But her application was shot down by the High Court, which found no basis as to why two children, aged 10 and 12, would need to incur expenses averaging $15,000 each every month.
High Court Judge Choo Han Teck said: “When wealthy parents wish to spoil their children with expensive toys and feed them Michelin-starred meals, they can do that of their own accord.”
Normally, when there is a dispute, the courts will determine what maintenance is reasonable and adequate for the children’s needs, not what the parents want to have or what the children would like to have.
The couple, who are in their 40s, were married for only about three years when they divorced in 2015. Their current job statuses were not disclosed – the husband used to be a managing director in an energy company while the wife worked as a lawyer.
When he was a young man, the husband had already inherited substantial assets from his father. When his mother died in 2014, he and his sister became beneficiaries of a trust that held cash and properties, which were then valued at more than $50 million.
The trust was unusual because their late mother stated that they could sell the real estate only after the 25th anniversary of her death in 2039. Until then, they were each permitted to withdraw only a sum not exceeding $10,000 per month from the estate.
Not surprisingly, to support her case to increase payments for her children, the former wife produced documents to show that their father had the means to pay what she was asking for.
But Justice Choo noted that the father’s wealth was immaterial to the application to increase the child support, which usually depends on what the children need and not what their parents have.
In assessing the needs of a child, the court is usually mindful if the supporting parent earns a low income. “But it does not follow, however, that maintenance should increase in proportion to the capacity of a parent to pay, with no limit to the increment,” Justice Choo added.
He noted that the amounts claimed – $16,800 and $15,000 a month for two primary school children – were unjustifiable.
For instance, their mother wanted to claim $3,200 just for the children’s meals. But Justice Choo found the amount to be excessive because even if a child spends $20 on food daily, the monthly amount would just be $600.
Although the older child has a sensitive mental condition due to autism, the judge did not buy the mother’s claim that the boy had to dine at expensive, quiet restaurants.
As Justice Choo found most of the other undisclosed expenses were also excessive, he ruled that the monthly child support for both children should remain at $2,000 each.
But he made an exception for the one-off expense that was incurred for the boy with special needs because the mother paid $2,200 a month to hire a “shadow support” to help her son prepare for the Primary School Leaving Examination.
More On This Topic
Is Netflix fee a ‘luxury’ when it comes to child support?
Bought too many homes: Cash-strapped dad sold his kids’ $2.4m trust properties
A child psychologist had recommended the child to be enrolled in a class with fewer students, but the mother had opted for additional help instead to avoid changing her son’s school during the PSLE year.
Justice Choo allowed this claim, as the cost was incurred for the welfare of the child in view of the national examination, but he noted that the shadow support should not be a permanent and recurring expense.
As $26,400 was incurred in hiring the shadow support for a year, the judge ordered the father to pay for his half share, or $13,200.
What this means is that the courts will always consider the welfare of children embroiled in divorces and would always ensure they are well taken care of without incurring unnecessary expenses that would overburden their parents.
More On This Topic
The peril of losing a million-dollar inheritance within a year
The pitfalls of buying properties for your kids
No comments:
Post a Comment