The judge said that it was not appropriate for one parent to use the coercive powers of the court to compel children's participation in a religious activity over the other parent's objection.
Add CNA as a trusted source to help Google better understand and surface our content in search results.cards interface. Give it a try. SINGAPORE: A man has failed in a family court bid to compel his ex-wife to ensure their two children to attend a church camp, with the court stressing that it should not pass judgment on which parent's religious preference for their children should prevail.
In a judgment published on Tuesday , District Judge Kow Keng Siong added that it was not appropriate for a parent to use the coercive powers of the court to compel his children's participation in a religious activity over the other parent's objection.
"In family disputes touching on religion, identity and conscience, judicial restraint is often the wiser choice," said Judge Kow. He said, however, that nothing in his judgment prevented the father from sharing his faith with his two children during his own access time, subject as always to their welfare, their wishes and emotional well-being. They share a son born in 2016 and a daughter born a year later.
Both children are baptised and enrolled in Christian schools, and their mother has care and control over them. The father sought a court order compelling his ex-wife to ensure that their two children attend a four-day camp, transport them to and from the camp daily and bear half the registration fees and camp costs.
The father argued that his kids would benefit from the camp for reasons including providing support for their religious development and providing"wholesome activities that benefit their creative and physical development". He claimed that his ex-wife had demonstrated"a consistent pattern of obstructing the formation of the Christian faith" in their children since May 2024 by failing to take them to various Christian activities.
The man said his ex-wife felt"entitled to decide" whether their kids should take part in such activities, and he said he had"reasonable grounds to apprehend" that she would not allow the kids to join the camp unless the court had made a specific order. The mother denied obstructing the formation of Christian faith in the children, saying she did not take them for some activities because of their school schedule.
She also argued that the attendance at the camp involves a scheduling decision that fell within her authority as the parent with care and control. A court order compelling her to personally transport the children to and from the camp each day would be"oppressive and unreasonable", she argued.
She also said that her agreement was required before the children could be enrolled in the camp, since she had joint custody rights, and the father could not unilaterally decide on the issue and compel her to take them there. The mother also said she was concerned about her son's emotional state, as he had recently expressed suicidal ideation and was under counselling.
He had told her that he felt stressed about attending the camp, leading her to feel that his attendance there would be"seriously detrimental" to his mental health. Judge Kow noted that while the father's requests were confined to attendance at the camp, he expanded the orders sought in written submissions to include compelling the mother to ensure the kids attend 12 other church events and weekly mass. He also asked for photographic proof bearing a date, timestamp and GPS location.
On the main church camp issue, he said the application raises an important question:"When, if at all, should the court exercise its coercive powers to compel one parent to facilitate a child's participation in a religious activity over the objection of the other?
" Judge Kow said two key principles come into play - the welfare of the children, which includes religious and emotional well-being, and judicial restraint in making coercive orders. "Not every parenting disagreement over child-related issues requires court orders to break the impasse. This is especially true where the issue involves religious matters," he said.
"Consideration for a child's welfare is not a licence for judicial micromanagement of the child's life. The court is not intended to function as a day-to-day surrogate parent tasked with resolving every ordinary parenting disagreement. The child's natural parents should be the ones making decisions for the child," said Judge Kow. He said the courtroom is"ill-equipped to determine which parent's religious preference for the child should prevail".
"Frequently, there is no clearly correct or wrong answers in such matters. The court must thus remain scrupulously neutral and not make mandatory orders lightly," said Judge Kow.
"The mere fact that an activity may benefit a child does not automatically warrant judicial intervention in the name of the child’s welfare. Many activities – educational, sporting, artistic, cultural or religious – may benefit a child. Courts do not, on this basis alone, routinely transform one parent’s preferred conception of good parenting into a legally enforceable obligation imposed upon the other," said the judge.
He said the proposed court orders are"unduly intrusive" and that the man appeared to be seeking court orders to enforce his ex-wife's compliance with his preferred approach to the children's religious upbringing.
"Court orders are not tools to be exploited by one parent to impose his or her conception of ideal parenting on the other parent," said Judge Kow, adding that there was no evidence that the children's absence from the camp would materially compromise their welfare. "There is also no evidence that the mother is attempting to erase the children’s Christian identity. It is undisputed that the children remain enrolled in Christian schools," he said.
He accepted that the mother's decision not to send them to the camp was based on the children's welfare.
"The exercise of restraint in this case should not be misunderstood as the court's indifference to religion or its benefits of the camp to the children. Rather, the restraint reflects recognition of a deeper principle – that absent clear evidence of harm to a child's welfare, the law should be slow to compel one parent into facilitating the other parent’s religious choices for their child," said Judge Kow.
"For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this judgment prevents the father from sharing his faith with the children during his own access time ... and subject always to the children's welfare, their wishes and their emotional well-being. "Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Please follow us on Google to support usSingapore Latest News, Singapore Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Ten‑Storey Folk Tower in Southwest China Razed After Years of DefianceLocal authorities demolished a ten‑storey, permit‑less house built over eight years by Chen Tianming, a structure likened to Hayao Miyazaki creations that had become an off‑beat tourist spot in Xingyi village. Chen plans to contest the demolition in court.
Read more »
Singapore Man Seeks Protection Order Against Wife, Claims She Abused HimA man in Singapore sought multiple court orders against his wife, claiming she had been physically and emotionally abusing him, but the family court did not fully accept his accounts and instead found that he had failed to show why a protection order should be granted.
Read more »
Ge Zhi applies for bail release again citing health issuesGe Zhi 34 submitted application to Singapore High Court for release on bail due to health problems
Read more »