Singapore court rejects bid by Vietnamese woman to get maintenance from Italian man who fathered her child
SINGAPORE — He was on a business trip to Kuala Lumpur in 2011 when he got into a dalliance with a Vietnamese woman.
She got pregnant with their child later that year and gave birth the next year. The Italian man gave her money intermittently.
But in July last year, the man, who had since married another woman, bumped into his former lover at a supermarket in Singapore. He had just relocated here for work and, unbeknownst to him, she too had relocated here with their 6-year-old son.
She requested for more money for their child but he refused. She then took him to court, alleging that he had failed to maintain their child for five years and sought $3,500 monthly.
But Family Court judge Sheik Mustafa last week dismissed the woman’s application, saying she had failed to prove that the man had neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for their son.
In grounds of decision published on Tuesday (7 May), the judge said the woman had not shown why it was necessary or in the child’s best interest to relocate to Singapore. She also had the means to maintain the child in Singapore without the man’s contribution, the judge found.
The woman, who is on a long-term visit pass, is appealing against the judgment.
Changed mind about abortion
The man first met the woman in Kuala Lumpur in 2011. Over two more occasions that year, he returned to the Malaysian capital and met his lover.
After the woman told the man that she was pregnant in 2011, they discussed the matter over Skype and she agreed to abort the foetus. He sent her some money for the procedure.
However, she told him a few days later that she had changed her mind. She was apparently emotional and threatened to jump off a building.
The man said he then sent her money several times afterwards.
The woman gave birth to the baby in Vietnam, and she invited him to visit her and the child in a village near Hanoi. He saw her in September 2012 and gave her some money before going back to Italy.
She continued to ask him for money and he gave her €5,404.50 ($8,239) between June and December 2012.
Asked for cash for house renovation, apartment
A few months later, the man’s employer relocated him to Kuala Lumpur for work. He invited the woman to visit him with their child. But the couple could not get along and the visit was cut short after two days.
The woman asked for RM15,000 ($4,921) to renovate her house in Vietnam and to start her own business so that she could support the child alone. The man agreed and offered to transfer the funds, but the woman insisted on cash. He could only raise RM10,000 and gave her the money. She apparently told him that she would never ask for money again.
The woman invited the man to visit their child in Vietnam on his first birthday. He brought gifts for both the woman and the baby. He also told her that he had entered into a relationship with someone he wanted to marry. She indicated that she understood, and it was the last time they saw each other.
A month later, however, the woman contacted the man to ask for money to buy an apartment. He transferred her some cash.
In early 2014, the woman also asked for money to buy insurance in which the child would receive the entire pay out when he reaches 18 years old. The man agreed to pay €1,200 a year.
In December 2014 and February 2015, the woman requested for money to complete the construction of her house. He transferred €1,850 in total.
Bumped into each other at supermarket
The man later got married and moved to Singapore with his wife in June last year.
Meanwhile, the woman had moved to Singapore with their child in May 2017.
In July last year, while at a supermarket at Scotts Square, the man was shocked to bump into the woman. She hadn’t inform him that she would relocate here with their child. The man asked that the woman not tell his wife about the matter; his wife did not know that he had a child.
The woman said she had sold her house in Vietnam and the child was schooling here and that it was hard for them financially.
Later, the man and woman communicated via email. He thanked her for not informing his wife about their prior relationship. She emailed back to ask for an additional $2,500 a month, threatening to take him to court if he didn’t accept it. She also said she knew where he worked.
The man counter-proposed to pay $2,000 a month, but she refused. He then asked for an itemised list of expenses for the child, and got one which added up to $3,422.
But the man was uncomfortable with her insistence in drafting an agreement to allow her to increase maintenance in future, including the cost of the child’s university education. After discussing the matter with his wife, the man decided to seek legal advice.
No reason for woman to relocate: Judge
The woman’s case was that she relocated with the child to Singapore as the educational standards here were better than in Vietnam. She was here on a visit pass and was not allowed to work. And the child was enrolled in an international school.
Meanwhile, the man said there was no reason for the woman to have moved to Singapore, and that he ought only to be bound by the maintenance that he and the woman had agreed upon. He said he had sent a total equivalent of $42,986.40 since the child was born.
Although the woman said she was surviving on her savings, she did not reveal to the court what her savings were, or how she was using them.
The judge drew the inference that if the woman had disclosed her bank account statements, they would have revealed that she was “not as financially hard put as she claimed to be”.
The judge also found her expenditure “far from frugal”. The woman stated in the application form for the child’s school that her address was a house in Draycott Drive. The registration fee for the international school was $2,945.71 while the fees were $4,201.89.
“A scrutiny of the numerous supermarket receipts she tendered do not evidence a frugal lifestyle of one who was in financial tightness and who had no legal source of income,” said the judge.
“A reasonable person would not have relocated to Singapore from Vietnam without adequate means to support herself and the child since she was not expecting any contribution from the (man) more than the €1,200 he was already furnishing. I found that on a balance of probabilities, the (woman) must have either had sufficient funds herself to finance the relocation and education of the child in Singapore, or she had access to such funds to do so,” the judge added.
More Singapore stories:
Corrective Work Orders rose 30% to 2,600 cases in 2018: NEA
IMDA launches public consultation on 5G network rollout
Hospital doctor fined $7k for forging his own MCs due to depression from break-up
83% of Singaporeans prefer independent body to assess online falsehoods: survey
