Many households have access to these entertainment services, and some parents have included their subscription costs as essential outlays for their children.
The courts have been wrestling with the issue in recent years.
In 2024, the High Court excluded the $30 monthly costs for Netflix and Apple Music as “luxuries”, presumably because the mother had submitted a monthly claim of over $14,000 for her two children.
But in early 2025, Judge Mohamed Faizal took another look at such expenses and said that whether Netflix or similar streaming services may be claimed as child maintenance would depend on the facts of each case.
Noting that such services are increasingly found in many households, much like broadband and other entertainment options, he said that online streaming costs may well be considered as “conventional expenses”.
As the claim before him was for only $26 a month, he said many people may well view such services as a substitute to the often pricier costs for cable television. Judge Faizal approved the request, saying there was no reason in principle why streaming costs should not be allowed in maintenance claims.
Parents’ monthly income
The law has a soft spot for children as they are the casualties when their parents fight. So well-off parents are often ordered to pay higher amounts of maintenance so their children do not have to cancel all their enrichment and leisure activities or move to a much smaller home overnight.
But the idea is not aimed at making parents pay for non-essential expenses and so more generous awards are usually reserved for those who can well afford to provide more.
In one case, a father earning $20,000 a month was asked to pay $3,000 for his child, or 15 per cent of his income. The same yardstick was also adopted for a man who earned about $96,000 a month as an executive director of his company. He was ordered to pay about 15 per cent of his salary, or $14,700, for two children.
That said, the court has found that a child’s “reasonable needs” are not determined solely by the financial capabilities of its parents.
For instance, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck noted that the full costs of an education at an overseas university would not be a reasonable expense that parents should be mandated to pay just because they could afford it.
Rather, a much more reasonable expense would be the costs for tertiary education at a local university.
Furthermore, he added that there was no reason why children who wished to pursue an overseas education could not take on some responsibility for their decision, such as by obtaining scholarships, grants, student loans or contributing to their own expenses by working part-time.
“Children should not simply expect their parents to provide for every desire,” said Justice Choo.
More On This Topic
When a family goes to court over a trust fund for kids
When a S’pore couple’s two-home dream turns into nightmare
Judge Faizal noted that parents understandably would want the best for their children, such as “providing them with the finest education, the most enriching experiences, or a future full of opportunity”.
But it is equally important to temper that with financial realities and with a realistic budget, particularly in a situation where the marital breakdown has broken one home into two, and resources must now be stretched across two households.
He said: “In some ways, this is nothing more than a reflection of the lessons that we impart to our own children: Teaching our children the value of hard work, resilience and managing expectations is just as important as any material gift any of us as parents can provide.
“Teaching them the ability to navigate life’s challenges and financial constraint with grace is often itself a valuable life lesson.”
Check out Invest editor Tan Ooi Boon’s new book – Retire With More Money – at stbooks.sg
More On This Topic
Ex-husband hid assets by ‘giving’ sports car to elderly mum
Invest microsite: Get more investment and career tips
No comments:
Post a Comment