A Practitioners’ Guide to Filing and Resisting International Child Relocation Applications in Singapore

In our most recent editions of this chapter, we charted the evolution of the law on international child relocation in Singapore – from the primacy of the custodial parent’s wishes in the Re C era, through the recalibration in BNS v BNT [2015] 3 SLR 973 (BNS), and into the holistic, child-centric, multifactorial framework that now governs relocation applications following TSF v TSE [2018] 2 SLR 833 (TSF) and WRU v WRT [2024] SGHCF 23 (WRU). We observed that the assessment continues to be very much a child-centric enquiry, prioritising the welfare of the child, as determined through a multifactorial enquiry, and that this is in line with, and shaped by, Therapeutic Justice.

In this instalment, we move from principle to practice. Drawing on the trends and developments from decided cases and the Family Justice Courts Therapeutic Justice Model(the “TJ Model”), we present a practitioners’ guide that distils key practical takeaways, good practices, and “dos and don’ts” for lawyers filing or resisting relocation applications.

The Governing Framework

The overriding consideration in every relocation application is the child’s welfare and best interests. The assessment is an objective one that eschews any pre-fixed precedence or hierarchy among factors, categorical pigeonholes that predetermine outcomes, and any presumption for or against relocation. These are simply factors to be weighed alongside all other relevant considerations (BNS at [20] – [22]; XUL v XUM [2025] SGFC 123 (XUL) at [8]).

In this regard, the court’s analytical framework broadly considers (XUL at [9] – [13]): 

• the reasons for relocation and whether they are genuine, rational and coherent;
• the impact of relocation on the child, including integration in Singapore, attachments, and the availability of concrete plans to minimise disruption; and
• the child’s views, where appropriate.

It may also be observed that the courts have considered more specific relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: 

• the wishes of the parents;
• loss of relationship with the left-behind parent;
• the age of the child;
• connecting factors;
• immigration status;
• family support;
• the parenting plan;
• post-relocation access; and
• the child’s developmental needs.

Please refer to the 2024 edition the Child Relocation Trends & Developments chapter of this guide for a detailed explanation. 

Practical Considerations – Filing a Relocation Application

Prepare a detailed and concrete relocation plan

The importance of a well-considered relocation plan cannot be overstated. As Debbie Ong JC (as she then was) noted in TAA v TAB [2015] 2 SLR 879 (TAA) (at [20]) “The law will not permit hastily made unilateral plans that fail to consider the welfare of the children. But well made plans that promote both the common interests of the parent and the children can be supported”.

In WRU, the court noted favourably that the mother had prepared a detailed and measured relocation plan incorporating concrete steps to ensure the children’s stability. She was able to demonstrate secured living arrangements, research into schooling, and the financial security of the reconstituted family (at [21]). Conversely, in XII v XIJ [2025] 5 SLR 470 (XII (HC)) (at [37] – [39]), the court found the mother’s plan “largely speculative” and “unsupported by concrete arrangements” where she had not secured employment and her proposals for accommodation and education were based on supposition. Please refer to the 2025 edition of the Child Relocation Trends & Developments Chapter of this guide for a detailed explanation on XII (HC).

Practitioners should therefore ensure that their client’s affidavit exhibits concrete evidence of: 

• secured or near-secured accommodation arrangements;
• confirmed school enrolment or evidence of active enrolment applications;
• established employment arrangements and a sustainable financial plan;
• accessible healthcare services and developmental support, particularly where the child has special needs; and
• the necessary immigration, visa, or residency permissions.

Devise a generous post-relocation access plan

Given the court’s concern over loss of the parent-child relationship, a relocating parent must demonstrate a clear plan to facilitate the non-relocating parent’s continued relationship with the child.

In XII (HC), the court noted that the father “had offered to facilitate [the mother’s] travels to Singapore” and “was open to the Court making orders similar to those made by the Court of Appeal in TSF”, and, critically, that this was not “all just talk” as he had taken actual steps such as agreeing to a professional parenting coordinator (at [52]). In YCB v YCC [2026] SGFC 57, the court allowed relocation “with a strong post-relocation access plan” comprising daily video calls, overnight access when the father visits, and alternating school holiday access (at [5] – [6]).

The access plan should thereforeideally include:

• regular and specific remote access arrangements (eg, daily video calls at a time reasonable for the child);
• physical access during school holidays with a clear allocation between parties;
• travel arrangements and who bears costs; and
• practical mechanisms to facilitate coordination (eg, parenting co-ordination apps or a professional parenting coordinator).

Demonstrate willingness and capacity to co-parent

The court is highly attuned to each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other. In XII v XIJ [2025] SGFC 40 (XII (FC)), the court noted that the mother “was unable to recognise the [f]ather’s contributions to the children’s upbringing and could only see all sorts of reasons to find fault with his parenting”, and that her “lack of insight on the importance of co-parenting and belief that she had superior right” made the court “doubt whether she would be able to support the father–sons bond” (at [89]). This was pivotal in refusing her relocation application. By contrast, the father was found to have consistently demonstrated a willingness to support the children in having a close relationship with the mother (at [90]).

As such, practitioners advising relocating parents should ensure that their client’s affidavit positively affirms the importance of the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent, avoids diminishing or fault-finding of the other parent’s contributions, and includes concrete proposals to maintain and encourage contact.

Practical Considerations – Resisting a Relocation Application

Demonstrate the close and meaningful relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child

The responding parent should adduce detailed evidence of their involvement in the child’s daily life.

In BNS, the Court of Appeal noted that the father had “taken steps to play an active, involved role in their lives” and shared a “strong, vibrant relationship” with the children (at [31] – [32]). Notably, in the lower court’s decision of BNT v BNS [2014] 4 SLR 859, the High Court recognised the father’s actions in moving to a condominium adjacent to the mother to facilitate easy access arrangements, sharing his car with the mother, and his detailed evidence of breakfasts, homework, reading, arts and crafts, and bedtime routines with the children (at [25] – [26]).

In that regard, documents from independent third parties, such as schools, teachers, and professional evaluators, may also materially strengthen a party’s case. In XII (HC), the court observed that the father’s claim of being an engaged and involved parent was supported by multiple independent sources, including:

• the findings in the Custody Evaluation Report;
• feedback from the children’s school annexed to that report; and
• student observation reports showing that both parents attended school meetings and maintained regular communication with the teachers (at [31] – [32]).

Demonstrate that the non-relocating parent is more likely to facilitate meaningful access

The courts pay close attention to which parent is more likely to facilitate a reasonable access plan. In XII (HC), the court held that the father was “more likely to facilitate a strong access plan to help mitigate the risk of loss of the relationship” and found that “the probability of the children being able to see more of both parents was greater if they were based in Singapore” (at [53]).

In TAA, the court noted that there was “no evidence of any discussion between the parents on the proposed move to Spain, nor on any arrangements on how access could continue” (at [23]). The court therefore found that the father had not demonstrated efforts to be supportive of access and this weighed heavily against his relocation application.

Challenge the adequacy of the relocation plan

The party seeking to resist a relocation application should scrutinise the applying parent’s relocation plan for gaps and speculation. Where the plan lacks specific arrangements relating to employment, accommodation, schooling, or financial sustainability, such deficiencies should be highlighted.

In XUL, the court declined to accept a new arrangement proposed by the mother, finding that the proposal lacked details including how she would obtain permission to work in the UK, support herself and the child, and how long the arrangement could be sustained (at [31]).

Practical Considerations – Preparation of Affidavits and Conduct of Proceedings

Focus on the child, not on “attacking” the other parent

In UXH v UXI [2019] SGFC 64 (UXH), the court observed that there would be less room for misgivings if parties had focused on the kinder aspects of each other and that “roles of both parents are complementary and it would serve no purpose to pit one parent against the other” (at [68] and [70]). Pertinently, the court commended the mother in that case for having “instructed her solicitors to avoid rehashing certain unpleasant past incidents of the parties and of the marriage” (at [58]). It would therefore be apposite for practitioners and parents alike to adopt a similarly disciplined approach.

On a similar note, the TJ Model requires that parties and practitioners “avoid provocative or inflammatory conduct and language in correspondence, court documents and courtroom communications”. Moreover, affidavits should be concise, relevant, and focused on the child’s welfare. Filing voluminous affidavits containing irrelevant information, unnecessary photographs, or video recordings, which may also be detrimental to the parent-child relationship, has been repeatedly criticised by the courts (see CLB v CLC [2022] SGHCF 3 at [41]).

Corroborate assertions with independent evidence

As alluded to above, bare assertions carry little weight. Where possible, practitioners should advise their clients to substantiate their assertions with evidence from independent sources such as:

• school reports and teacher feedback;
• Custody Evaluation Reports or specific issues reports;
• medical or developmental records; and/or
• evidence of concrete steps taken (eg, school applications, housing arrangements, coordination tools).

Thoroughly consider the practical implications and avoid proposing new arrangements at the eleventh hour

All proposals and plans should be thoroughly considered and comprehensively set out in the affidavits from the outset. In XUL, the court disapproved of the mother’s counsel raising a new arrangement for the first time at the hearing. The court noted that the mother “had ample opportunity to run this suggestion as her primary case”, and that it was “not appropriate to decide in favour of relocation based on this late oral suggestion” as it would prejudice father and prolong uncertainty for the child (at [31]).

In UXH, the court criticised the mother for not having given sufficient thought to the consequences of the relocation on the son’s NS obligations (at [83]). The mother had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about National Service requirements, later making what appeared to be “incidental” and “hasty” decisions about renouncing Singapore Permanent Residence status for herself and the children, which did not inspire confidence (at [83] and [86]).

Practitioners should therefore advise their clients to thoroughly evaluate the practical implications of their proposed arrangements, including, but not limited to, immigration status, citizenship obligations, health care, and educational continuity, and to clearly demonstrate in their affidavits that these issues have been carefully and responsibly considered.

The therapeutic justice imperative

The TJ Model, now formally integrated into Singapore’s family justice system, requires all parties to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with its objectives. Under the TJ Model, lawyers are expected to explain its principles to their clients, encourage a focus on long-term and holistic interests rather than short-term legal gains, facilitate constructive problem-solving, adopt a cooperative and non-adversarial approach, and present clear, concise submissions.

Significantly, the TJ Model provides that, where a practitioner has conducted himself or herself in accordance with its aims, the judge may commend the lawyer at the conclusion of the proceedings and/or in the written grounds of decision. In this regard, examples of commendable conduct include:

• taking active steps to de-escalate acrimony;
• working with the court and the other party to develop practical solutions; and
• advancing sensible proposals and submissions.

Conversely, an unduly adversarial approach may attract adverse costs consequences, and the TJ Model expressly provides that, in exercising its discretion on costs, the court will consider whether a party “has conducted himself/herself in line with the aims of TJ”.

Conclusion

The modern law on child relocation in Singapore is ultimately concerned with one fundamental question: what outcome, viewed holistically, best serves the welfare of the particular child? Practitioners who internalise this child-centric approach will appreciate that relocation cases are not adversarial contests in which one parent prevails over the other. Rather, they are exercises in demonstrating, both to the court and to the other parent, that the proposed arrangement is in the child’s best interests.

In such proceedings, the most effective advocates are therefore those who approach the case not as a contest to be won, but as a process directed towards achieving the outcome that best serves the child’s interests. This requires them to present their clients’ cases in a spirit of cooperation, focus relentlessly on the child’s welfare, and demonstrate through both their conduct and submissions a commitment to the child’s long-term interests.

As astutely put by Debbie Ong J (as she then was) in VDX v VDY [2021] SGHCF 2 (at [40]):

“Family law practitioners must be aware of the ways, both overt and subtle, in which they can influence the parenting dispute – these include the language used in correspondence and the mindset they bring to the proceedings. If both parties’ counsel can work as a team in problem-solving their clients’ parenting matters, they would have played a critical role in the delivery of therapeutic justice in our family justice system”.