In a divorce, one parent, usually the father, is required by law to support the wife, who usually takes care of the children, financially through alimony, except in certain circumstances where the roles are reversed.
A Singapore man has asked a court to demand that his ex-wife pay the same alimony as before despite the ex-wife’s low income as their children are currently in his care.
The couple divorced in 2018 and have two children, ages 10 and 13, who lived with their mother until 2021, when they moved in with their father for reasons not explained in court documents.
CNA reported that the father had to pay S$2,640 (RM9,119.06) when the children lived with their mother, and he is now asking the court to overturn the order, even though his ex-wife paid S$3,000 (RM10,362.06). ) per month as a financial advisor, also working on a commission basis, after losing her job in September 2021.
The mother told the court that she could only afford to pay S$790 (RM2,728.82) a month, which was estimated to be a quarter of her monthly salary, accounting for about 10 to 15 percent of the children’s expenses.
Meanwhile, the court found that the father earned a higher amount of S$20,000 (RM69,086.28).
She added that she was fired from her previous job following complaints by her ex-husband to her previous employers and the regulator for misconduct.
District Judge Adriene Cheong ordered the mother to pay S$1,000 (RM3,454.31) a month after examining the parents’ “earning ability,” noting that the mother needed some time to adjust to a “new… industry”.
“This is especially the case when the father is fortunate enough to be able to step in and take care of the children. “Affordability is not an issue for the father”,
“Had the marriage remained intact, spouses would normally be expected to do the same; “We support each other in times of financial (or other) hardship,” Judge Cheong said.
The judge also denied the father’s motion to backdate the change to November 2021, telling the court that it would be “an overly technical math exercise, irrelevant to parents who care about their children.”
Judge Cheong also pointed out in court the approach taken by both parents when raising their children together, who want to consider every penny they spend on their children.
“It’s certainly not a holistic approach to treat the children as an accounting expense that should be reimbursed.
“Taking this concept to the extreme would be like a parent demanding reimbursement from the custodial parent or deducting amounts from monthly child support obligations for toys or an ice cream they bought for their children while in custody,” he said Judge.
Judge Cheong went on to say that this was “certainly not healthy” for their co-parenting relationship and not what the law expects.
She then advised both parents to “exercise grace and patience” in the future upbringing of their children as co-parents.
“I hope that after a long period of litigation, the family can finally embark on the path to recovery and healing, especially with the support of counseling,” she said.
Comments are closed.