Father wins right to choose son’s primary school in court tussle with ex-wife
The judge said he regarded travelling time and the time needed to prepare the boy for school as key factors.
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: A family court has granted a father the right to choose his son’s primary school, after the boy’s divorced parents failed to agree on the matter and filed applications to the court.
The former couple married in 2019 and had one child before divorcing in 2022.
The boy is due to enter primary school in 2027, according to a judgment published on Wednesday (Sep 2).
THE CASE
The boy’s parents had agreed to joint custody. From February 2024, the mother would have the boy from Wednesdays to noon on Sundays, while the father would have him from noon on Sundays to noon on Wednesdays.
Both parents wanted the boy to be enrolled in a primary school of their choice. By the time the judge heard their applications in July 2026, the first phase of admission had passed.
District Judge Goh Zhuo Neng laid out some non-exhaustive issues which are considered and raised when determining which parent should have sole authority to register a child in a primary school.
First, the reputation of the school. Judge Goh said this is a “popular but often fruitless path of debate”.
“Well-meaning parents would argue that their child would have the best start if they were placed in a school that is perceived to provide a superior curriculum and prestige,” he said.
“This fails to take into account whether the child might adapt well to the environment and also that places in these schools would be oversubscribed and difficult to get into.”
He said placing emphasis on this risks turning all applications on primary school registration into a ranking exercise, marginalising other factors which are more important.
The second factor is alumni association, which is usually raised together with the reputation of the school.
“However, the benefit here is distinct and relevant only insofar as it improves the child’s opportunity to obtain a place in the school,” said Judge Goh.
The third factor is the distance the child lives from the school, which the judge said was a “useful factor” in evaluating the issue, especially when the court is being asked to choose between a school that is very close and a school that is very far.
The impact of distance is particularly significant in the morning when the child has to wake up in the wee hours to attend primary school assembly, which usually starts at 7.30am, he said.
The distance will also have an impact on places given in priority to children who live within 1 to 2km of the school.
Another factor is which parent bears the greater share of responsibility in caregiving for the child, as this parent understands the child’s schedule and needs and strong weight would generally be given to their choice of school.
Other factors include availability of places and conduct of the parents – behaviour which negatively affects the ability of the child to be enrolled would be taken into account, said Judge Goh.
THE DECISION
In this case, Judge Goh allowed the father to decide on the primary school. If there is no available spot at the school of his choice, the child will be registered at any other school where the father can secure a place.
The judge said he regarded travelling time and the time needed to prepare the boy for school as key factors.
Both parents opted for schools which were no more than five minutes from them.
However, they lived 30 to 40 minutes away from each other, so it would mean that the boy had to travel about 30 minutes each way when he stayed with the other parent.
The mother proposed a school, unnamed in the judgment, seven to 10 minutes from the boy’s current preschool.
While this was in the interest of maintaining status quo, the judge did not think this was in the boy’s best interests.
“Preschool start timings were more flexible and later than those of primary school. (The primary school) was also 20 minutes from both parents’ homes,” said Judge Goh.
He said giving the father sole authority to choose the school would give the boy three mornings a week where he need not wake up as early to get to school.
“This was a clear advantage the father had over the mother,” said the judge. “The father would also be able to prepare (his son) for three full days of school … as opposed to the mother who only needed to prepare him for two full days of school.”
Judge Goh said the weight given to this factor is unique to this case, as most of the other factors were neutral.
The mother argued that the judge should place weight on the father’s purported conduct in the proceedings, claiming to be the first to raise the issue in April 2026.
She claimed it was the father’s unwillingness to engage productively with her that resulted in the applications being filed.
However, the judge found that while the father was unwilling to fully compromise with the mother, his conduct did not resemble the unpleasant behaviour of a father in another case she cited.
The judge granted S$1,000 in costs to the father, who was represented by Ms Carrie Gill Kaur from Harry Elias Partnership.
The mother, who was represented by Mr Shawn Teo from Rajah & Tann, has filed an appeal against the decision.
Source: CNA/ll(gr)
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
