NSF takes father to court to pay S$1,000 per month in advance for his university tuition

SINGAPORE: A national serviceman took his father to court in an attempt to get him to pay S$1,000 (US$747) a month while still in NS to finance his future university costs.

The family court denied his request, noting that the father seemed “visibly and genuinely distressed” that his son had turned to the law for this, and that the young man had not called him for a long time.

Now 22, NSF had filed the case because he feared his father would run out of money when the time came for him to start his studies at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT).

His parents are divorced and the NSF has argued that his father had the available money for the payments based on photos posted online by his father’s second wife, showing her with a branded watch and bag and stacks of cash was counted.

THE CASE

At the time of the hearing, the young man was employed by the NS and planned to register for a course at SIT in February or March 2025, according to a judgment dated October 30, 2024.

The outcome of the application would not be known until June or July next year, and if successful he would start the course around August 2026.

The son started the business to force his father to pay him S$1,000 a month while he was still working at his NS.

He planned to use the payments to fund the SIT course, estimated at more than S$30,000.

His father said at the hearing that he was surprised and “confused” by the lawsuit, as his son had not informed him of his plans to apply for the course.

However, the father made it clear that he was fully willing to pay the course fee, but was in financial difficulties at the time.

Only from 2026, when the course was expected to start, could he start making payments. He said he was willing to use money from his Central Provident Fund to pay the course fees. He said he had about S$240,000 in his regular CPF account, which would be more than enough.

Although he was willing to pay the fees, the father felt that his ex-wife and the son’s mother should also pay contributions.

The son brought the case under Article 69(2) of the Women’s Charter, which states that: The court may, on sufficient evidence that a parent has neglected or refused reasonable maintenance for his or her child who is incapable is to take care of himself or herself, condemning that parent to pay monthly amounts or a lump sum for the support of that child.

District Judge Kow Keng Siong noted that such an order should not be made for a child who has attained the age of 21 unless the court is satisfied that the provision of such maintenance is necessary.

Judge Kow said the son must prove two things before his application is successful. First, the payments he requests must qualify as “reasonable alimony,” and the father must have “failed or refused” to provide the requested alimony.

Because NSF has reached the age of 21, the court can only order the payments if he were to “be educated at an educational institution.”

Judge Kow noted that the Women’s Charter “does not specifically require a parent to finance his or her child’s tertiary education.”

Secondly, the maintenance obligation under Article 69(2) does not require a parent to pay all the costs of a child’s tertiary education.

Ultimately, a court retains the discretion to order a parent to pay the costs of their child’s tertiary education, and if so, how much and when the payments should begin.

THE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

Judge Kow said the son had failed to prove that the requested payments were both reasonable and necessary.

He noted that ordering the father to pay child support in advance could cause “a host of problems” as there was no certainty that the son would be admitted to the course.

The judge also emphasized that child support is “a shared parental obligation” and that both father and mother have a joint responsibility in paying the son’s tuition fees.

The mother worked as a freelance renovation contractor and the judge had to take into account the relative income, earning capacity and assets of both parents to determine what their respective contributions should be.

Based on the son’s claim that his father had the money to make the payments based on photos posted online by his father’s second wife, the judge said the son’s belief was based on speculation.

According to the father, the watch and bag shown in his second wife’s online posts were purchased several years ago: the watch was purchased by him in 2018 and the bag by his second wife in 2019.

The father said he and his second wife kept their finances separate.

Evidence not disputed by the son showed the father was in fact in “very serious financial difficulties”, the judge said.

He was in debt to five banks and had various repayment plans to pay off these debts. The father said he incurred these debts while running his construction business.

About a year before the hearing, the father had traded in his 2021 Mercedes E-Class, worth about S$400,000, for a 15-year-old Mercedes S-Class worth about S$50,000.

He had also failed to pay a total of S$2,500 in maintenance for his son and daughter, and would pay the arrears in amounts of S$3,000 and S$5,000 when he could.

The judge therefore accepted that ordering the father to pay the advances for the course fees would increase his current financial difficulties.

Judge Kow dismissed the application and made some closing remarks, primarily that the father did not express any anger towards his son for dragging him into court.

“At all important moments he spoke tenderly to the son. At the start of the hearing, the father had actually addressed the son as ‘dear’ – before quickly correcting himself and addressing the son by his English name,” the judge said. “It is clear to me from my observation of the father that he loved the son very much.”

He noted that the father was “visibly and genuinely distressed that the son had turned to the law to force him to fund the SIT course”.

“According to the father, the son had not called him for a long time, and the first time he heard of the latter’s intention to take a SIT course was when he received (notice of this case),” said judge Kow.

“The father cried as he emphasized his willingness to help the son – ‘not because the law says so’ – but as a parent.”

The judge said the son should remember his father’s love and words.

“The law is a blunt instrument and has its limits. Experience has shown that problems lead to better results through honest and direct communication,” said Judge Kow.

“Whatever the reasons for the apparent lack of communication between son and father, it is never too late to hit the reset button.”

He said the son’s pursuit of tertiary education could be a good opportunity for him to reconnect with his father.

“In my opinion, the father sincerely wants to make his son a better man than he is – including by giving the latter a tertiary education that he (the father) did not have. I urge the parties to communicate directly with each other. others,” Judge Kow said.