Divorced father granted sole authority to choose school for son; mother has filed appeal

Travelling time and time spent preparing for school was the determinative factor. Read more at straitstimes.com.

The Straits TimesSelina Lum2026-09-03 17:00查看原文 ↗

Published Sep 03, 2026, 05:00 PM

Updated Sep 03, 2026, 05:00 PM

A judge granted the father sole authority to choose their son's primary school due to his caregiving schedule and proximity to the school, aiding the child's morning routine.

The mother has appealed the decision, disagreeing with the judge's rejection of her preferred school and claims about the father's engagement.

The judge emphasised factors like travel time, caregiving share, and child’s best interests in resolving their deadlock on school choice.

SINGAPORE - A divorced couple who share custody and care of their only child took each other to court to resolve a deadlock over the choice of primary school for their son.

Both parents, who live about 30 to 40 minutes away from each other, opted for schools near their respective homes.

On July 23, a judge granted the father the sole authority to make the choice.

In written grounds for his decision issued on Sept 2, district judge Goh Zhuo Neng said travelling time and time spent preparing the child for school were the determinative factors.

The father prepares the child for school three days a week, from Monday to Wednesday, while the mother covers Thursday and Friday.

The judge said: “Allowing the father the sole authority to make the choice of primary school would give (the child) three mornings a week where he would not need to wake up as early to get to school.”

The mother filed an appeal on Aug 5 against his decision, the judge noted in his written grounds.

The father’s lawyer, Carie Gill from Harry Elias Partnership, told The Straits Times on Sept 3 that the child has been successfully placed in a primary school under Phase 2C.

The couple married in 2019. Divorce proceedings started in March 2022, and were finalised in 2024.

The couple agreed to joint custody of the child.

They were also ordered to share care and control of the child, with the child staying with the mother from Wednesday to Sunday, and the father from Sunday to Wednesday.

The order did not provide for issues relating to the child’s registration to enter primary school in 2027.

In 2026, both parents filed applications to the Family Justice Courts, seeking to have the child enrolled in a primary school of their choice.

The father filed his application on June 30, while the mother followed with hers on July 10.

By the time the judge heard their applications on July 23, the only remaining phases for admission were Phase 2C, which was from July 28 to July 30, and Phase 2C Supplementary, from Aug 17 to Aug 18.

Both sought to have the child enrolled in specific schools in Phase 2C, and argued for the sole authority to enrol the boy in a school of their choice under Phase 2C Supplementary.

Both opted for schools which were no more than five minutes from their homes. According to the judge, these schools were “not particularly short of places”.

Not a ranking exercise

In his written grounds, the judge set out the factors that are commonly raised and considered when determining which parent should have sole authority to register a child in primary school.

The judge said the reputation of the school 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,” said the judge.

But this fails to consider whether the child might adapt well and that places in these schools would be oversubscribed, he said.

He added that emphasis on school reputation also risks turning such court applications into a ranking exercise.

The judge said the distance that the child lives from the school is a useful factor in evaluating the issue.

The impact of distance is exacerbated especially when the child has to wake up in the wee hours of the morning to attend assembly which usually begins at 7.30am, he said.

The distance will also impact on the availability of places given in priority to children who live within 1km to 2km of the school.

And if a parent advocates for a specific school which has limited available places, then that option should not be preferred.

More weight would also be given to the choice of the parent who bears the greater share of caregiving responsibility.

In the current case, the judge said the weight given to travelling time and time spent preparing for school was unique as most of the other factors were neutral.

The mother, who was represented by Shawn Teo from Rajah & Tann, proposed a school that was seven to 10 minutes from the child’s current pre-school to maintain the status quo.

The judge did not think this was in the child’s best interests, as pre-school start timings were more flexible and later than those of primary school.

The judge also rejected the mother’s argument she was the first to raise the issue of primary school registration in April 2026, and that it was the father’s unwillingness to engage productively with her that resulted in the applications being filed.

He said the father’s conduct was at best a neutral issue, given that it would have been difficult for the parents to find a compromise.

“It is precisely these sorts of impasses which unfortunately need to be resolved by litigation,” said the judge, noting that it was the father who filed his application first to resolve the issue.

Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times.

Divorces, separations, annulments

发布于2026年9月3日下午5:00

更新于2026年9月3日下午5:00

法官授予父亲全权选择儿子的小学，因为他需要照顾孩子，而且学校离家近，这有助于孩子早上的作息。

母亲已对该判决提出上诉，她不同意法官驳回她选择的学校以及关于父亲订婚的说法。

法官强调了诸如出行时间、照护分担以及儿童的最大利益等因素，以解决他们在择校问题上的僵局。

新加坡——一对离婚夫妇共同抚养他们唯一的孩子，却因儿子的小学选择问题陷入僵局，最终对簿公堂。

这对父母居住地相距约 30 至 40 分钟车程，他们都选择了离家较近的学校。

7月23日，法官授予父亲全权做出选择。

地方法官吴卓能于 9 月 2 日发布的书面判决理由中表示，路程时间和为孩子上学做准备所花费的时间是决定性因素。

父亲每周一至周三负责孩子上学前的准备工作，而母亲则负责周四和周五。