Temporary travel does not necessarily defeat Singapore service
A parent who ordinarily resides in Singapore cannot necessarily invalidate substituted service merely because he or she was overseas on the day the documents were served.
Updated 23 July 2026 · International family law
Can the Singapore Courts Decide an International Child Custody Dispute?
When children have lived in more than one country, the Singapore court considers their welfare, habitual residence, existing proceedings and the practical connection to each place. Nationality alone does not decide the forum.
Book a Free Initial ConsultationIssues considered
The decision in XRG v XRH [2025] SGFC 105 explains how the Singapore courts approach:
- international child custody disputes;
- applications to stay Singapore proceedings;
- habitual residence of children;
- foreign custody orders;
- substituted service on a parent travelling overseas; and
- the paramount importance of the children’s welfare.
Scope of the published decision
The decision addressed substituted service and an application to stay the Singapore proceedings. It did not finally determine custody, care and control, or access. The published grounds record that the father appealed against part of the decision. This article explains the Family Court’s published reasons and does not address any later order outside those grounds.
Introduction
A parent may argue that Singapore should not hear the dispute because another country is the more appropriate forum. However, the existence of foreign proceedings or a foreign custody arrangement does not automatically prevent the Singapore Family Court from considering the children’s welfare.
What happened in XRG v XRH?
The mother and father were citizens of the People’s Republic of China. They had been in a long-term relationship but were never legally married.
They had two daughters. The first was born in the United States in 2018, and the second was born in China in 2020.
The family later lived in Shanghai. According to the mother, the father moved to Beijing in 2022, leaving her to care for the children.
In 2023, the parties and children relocated to Singapore. The mother said that the move was intended to allow the children to receive an education in Singapore and that she would remain their primary caregiver.
The parties’ relationship subsequently deteriorated.
The mother alleged that the father:
- removed her from the family home;
- restricted her access to the children;
- relocated the children to China without her knowledge;
- later brought them back to Singapore without informing her;
- failed to respond to communications about access; and
- refused to disclose where the children were located.
The mother commenced custody proceedings in Singapore in April 2025.
Why was substituted service necessary?
The mother’s lawyers attempted to serve the court papers personally on the father at his workplace in Singapore.
Those attempts were unsuccessful.
Although the father had lawyers acting for him in separate harassment proceedings, he did not authorise those lawyers to accept service of the custody proceedings. He also failed to respond to email correspondence from the mother’s lawyers.
The mother therefore applied for substituted service.
The court allowed the papers to be served by:
- registered post to the addresses of the father’s Singapore businesses;
- email; and
- the father’s Singpass inbox.
The father later argued that the service was invalid because he happened to be outside Singapore on the date service was carried out.
Is substituted service invalid if the parent is overseas?
Not necessarily.
The court held that substituted service carried out under a valid court order has the same legal effect as personal service.
The relevant question was not merely whether the father was physically outside Singapore on the particular day of service. The court considered whether he was ordinarily resident in Singapore and whether there was a proper basis for the substituted service order.
The evidence showed that the father:
- held a Singapore Employment Pass;
- worked in Singapore;
- was a director of several Singapore companies;
- had children attending school in Singapore; and
- travelled in and out of Singapore regularly.
Immigration records also showed that he was in Singapore when the custody proceedings were commenced.
The court therefore found that his absence on the day of service was temporary and fortuitous. It did not change the fact that he was ordinarily resident in Singapore.
The order for substituted service remained valid.
When will a Singapore custody case be stayed in favour of another country?
A parent seeking to stop or stay Singapore proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens must show that another country is clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum.
This is not satisfied merely by showing that:
- both parents are foreign nationals;
- the children were born overseas;
- the family previously lived overseas; or
- proceedings have already taken place in another country.
In a custody dispute, the court must consider which jurisdiction is better placed to determine the children’s welfare.
That requires an examination of all relevant connecting factors.
What factors determine the appropriate forum?
The court may consider matters such as:
- where the children are currently living;
- where the children have been living for a meaningful period;
- where they attend school;
- how settled they are;
- the language and culture with which they are familiar;
- where their parents are ordinarily resident;
- the parents’ intentions regarding the children’s residence;
- where relevant witnesses and evidence are located;
- whether the children have been moved without one parent’s consent; and
- which court can most effectively assess their welfare.
No single factor is automatically decisive.
The court’s focus remains on which jurisdiction is better able to evaluate and protect the children’s best interests.
What is a child’s habitual residence?
Habitual residence is an important factor in international custody disputes.
It is not necessarily the same as:
- citizenship;
- nationality;
- domicile; or
- immigration status.
A child may be a citizen of one country but habitually resident in another.
Habitual residence generally refers to the country with which the child has a close and settled connection.
The court may examine:
- how long the child has lived there;
- whether the child attends school there;
- the child’s daily routine;
- friendships and community ties;
- cultural and linguistic integration;
- the location of the parents; and
- the parents’ intentions concerning where the child should live.
Why did the court find that Singapore was the children’s habitual residence?
The father claimed that the children were habitually resident in China and were enrolled in school there.
However, the court found that his assertion was unsupported by sufficient evidence.
The father did not adequately explain:
- when the children had supposedly relocated to China;
- where they were living;
- who was caring for them;
- which school they were attending;
- whether the mother had agreed to the relocation; or
- how they had become reintegrated into life in China.
The available evidence instead showed that the children had significant connections to Singapore.
The mother produced evidence that:
- the family had relocated to Singapore in 2023;
- the children attended schools in Singapore;
- they participated in school activities in Singapore;
- they remained enrolled in a Singapore school; and
- the father had applied for Singapore Permanent Residence for himself and the children.
Immigration records also contradicted the father’s claim that the children were residing in China.
The court therefore found that the evidence pointed towards the children being habitually resident in Singapore at the time of the stay application.
Does a foreign custody order prevent a Singapore application?
Not always.
The father argued that the dispute had already been resolved in China through a mediation agreement that was converted into a court order.
He contended that allowing Singapore proceedings to continue would:
- duplicate the foreign proceedings;
- create a risk of inconsistent orders;
- offend international comity; and
- amount to re-litigation.
The Singapore court rejected that argument.
In custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. A Singapore court is not necessarily bound to follow a foreign custody order without independently considering the present circumstances.
A foreign order may be given appropriate weight, but it does not automatically prevent the court from reviewing the children’s current welfare.
Why are custody orders different from ordinary civil judgments?
Custody and access arrangements are not necessarily final in the same way as an ordinary commercial judgment.
Children’s circumstances can change.
For example:
- a parent may relocate;
- the children may change schools;
- access arrangements may break down;
- a parent may stop complying with an earlier agreement;
- the children’s needs may develop;
- the caregiving arrangements may change; or
- new welfare concerns may arise.
The court may therefore reconsider custody, care and control or access arrangements where there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the children.
The fact that there was an earlier foreign agreement did not prevent the Singapore court from examining the dispute afresh.
Why was the father’s stay application dismissed?
The father had the burden of showing that China was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Singapore.
He failed to discharge that burden.
The court found that:
- his evidence concerning the children’s residence was lacking in detail;
- some of his statements were contradicted by immigration records;
- there was evidence that the children were enrolled and settled in Singapore;
- he had not properly disclosed the children’s whereabouts;
- the earlier Chinese agreement did not prevent a fresh welfare assessment; and
- there were compelling reasons to review the custody and access arrangements.
The Singapore proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.
What evidence is important in an international custody dispute?
International custody cases are often decided on documents and objective records rather than unsupported assertions.
Useful evidence may include:
- immigration and travel records;
- school enrolment records;
- school attendance records;
- photographs of school events;
- medical and dental records;
- tenancy or property documents;
- employment and immigration passes;
- Permanent Residence applications;
- correspondence about relocation;
- messages concerning access;
- evidence of the child’s daily routine;
- proof of the parent’s caregiving role;
- previous foreign court orders;
- foreign mediation agreements; and
- evidence showing whether the other parent consented to relocation.
A parent who alleges that a child is habitually resident in another country should be prepared to provide clear particulars and supporting documents.
What should a parent do if the children are moved overseas without consent?
A parent who believes that the children may be removed or have already been removed without consent should act quickly.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to consider:
- an urgent injunction preventing removal;
- an order requiring disclosure of the children’s location;
- an application for custody, care and control or access;
- enforcement of an existing order;
- immigration and travel records;
- preservation of school and communication evidence; and
- advice concerning parallel overseas proceedings.
Delay can make the dispute more difficult, particularly where the children are being moved between countries or their location is unclear.
Can the Singapore court order a parent to disclose the children’s location?
The court may make urgent orders requiring a parent to state:
- where the children are;
- who is caring for them;
- where they are attending school; and
- whether any travel is planned.
In XRG v XRH, an interim injunction was granted restraining the father from removing the children from Singapore. He was also ordered to provide details of their location and caregivers.
A refusal to disclose the whereabouts of children may be viewed seriously, particularly where it prevents the other parent from exercising access or the court from assessing the children’s welfare.
Key lessons from XRG v XRH
The decision provides several important lessons.
Nationality is not the same as habitual residence
The children’s citizenship does not automatically determine which country should hear the dispute.
Objective records are important
Immigration, school and residency documents may carry significant weight when determining where the children actually live.
Foreign orders are not always final
The Singapore court may reconsider custody and access where circumstances have changed and the children’s welfare requires review.
The parent seeking a stay carries the burden
It is for the parent seeking the stay to prove that the foreign jurisdiction is clearly or distinctly more appropriate.
Concealing the children’s whereabouts can damage a parent’s case
A failure to provide clear information about where the children are living may undermine the parent’s credibility and raise serious welfare concerns.
Do you need advice on an international custody dispute?
Cross-border custody and relocation disputes require careful and urgent handling.
The outcome may depend on:
- the children’s habitual residence;
- the timing and circumstances of a relocation;
- whether both parents consented;
- existing foreign orders;
- school and immigration records;
- the validity of service;
- the availability of urgent injunctions; and
- which court is best placed to protect the children’s welfare.
Justin Chan Chambers LLP advises parents in international custody, relocation, access and child-abduction disputes involving Singapore and overseas jurisdictions. Contact us to arrange a consultation regarding your case.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every international family dispute depends on its particular facts, evidence and applicable law.
Frequently asked questions
Can Singapore hear an international child custody dispute involving foreign parents?
It may do so where Singapore is an appropriate forum. The court examines the children’s welfare and the connecting factors rather than deciding the issue from nationality alone.
What is a child's habitual residence?
Habitual residence is the country to which the child is closely connected through lived circumstances and integration. It is distinct from citizenship, nationality, domicile and immigration status.
Does a foreign custody order prevent a Singapore application?
A foreign custody order does not automatically prevent a Singapore court from considering the current circumstances. The foreign decision may be given the weight appropriate to the case.
Is substituted service invalid if a parent is overseas?
Temporary absence does not by itself invalidate service under a valid substituted-service order. The applicable requirements depend on the order and the surrounding facts.
What evidence can matter in a cross-border custody dispute?
Travel records, school evidence, residence documents, communications about relocation and access, caregiving records, and foreign orders may all be relevant.
Did XRG v XRH finally decide custody and access?
No. The published decision concerned substituted service and an application to stay the Singapore proceedings. It did not finally determine custody, care and control, or access.