- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 28,150
- Points
- 113
Most parents want to do the best for their children, but a couple here are enduring retirement with money woes after splashing out around $600,000 on their children’s overseas education.
Their plight is a stark reminder that parents must make plans for themselves first before overindulging their offspring.
Their determination to give their children a first-class education has left them so cash-strapped that they even had to fight in the High Court over a mere $600 monthly payment linked to the settlement they made when they divorced about 10 years ago.
To make matters worse, their son, 33, said to be still studying for a doctorate in the United States earlier this year, and daughter, 29, who graduated from a London university, appear to have broken off contact with their parents over the past two years and have not helped them out financially.
The father, who is 65 and retired, has a young child from his second marriage and had been paying $1,200 a month to his former wife, 69.
But he asked to halve this sum because his own household expenses, which probably include mortgage repayment, came to about $7,000.
He had $500,000 in his CPF and other savings, but this may not be enough in the long term, noting that his new wife, 38, would also need to find work as a tutor to supplement their expenses.
It was not known what assets his former wife got in their divorce settlement, but she objected to the request to cut her alimony to just $600 as she could no longer work due to a spinal condition.
Yet even as late as 2023, the father continued to remit about $26,000 to his son in the US, while his wife gave about $14,000.
When this unusual case was heard in the High Court in May 2024, Justice Choo Han Teck asked the parents to provide more details about their savings, given that they could still send substantial sums of money to their son.
While the judge noted that the man had more savings than his former wife, he agreed that these funds would be essential for his new family and he approved the application to cut the former wife’s monthly maintenance to $600.
But Justice Choo saved the sharpest rebuke for their two adult children for vanishing inexplicably at a time when they were needed most.
He noted that the responsibility of meeting the financial needs of their parents ought to be partially borne by them, especially as they had benefited tremendously from the tertiary education fund set up for them.
“It is a pity that their son and daughter, one with a PhD and the other a university degree, are unable to contribute even a token sum towards their aged parents’ upkeep,” said Justice Choo
Parents should learn from this case and that they should never neglect their own needs.
Their plight is a stark reminder that parents must make plans for themselves first before overindulging their offspring.
Their determination to give their children a first-class education has left them so cash-strapped that they even had to fight in the High Court over a mere $600 monthly payment linked to the settlement they made when they divorced about 10 years ago.
To make matters worse, their son, 33, said to be still studying for a doctorate in the United States earlier this year, and daughter, 29, who graduated from a London university, appear to have broken off contact with their parents over the past two years and have not helped them out financially.
The father, who is 65 and retired, has a young child from his second marriage and had been paying $1,200 a month to his former wife, 69.
But he asked to halve this sum because his own household expenses, which probably include mortgage repayment, came to about $7,000.
He had $500,000 in his CPF and other savings, but this may not be enough in the long term, noting that his new wife, 38, would also need to find work as a tutor to supplement their expenses.
It was not known what assets his former wife got in their divorce settlement, but she objected to the request to cut her alimony to just $600 as she could no longer work due to a spinal condition.
Yet even as late as 2023, the father continued to remit about $26,000 to his son in the US, while his wife gave about $14,000.
When this unusual case was heard in the High Court in May 2024, Justice Choo Han Teck asked the parents to provide more details about their savings, given that they could still send substantial sums of money to their son.
While the judge noted that the man had more savings than his former wife, he agreed that these funds would be essential for his new family and he approved the application to cut the former wife’s monthly maintenance to $600.
But Justice Choo saved the sharpest rebuke for their two adult children for vanishing inexplicably at a time when they were needed most.
He noted that the responsibility of meeting the financial needs of their parents ought to be partially borne by them, especially as they had benefited tremendously from the tertiary education fund set up for them.
“It is a pity that their son and daughter, one with a PhD and the other a university degree, are unable to contribute even a token sum towards their aged parents’ upkeep,” said Justice Choo
Parents should learn from this case and that they should never neglect their own needs.
