YAQ v YAR

YAQ v YAR

On the evidence the parties had a shared, planned intention to relocate to Singapore for at least 3–5 years and the objective indicia (lease, school enrollment, shipment of belongings, integration steps) supported that intention; the child's habitual residence had therefore changed to Singapore by the relevant date....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] SGFC 41
Parties
Applicant (father): YAQ; Respondent (mother): YAR
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Case Number
FC/OAIC 2/2025
Procedural Posture
Section 8 Application Under the International Child Abduction Act 2010 (hague Convention) / Judgment
Outcome
Applicant's section 8 ICAA application dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Wrongful Removal, Wrongful Retention, Vitiation of Consent (deceit/misrepresentation/non Disclosure), Article 13(a) Hague Convention, Section 8 ICAA, Custody Rights
Source Language
english
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Matters Habitual Residence Wrongful Removal Wrongful Retention Vitiation of Consent (deceit/misrepresentation/non Disclosure) +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YAQ

Applicant (father)

YAR

Respondent (mother)

Procedural Posture

Section 8 Application Under the International Child Abduction Act 2010 (hague Convention) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child was wrongfully removed from the USA
  2. 2 Whether the child's habitual residence remained in the USA as at the alleged removal date
  3. 3 Whether the Father's consent to removal was vitiated by deceit, misrepresentation or non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the parties had a shared, planned intention to relocate to Singapore for at least 3–5 years and the objective indicia (lease, school enrollment, shipment of belongings, integration steps) supported that intention; the child's habitual residence had therefore changed to Singapore by the relevant date. The Father failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that his pre-departure consent was vitiated by deceit or that any condition on consent was breached. Accordingly the section 8 ICAA return application failed and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's section 8 ICAA application dismissed

Orders

  • Father's section 8 International Child Abduction Act 2010 application dismissed
  • Parties to agree on costs; failing agreement, parties to file written submissions (capped at 8 pages) for costs to be fixed