SINGAPORE — After more than four years of cross-border legal battles, the Apex court on Thursday (Aug 16) granted a Singaporean father full care and control of his six-year-old autistic son, overturning a previous court ruling that the boy be returned to his mother residing in the United Kingdom (UK).  

The mother, a 35-year-old Mongolian who made the news in 2014 after she was jailed for entering Singapore illegally by boat to snatch her son, will still have access to the boy.

She will be allowed daily Skype calls for at least 30 minutes, and the Apex court also ordered that the 41-year-old father sponsor at least two of the mother’s trips here per year, which should not exceed four weeks. The mother will have to pay for the costs of any subsequent trips.

In the grounds of judgement released on Friday, the Apex court determined that, among others, the father was more capable of providing for the boy’s developmental and material needs. Both parents — who cannot be named to protect the child’s identity — have joint custody of the boy, who is identified as ‘M’ in court documents.

It was also assessed that a change of environment — if the boy was to be uprooted from Singapore where he has been living since 2013 — would be disruptive as he has autism and is making progress in his condition. This is due to an early intervention programme he is enrolled in, as well as support from his preschool and caregivers.

Delivering the ruling, Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash acknowledged that the Apex court is conscious that the judgement will be “deeply disappointing” to the mother given that she has spent years trying to form a normal relationship with her son. But the decision was made in the child’s best interests after taking into account fresh evidence submitted by the father, which the Apex court found relevant to the appeal.

“When M is older, he may be able to travel to the UK or elsewhere to visit the mother so as to further enhance his bond with her,” said Judge of Appeal Prakash, who ruled together with Judges of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong.

The father said in a statement issued through his lawyer Adrian Tan of August Law Corporation that he is “very relieved” that his son can remain in Singapore, where he has lived for the last five years.

He said: “The Court’s decision has allowed me to rebuild my life in Singapore with my son. For the first time in 4.5 years, I can love and care for my son wholeheartedly, without having worry about having to return him to the UK.

“My parents and I will continue to care for my son to secure the best for his future here in Singapore, where his home is.”

The new evidence submitted by the father involved three reports dated this year — a report on Jan 22 by a KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital consultant paediatrician, a Jan 26 report by the Autism Association (Singapore), and a third on February 28 by the boy’s preschool vice-principal.

The reports touched on the significant improvement in the boy’s speech, organisation of thought and motor skills as a result of therapy, as well as how his progress could stagnate if the early intervention programme he was undergoing was disrupted. One report also highlighted the father’s involvement in the programme.

While the mother’s lawyer argued that these reports did not present anything new, the Apex court disagreed. Although there is no “radically new information”, each report offered the court the “most up-to-date information” about the boy’s condition and the progress achieved.

These included observations on the boy’s adjustment to his present routine — a material issue in the appeal — and explained how a change of environment would affect him. That was why the court accepted the reports as evidence.

OVERTURNING HIGH COURT’S RULING

Based on the new evidence, the Apex court overruled the High Court’s judgement in August last year that it was in the child’s best interests for him to be under his mother’s care and control as they have a stronger emotional bond, and she is capable of meeting her son’s developmental and material needs.

But the Apex court had a different assessment. It noted that the boy also has a strong emotional attachment to his father based on observations by the court counsellor, who said that the father was attuned to the child’s needs, and was “patient and encouraging”.

The father also appeared to be “more equipped” to meet his son’s developmental needs, having placed the child in the early intervention programme, where he seems to be thriving based on the reports.

Though the mother made efforts to cater to her son’s needs by finding a London kindergarten equipped to educate children with special needs, and showed evidence of her attempts to learn about autism, the Apex court said it was not able to assess whether such preparation was sufficient.

“We accept that this is not the mother’s fault, given that she is in England and has been effectively deprived of her role in M’s life,” said Judge of Appeal Prakash.

“The fact nevertheless remains that we are not fully able to assess the adequacy of the facilities and network available for M’s development in England.”

The Apex court also found that there is “little doubt” the father can provide for the child’s materials needs since he has recently found full-time employment as an administrator in a local tertiary institution. On the contrary, the mother’s employment status is “still uncertain”, said Judge of Appeal Prakash.

“With the support of the grandparents, there is little doubt that the father can continue to provide M with a stable and comfortable home environment,” she added.

FOUR-YEAR LEGAL BATTLE

Born in London in mid-2012, the boy was brought to Singapore in July 2013 to be cared for by his paternal grandparents, who are retirees. Shortly after, the couple returned to London.

The legal battle began in January 2014, when they travelled to Singapore and the father shocked his wife by serving her with divorce papers just days after their arrival. She was under the impression that they were here to pick up the boy.

The mother filed an application with a British court, which ordered the father to return the son. When he failed to do so, the British court jailed the father for 18 months. However, he was released after nine weeks as he won an appeal against the sentence. He also successfully claimed damages for unlawful detention

In August, the mother entered Singapore illegally by boat to take her son away, but she was caught and jailed for 10 weeks. She was deported to London, and later won custody of the child in the British court.

In May 2016, the District Court here ordered for the boy to be returned to his mother, but she was unable to bring him back to London as the grandparents appealed to the High Court.

Over a year later in August 2017, the High Court awarded the parents joint custody, but gave the mother full care and control, while the father was granted access to the boy.