-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
NSF charged $200 monthly for using public toilet.
- Thread starter Cottonmouth
- Start date
Singapore
Singapore
File photo of the Family Justice Courts. (Photo: CNA/Lydia Lam)
Listen to this article
7 min
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Lydia Lam
29 Jan 2024 12:42PM
BookmarkShare
SINGAPORE: A young man who knocked up his lover accidentally was ordered to pay child maintenance by a family court, despite the man claiming that he should not have to pay maintenance at all.
The new father said he believed he had practised safe sex by using contraception and never thought of having a child.
There were also disputes about the paternity of the child, but a test confirmed that he was the father of the boy.
In a judgment dated Jan 19 but made available over the weekend, District Judge Kevin Ho ordered the man to pay the mother of his child S$200 (US$150) a month in child maintenance.
This would mean the pair splits roughly equally the cost of raising the child, which is estimated at S$405 a month including milk powder, diapers, wet wipes and medical expenses.
The mother and father are not married. Their ages were not revealed in court documents, but the judgment stated that they were minors when their child was born in March 2023, and they are now adults.
The father is currently serving National Service (NS).
The court heard that the couple met when the man was doing ad hoc delivery work after graduating from polytechnic and while waiting for NS.
According to the man, he met the woman in May 2022. They were sexually intimate by the end of that month and continued what the judge described as an "amorous relationship" for a few months.
In July 2022, the woman told the man that she was pregnant with his child. It was the man's first child, and the woman's second – she has a three-year-old son from a previous relationship.
The judge noted that the man's "worries and confusion must have been quite significant" and that he is still "somewhat puzzled by this turn of events".
"In his affidavit filed in these proceedings, he refers to the birth control measures he had taken during the fleeting period of the parties' intimate relationship," noted Judge Ho. "This then led to rather unfortunate allegations raised about the child's paternity after the child's birth."
A paternity test found that the man was the father of the child, with a likelihood of 99.998 per cent.
"Put simply, the respondent is the child's biological father and it is apparent that the protective or birth control measures did not work," said Judge Ho.
After the discovery of the pregnancy, the two young parents fell out following discussions on whether to keep the child.
According to the duty of parents to maintain children under the Women's Charter, a parent has a duty to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of their children. This is even if the child is illegitimate or not in their custody.
The only exceptions to this are when an agreement or a court order provides otherwise.
Judge Ho said there was "obviously no order of court governing the parties' parental responsibility", so the only other exception would be if they had made an agreement.
The man's lawyer attempted to refer to an alleged agreement where the pair agreed that the woman would take responsibility for the child if they kept it.
However, the judge said the evidence showed that there was no written or oral agreement where the parents had agreed that the father need not maintain the child at all.
In the father's own evidence, the mother had told him that she intended to keep the child about a week after first telling him about her pregnancy.
Since then, the relationship between them took a downturn and they disagreed on whether to keep the child.
The man then pointed to a conversation a few days later about financial support for the child, saying that the woman "became hostile and told me that she would take me to court after the birth of the child".
Judge Ho said this showed that there was no agreement that the man need not maintain the child.
"The respondent not wanting the complainant to have the child is different from an agreement that if the complainant did conceive the child, that he need not maintain the child," said the judge.
He said the man's lament that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent a pregnancy was "simply not a legal basis to avoid having to maintain one's biological child".
The father asked to be allowed to pay S$25,000 in a single lump sum as maintenance.
The judge rejected this. He said S$25,000 works out to only about S$100 per month for the next 20 years until the child becomes an adult.
Judge Ho also noted the contradictions in the man's arguments - on the one hand, the man said he currently earned about S$800 a month in NS.
After deducting his personal expenses, he said he was left with only S$40. He also stated that his parents should not and "will not" be responsible for the child.
Judge Ho questioned how the father would even make the payment of S$25,000 if he really has only S$40 a month, and if his family will not help him.
The father listed monthly expenses such as a motorcycle loan, petrol, motorcycle maintenance and insurance payments.
"Given that he is currently in NS, I do not see a need for him to incur motorcycle expenses," said the judge. "In any case, I find the petrol and maintenance costs to be rather high when according to the respondent, he is a full-time NSF."
However, Judge Ho also found the mother's list of expenses and her claim for child maintenance to be "on the high side".
She stated that her personal expenses amounted to S$1,287 a month, and that the child's expenses were about S$700.
The judge noted that while he had explained why the child's father needed to contribute to child maintenance, the boy is also the son of the mother.
He said the woman should "moderate her expenditure" since the child will be incurring expenses solely determined by the mother.
Judge Ho then listed a table of the child's likely monthly expenses that came up to S$405.60.
He noted that the mother was also separately receiving maintenance of S$300 from the father of her first child.
"Whatever the history or context may be leading to the child's arrival, it cannot be gainsaid that it was not the child's choice to be born and having been born, the parents (who brought him into existence) must ensure that he or she is well taken care of and nurtured to adulthood," said the judge.
He said he hoped that the boy's father would come to cherish the unique bond he has with the child.
NSF argues against paying maintenance for child born out of wedlock, court overrules him
BookmarkShareSingapore
NSF argues against paying maintenance for child born out of wedlock, court overrules him
The young man said he never thought of having a child and said he had been "safe" through the use of contraception.
File photo of the Family Justice Courts. (Photo: CNA/Lydia Lam)
Listen to this article
7 min
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Lydia Lam
29 Jan 2024 12:42PM
BookmarkShare
SINGAPORE: A young man who knocked up his lover accidentally was ordered to pay child maintenance by a family court, despite the man claiming that he should not have to pay maintenance at all.
The new father said he believed he had practised safe sex by using contraception and never thought of having a child.
There were also disputes about the paternity of the child, but a test confirmed that he was the father of the boy.
In a judgment dated Jan 19 but made available over the weekend, District Judge Kevin Ho ordered the man to pay the mother of his child S$200 (US$150) a month in child maintenance.
This would mean the pair splits roughly equally the cost of raising the child, which is estimated at S$405 a month including milk powder, diapers, wet wipes and medical expenses.
THE CASE
Judge Ho said the woman's application for maintenance was usual but "the facts and the parties themselves are not".The mother and father are not married. Their ages were not revealed in court documents, but the judgment stated that they were minors when their child was born in March 2023, and they are now adults.
The father is currently serving National Service (NS).
The court heard that the couple met when the man was doing ad hoc delivery work after graduating from polytechnic and while waiting for NS.
According to the man, he met the woman in May 2022. They were sexually intimate by the end of that month and continued what the judge described as an "amorous relationship" for a few months.
In July 2022, the woman told the man that she was pregnant with his child. It was the man's first child, and the woman's second – she has a three-year-old son from a previous relationship.
The judge noted that the man's "worries and confusion must have been quite significant" and that he is still "somewhat puzzled by this turn of events".
"In his affidavit filed in these proceedings, he refers to the birth control measures he had taken during the fleeting period of the parties' intimate relationship," noted Judge Ho. "This then led to rather unfortunate allegations raised about the child's paternity after the child's birth."
A paternity test found that the man was the father of the child, with a likelihood of 99.998 per cent.
"Put simply, the respondent is the child's biological father and it is apparent that the protective or birth control measures did not work," said Judge Ho.
THE MAN'S ARGUMENTS
The father of the child first argued that he should not be made liable to pay any maintenance at all. He believed that he was safe through the use of contraception and never thought of having a child, the judgment stated.After the discovery of the pregnancy, the two young parents fell out following discussions on whether to keep the child.
According to the duty of parents to maintain children under the Women's Charter, a parent has a duty to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of their children. This is even if the child is illegitimate or not in their custody.
The only exceptions to this are when an agreement or a court order provides otherwise.
Judge Ho said there was "obviously no order of court governing the parties' parental responsibility", so the only other exception would be if they had made an agreement.
The man's lawyer attempted to refer to an alleged agreement where the pair agreed that the woman would take responsibility for the child if they kept it.
However, the judge said the evidence showed that there was no written or oral agreement where the parents had agreed that the father need not maintain the child at all.
In the father's own evidence, the mother had told him that she intended to keep the child about a week after first telling him about her pregnancy.
Since then, the relationship between them took a downturn and they disagreed on whether to keep the child.
The man then pointed to a conversation a few days later about financial support for the child, saying that the woman "became hostile and told me that she would take me to court after the birth of the child".
Judge Ho said this showed that there was no agreement that the man need not maintain the child.
"The respondent not wanting the complainant to have the child is different from an agreement that if the complainant did conceive the child, that he need not maintain the child," said the judge.
He said the man's lament that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent a pregnancy was "simply not a legal basis to avoid having to maintain one's biological child".
HOW MUCH TO PAY?
After settling that issue, the judge moved on to how much the father should have to pay.The father asked to be allowed to pay S$25,000 in a single lump sum as maintenance.
The judge rejected this. He said S$25,000 works out to only about S$100 per month for the next 20 years until the child becomes an adult.
Judge Ho also noted the contradictions in the man's arguments - on the one hand, the man said he currently earned about S$800 a month in NS.
After deducting his personal expenses, he said he was left with only S$40. He also stated that his parents should not and "will not" be responsible for the child.
Judge Ho questioned how the father would even make the payment of S$25,000 if he really has only S$40 a month, and if his family will not help him.
The father listed monthly expenses such as a motorcycle loan, petrol, motorcycle maintenance and insurance payments.
"Given that he is currently in NS, I do not see a need for him to incur motorcycle expenses," said the judge. "In any case, I find the petrol and maintenance costs to be rather high when according to the respondent, he is a full-time NSF."
However, Judge Ho also found the mother's list of expenses and her claim for child maintenance to be "on the high side".
She stated that her personal expenses amounted to S$1,287 a month, and that the child's expenses were about S$700.
The judge noted that while he had explained why the child's father needed to contribute to child maintenance, the boy is also the son of the mother.
He said the woman should "moderate her expenditure" since the child will be incurring expenses solely determined by the mother.
Judge Ho then listed a table of the child's likely monthly expenses that came up to S$405.60.
He noted that the mother was also separately receiving maintenance of S$300 from the father of her first child.
"Whatever the history or context may be leading to the child's arrival, it cannot be gainsaid that it was not the child's choice to be born and having been born, the parents (who brought him into existence) must ensure that he or she is well taken care of and nurtured to adulthood," said the judge.
He said he hoped that the boy's father would come to cherish the unique bond he has with the child.
This is how women trap the man.
So men should wise up and stop screwing them.
So men should wise up and stop screwing them.
99.998 per cent jackpot.
Guess race and religion ?
sibei happening job
Must be mat yoyo
Singer mums are bad new bro.Wow, out of wedlock bastards also must pay?
I bet the Feminazi courts and the Women's Charter mafia make men pay for single mothers' brats who were sired by other men.
The man is aka 接盘侠。
NSF did delivery work. Likely to be muud.
What a rubbish case. This is rape and he should be jailed. There
Anybody here caught in an alimony or child support suit, please quote this figure to the family court judge.
Cheaper than housing loan instalment. That's why gahmen was so desperate to boost fertility rate by telling couples to reproduce first then worry about housing later.
Ask the idiot judge how much was spend on their baby. What's this number from 1980?
Similar threads
