186 from his pay of S$9,500.
He also declined to adjust the contributions by the father for educational and medical expenses from 50 per cent to 30 per cent, saying no material change in the father's circumstances was shown.
In closing, Judge Kow said that while this case required the court to answer hard questions, it was also about a separated couple who must continue as parents of a daughter they both love.
He told the mother that her devotion to her daughter and the financial weight she carried for her are plain on the record, and that what she has done for her is not diminished by the court's judgment.
"The way to your daughter's continuing welfare, the court would gently suggest, is through conversation with her father to plan for the years still to come," he said.
To the father, he said that while the court has not ordered him to pay for the course in Australia, his obligations and his daughter's continuing needs do not vanish.
"What you do for her moving forward, beyond what the law requires of you, is yours to decide. Your actions will be remembered, either way," he said.
He urged both parents to work together to solve their daughter's immediate financial issues.
Continue reading...
However, a Family Court ruled largely in favour of the father, saying it would be wrong to legally compel the father to financially support the mother's personal choice, which was made despite his objection.
The father had raised concerns about his daughter attending an overseas university rather than a local one because of the financial commitment.
District Judge Kow Keng Siong said in a judgment made available on Wednesday (Jul 1) that the financial commitment was substantial at more than S$401,000 (US$310,000) for a six-year medicine course.
Footing half of it means the father would have to contribute about S$2,789 per month, which is about 30 per cent of his S$9,500 monthly income.
THE CASE
The parents were divorced over a decade ago, and have a daughter who is turning 22 this year.
She is a third-year medical student in Australia. Her mother has been paying for her overseas education but wants her ex-husband to shoulder some of the expenses.
The father objected, as he never agreed to bear these overseas education expenses.
As part of the divorce arrangement, orders were made for the father to pay S$650 per month for his daughter's maintenance, and 50 per cent of her educational and medical expenses.
The mother lodged an application to enforce these orders, claiming her ex-husband had defaulted on the maintenance as well as the educational and medical expenses.
She also applied to increase the father's contribution towards their daughter's general maintenance, citing the higher costs of her studies in Australia.
The father, on the other hand, sought to reduce his contributions.
The mother said her ex-husband had increased monthly payments to S$1,450 per month from around March 2018 and again to S$1,500 per month from February 2021 at their daughter's request.
Using these higher figures, the mother said the father did not always pay these amounts in full, and that he had reverted to paying only S$$650 from November 2025. She sought arrears of about S$10,000 using the higher figures.
The father said he had made the increased payments voluntarily for needs as they arose but these did not vary the court's order for S$650. He said he was not in arrears at all but had instead overpaid by more than S$81,000 using the S$650 figure.
Judge Kow found the higher figures were not enforceable.
OVERSEAS UNIVERSITY
The mother claimed that her ex-husband had defaulted on paying their daughter's educational expenses and owed nearly S$54,000.
She argued that the father had agreed to support his daughter's overseas studies. Before the daughter began her course in Australia in 2024, he did not object and said he would contribute in monthly instalments as he could not afford lump sums.
The woman argued that his consent was unnecessary as the court order obliged him to bear 50 per cent of their daughter's education expenses, and this was not confined to local universities.
However, the father argued that when the court order was made in 2012, he did not envisage that their daughter would study medicine overseas.
He accepted that after his daughter received an offer from an Australian university in September 2023, she told him she intended to study medicine there and asked if he could sponsor her or act as a second guarantor for an education loan.
He did not agree, however, expressing concern that the costs were beyond what he and her mother could afford.
He also asked if she could wait for the outcome of her applications to the National University of Singapore or Nanyang Technological University.
But the daughter and mother proceeded with arrangements to study in Australia despite his concerns, said the father.
He said the proposed funding arrangement was financially uncertain because the S$200,000 education loan offered by a bank fell short of covering the full cost of the course, accommodation and living expenses.
He said he could not have agreed to such an open-ended obligation. At the same time, there was uncertainty about whether the daughter herself wanted to study medicine. He cited a WhatsApp message where she said she had decided not to and was considering other options.
The father argued that the mother had unduly influenced the daughter to change her mind.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
Judge Kow said the mother's interpretation of the 50 per cent court order was akin to treating it as a blank cheque and an advance approval by the father to bear half of whatever tertiary expenses the daughter would incur.
He said this interpretation was untenable.
Judge Kow said the daughter was now an adult and entitled to choose her own educational path, but this is distinct from whether either parent must legally bear the financial consequences of that choice.
"The law supports educational aspiration, but only within the bounds of reasonable maintenance," he said.
He said it was not reasonable to require the father to bear 50 per cent of his daughter's educational expenses in Australia for several reasons.
First, the medicine course was not reasonably foreseeable in 2012, when the girl was only eight.
Second, the financial commitment was highly onerous for the father, who would have to contribute 30 per cent of his S$9,500 monthly income to foot half the educational expenses.
There are also other costs involved, and the mother's own evidence showed that total monthly expenses in Australia, including accommodation, were estimated at about S$11,700.
Judge Kow said lower-cost local alternatives were considered. For example, after the daughter began studying in Australia, her father told her that he could use his Central Provident Fund to pay for a local medicine course if she re-applied for one successfully.
The mother also sought over S$35,000 as arrears in medical expenses from 2013, but the judge allowed only about S$2,590 for the daughter's medical expenses from 2025 and 2026.
INCREASE OR DECREASE IN MAINTENANCE
The mother sought an increase for her daughter's maintenance from S$650 to S$3,000 a month, citing the overseas studies and how she has been bearing her daughter's costs largely alone.
The woman said she has been funding payments with her credit card, and the financial strain has affected her physical and mental health and increased her own medical expenses.
The father asked to decrease the sum from S$650 to S$400 a month and to reduce his share of educational and medical expenses from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.
He said his gross and net income was about 30 per cent of his ex-wife's, so his contributions should be pegged to this ratio.
He also said his 30 per cent share would have been about S$870 per month if his daughter had studied medicine at a local university, instead of an estimated S$2,900 per month.
Judge Kow accepted that circumstances have changed but they did not justify the increase sought by the mother.
He said he had already found that 50 per cent of the costs of the medicine course in Australia are not reasonable to impose on the father.
He added that the financial stress on the mother arose substantially because she chose to support the course in Australia and service the loan.
However, Judge Kow declined to reduce the maintenance paid by the father.
The father had submitted figures showing that he spent about S$5,186 on personal expenses, S$1,500 on child maintenance and S$3,000 on payments to his current wife.
The judge said the figures do not add up, as this results in a monthly deficit of about S$186 from his pay of S$9,500.
He also declined to adjust the contributions by the father for educational and medical expenses from 50 per cent to 30 per cent, saying no material change in the father's circumstances was shown.
In closing, Judge Kow said that while this case required the court to answer hard questions, it was also about a separated couple who must continue as parents of a daughter they both love.
He told the mother that her devotion to her daughter and the financial weight she carried for her are plain on the record, and that what she has done for her is not diminished by the court's judgment.
"The way to your daughter's continuing welfare, the court would gently suggest, is through conversation with her father to plan for the years still to come," he said.
To the father, he said that while the court has not ordered him to pay for the course in Australia, his obligations and his daughter's continuing needs do not vanish.
"What you do for her moving forward, beyond what the law requires of you, is yours to decide. Your actions will be remembered, either way," he said.
He urged both parents to work together to solve their daughter's immediate financial issues.
Continue reading...