Family Law in Singapore: Womens Rights

The custody of the child

The custody of the child is in some cases a standout amongst the most petulant issues in a divorce.  In women’s charter, a child is a person under 21 years. The Guardianship of Infant Act is the principle statute representing child care in Singapore it is supplemented by the Women's Charter alongside the Administration of Muslim Law Act. The law of authority applies to each individual in Singapore, paying little mind to whether one is Muslim or non-Muslim (Amirthalingam, 2005).

In choosing the sort of authority request in Singapore, the standard of welfare rule is applied by the judges, where the ideal course of action is determined by the child best interest.

The Social Welfare Report is the commonly used report. This reports are always requested by the court for disagreements regarding the parent who should be given the custody of the child, and they are arranged by officers from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. The child is talk to and examined by the officers and they determine the parent whom the child is more conversant with (Lauer, 2004).

Other factors which are considered before the custody is made are:

1. The essential parental figure of the youngster amid his/her developmental years
2. The present living plans
3. The youngster's desires
4. The guardian's desires
5. The age of the youngster
6. The guardians' money related capacity
7. Presence of family backing

In any case, it ought to be noticed that the Court would not organize the guardians' desires and likings over the welfare of the child. Likewise, the guardian with a higher budgetary capacity does not as a matter of course give him/her an edge in custodial game plans (Thean & D.S, 2001).

In Singapore, mothers are honored for the care and control of the child. It is frequently a tough assignment for fathers to battle for full care and control of the child. Unless the request made by the father is accepted by the mother, or the tyke is at an age where he/she can express obviously to the Court his/her yearning to stay with the father, it is rare for the court to offer the father the control of the baby unless it is uncommon cases where the mother is abusive or neglects her responsibility to the child.

Access is conceded to the guardian who is not given care and control of the kid, ordinarily the fathers. The beginning stage of access requests is the assumption that the tyke ought to have admittance to the non-custodial guardian thusly get to is helpful for the kid. Consequently the dispute regularly lies in the quantum of access to be given. This is particularly since the Women's Charter does not stipulate the measure of access time a guardian ought to be given with his/her youngster (Weitzman, 1985).

Looking at the current conditions and also condition on the women charter, Cindy will have the custody of the child and Henry will have the access of the child. This is due to the speculations stated in the law where mothers interest comes first unless the child is able to express herself and the child is only 7 years. Cindy has also been providing for the child since Henry left hence she can manage to provide for her child (Weitzman, 1985).

Women’s charter under section 69, one can apply for maintenance:

• For your child from the other guardian, in the event that he or she dismisses or declines to furnish your child with sensible upkeep;
• For yourself from your husband if your husband has refused to provide reasonable assistance
• When you are under full time study you can ask for maintenance from your husband

The Court can likewise make support orders for a spouse and kids in pending separation procedures, or as a feature of conclusive requests in the auxiliary matters in separation procedures under the Women's Charter.

Under the Women's Charter, the obligation of keeping up the youngsters lies with both guardians. This doesn't change if the guardians divorce, or if the youngsters now live with only one guardian. The Court typically arranges the guardian without consideration and control to pay the kids' upkeep to the guardian with consideration and control (Lauer, 2004).

The Court is compelled by a sense of honor to consider every one of the circumstances of the case.

Segments 69 and 114 determine some specific issues that the Court will consider. These include:

• The money related necessities of the spouse or youngster;
• The pay, procuring limit (assuming any), property and other money related assets of the spouse or tyke;
• Any physical or mental inability of the spouse or youngster; and
• The age of every gathering to the marriage and the term of the marriage.

You, and additionally the respondent to your application, will be requested that deliver the pertinent reports in Court to empower the Judge to settle on a choice on the fitting measure of support to be requested.

Reasons for making a will

It is vital for you to make a will in light of the fact that if you don’t, and you die what happens to your property will be decided by the law of intestacy. A will can guarantee that legitimate courses of action are made for your dependents and that your property is disseminated in the way you wish after you die , subject to specific privileges of companions/common accomplices and children (Thean & D.S, 2001).

Intestate is a person who dies without a will, this means that the law of administrator ensures your estate, or everything that you own, is distributed. This can only be done when the administrators are granted permission by the Grant of the Representation.

Testator is a male who has made his will and for a female it is a testatrix. Testate is a person who dies having signed a valid will. For this person, all possessions will be distributed as stated in the will. The executor or the executors mentioned in the will are responsible for the distribution of this properties.

Joint Property

Joint property is property that is owned by two or more people, such as land and bank accounts. The right of survivorship is included in the joint property meaning that when one joint owner dies, the ownership of the property passes to the surviving joint owner or owners. Joint property with the right of survivorship does not form the part of deceased person property and cannot be disposed of under a Will.

A will can be signed by any individual who is 18 years of age and above and is not mentally challenged. When making a will, one must be conversant with the figurers and the amount of the asset that will be given to the beneficiary named on the will. You must also be of sound minded for the will to be considered (Fox & Kelly, 1995).

When a free form is filled from any force or undue influence practiced by an individual, then a court can confirm a will. A will is always prepared by the lawyer and the lawyer ensures that

• The intentions are stated clearly in the will
• He advices on terms and content of the will
• The requirements needed for valid will are met

There are some properties which are not included in the will. This are registered retirement saving plans and also insurance policy. The executor is not responsible for dealing with this type of property and also the estate fees attached on it.

The will made by Madeline was not valid. This is because she did not consider some essential terms in making her will she did not also consider the legal right of the spouse when making her will. Generally there is freedom of disposing your asset at will but the law in Singapore protects the right of the spouse hence the will made by Madeline is not valid (Thean & D.S, 2001).

If one pass away without the CPF nomination, the CPF is transferred to the Public Trustee for distribution and when one is single, the CPF is distributed among parents and when married the spouse receive the half and children share the remaining. The CPF monies goes to the government in the case where there is no relative around. CPF can be distributed separately when a nomination is made and it states the amount to be received. In this case Madeline parents remain the beneficiary of her CPF monies. Previously the nomination had been revoked by marriage but her re-nomination in 2010 make them valid for the CPF monies (Sherraden, at al, 1995).

According to the will written by Madeline, her sister Trina is entitled to possess the flats. This is due to valid writings she jotted before any challenge is made. In her will Trina was given the flats, parents given the CPF and the husband given the paint. The flat was bought before marriage and she had no child.

When Madeline had written a valid will according to the rule and guidance of Singapore, Joshua is the legit beneficiary of the flats by one half. According to the laws, if a person leaves a will and the spouse has never given up the right of the estate then the spouse is entitled to legal right share. This legal right share entitles the spouse one-half of the total estate when there is no child and one-third of estate when there is children. Any executor is obliged to provide this share without the spouse going to the court the spouse also have the advantage to take what is stated in the will or the legal right share. Therefore, Joshua will have six months to decide whether to take the paints stated on the will or to go for legal right share (Sherraden, at al, 1995).

Reference list

Leong, W. K. (1997). Principles of family law in Singapore. Butterworth- Leong,

Kum, L. W. (2011). Singapore Women's Charter: 50 Questions. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Leong, W. K. (2008). Fifty years and more of the Women's Charter of Singapore. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1-24.

Amirthalingam, K. (2005). Women's rights, international norms, and domestic violence: Asian perspectives. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(2), 683-708.

Lauer, R. H., & Lauer, J. C. (2004). Marriage and family: The quest for intimacy. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Ong, D. S. (1999). The Singapore family court: family law in practice. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 13(3), 328-349.

Thean, V., & Ong, D. S. L. (2001). 13. Family Law. Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases, (Annual Review 2001), 226.

Weitzman, L. J. (1985). Divorce revolution. Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

Neugebauer, R. (1989). Divorce, custody, and visitation: The child's point of view. Journal of Divorce, 12(2-3), 153-168.

Fox, G. L., & Kelly, R. F. (1995). Determinants of child custody arrangements at divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 693-708.

Koh, B. S., Mitchell, O. S., Tanuwidjaja, T., & Fong, J. (2008). Investment patterns in Singapore's central provident fund system. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 7(01), 37-65.

Sherraden, M., Nair, S., Vasoo, S., Liang, N. T., & Sherraden, M. S. (1995). Social policy based on assets: The impact of Singapore's Central Provident Fund. Asian Journal of Political Science, 3(2), 112-133.