Understanding Parental Obligations for Backdated Child Maintenance
This article examines the Family Court decision of XSR v XSS [2025] SGFC 108 on backdated child maintenance, where the Applicant (“Woman”) sought to backdate maintenance to the maximum period permitted by Singapore law.
It highlights the key factors considered by the Court, including whether the father had neglected to provide reasonable maintenance in circumstances where he was unaware that the children were biologically his, the timing of the maintenance application, and whether there was a financial need during the relevant period. The firm acted for the Respondent (“Man”) in the child maintenance proceedings.
Background of the Case
The Woman, a regional sales manager, met the Man, a businessman, in 2011 when she began working at his company. At the time, both were in other relationships. The Man was married with two children, and the Woman was in a relationship with a Malaysian national.
During their relationship, the Woman gave birth to two illegitimate children: a daughter in October 2016 and a son in May 2022. The children’s birth certificates did not identify the biological father. The Man and Woman’s relationship ended in June 2023, and the Woman left the company shortly thereafter.
In March 2024, the Woman commenced proceedings against the Man seeking maintenance for the children. The Man claims that he was unaware that that the children were biologically his until a paternity test was conducted in August 2024.
Child Maintenance Sought by Applicant
In the Woman’s application for child maintenance under S69(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961, she sought:
- Monthly Maintenance of $6,000 for the two children; and
- Backdated maintenance for her elder daughter for a period of three years prior to the application; and
- Backdated maintenance for her younger son from his birth in May 2022 until the date of application; and
- Full reimbursement of cost incurred for the paternity test.
Respondent’s Position
The Man accepted that he should pay maintenance but contested the scope of the Woman’s claims and proposed:
- A lower monthly maintenance sum, approximately 40-50% of the amount claimed by the Woman; and
- Backdated maintenance to apply only from the date of the maintenance application, rather than the maximum period permitted by law sought by the Woman; and
- Cost of paternity testing to be shared equally between him and the Woman.
Legal Issues
In determining the appropriate maintenance orders, the Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the Man had neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for the children; and
- Whether maintenance should be backdated, and if so, to what extent; and
- How the costs of paternity testing should be apportioned between the parties.
Court’s Findings
Issue 1: Whether the Man Had Neglected to Provide Reasonable Maintenance for the Children
S(68) of the Women’s Charter 1961 sets out a parent’s duty to maintain their children, grounded on the principle that a parent should care for his own flesh and blood, particularly where a child is unable to fend for themselves.
In this case, the Court considered whether the Man had neglected this duty prior to the maintenance application. Central to this inquiry was whether the Man knew that the children were biologically his.
After reviewing the evidence, including photographs of the Man’s interactions with the children and an exchange of messages in which he did not explicitly deny the Woman’s request to transfer $3,000 for one child’s expenses, the Court accepted that these actions may have suggested that he held himself out as a parent and assumed responsibility for at least one child. However, it remained unclear whether he assumed responsibility for the other child.
Overall, the Court found that his conduct was insufficient to establish that he knew that the children were biologically his, at most, he may have had suspicions.
The Court also considered evidence to the contrary; of particular significance was a statutory declaration made by Woman as part of her application to HDB to purchase a resale flat. She stated that the daughter’s biological father, who is a Malaysian national, was no longer in contact, and that his name and whereabouts were unknown.
Relying on UHA v UHB [2020] 3 SLR 666, the Court held that it would be unreasonable to hold a parent liable for neglect where the parent was unaware that child was biologically his.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Man had not neglected his duty to provide reasonable maintenance for the children.
Issue 2: Whether Maintenance Should Be Backdated, and if So, to What Extent?
What is the Maximum Period for Backdating Maintenance in Singapore?
Under section 91R(4) of the Women’s Charter 1961, maintenance arrears are not recoverable if they accrued more than three years before the commencement of the procedings, unless:
(a) Other proceedings to recover maintenance had commenced within three years after the amount accrued (or any longer period that the Court in those proceedings may have allowed); or
(b) The Court allows recovery under special circumstances.
📝 Author’s Note
The present application for child maintenance was brought under the former section 121(3) Of the Women’s Charter 1961. This section was repealed on 16 January 2025, and replaced by section 91R(4) of the Women’s Charter 1961. Under section 91R(4), the Court continues to have broad discretion to allow recovery of maintenance arrears, and to strengthen enforcement through more flexible enforcement orders.
The High Court in Lee Siew Choo v Ling Chin Thor [2014] SGHC 185, established that the three-year limitation under the former section 121(3) did not apply to child maintenance, and only applied to maintenance claims by an ex-wife against her former husband. This position was reaffirmed in ULU v ULT [2018] SGFC 45.
The courts have consistently emphasised that a parent’s duty to maintain a child subsists until the child attains the age of 21, and that enforcement may extend to long-outstanding arrears where the circumstances justify such recovery.
By contrast, in maintenance claims for ex-wives, courts historically applied section 121(3) to limit recovery to arrears accruing within three years prior to the commencement of proceedings, unless special circumstances warranted a departure from that general position. The operation of the “special circumstances” exception was discussed in VGF v VGE [2020] SGFC 22, where the Family Court recognised that recovery of older arrears may be permitted. For example, where the Respondent was uncontactable or evasive, or in the case of VGF v VGE [2020] SGFC 22, the Respondent’s conduct led the applicant to reasonably believe that the respondent would eventually fulfil maintenance obligations.
The Woman sought the maximum three-year period of backdated maintenance for her elder daughter, and from date of birth for her younger son. The Man did not dispute his obligation to pay maintenance, but contended that backdating should only commence from March 2024, when the maintenance application was filed.
The Court agreed. In reaching its decision, the Court considered the timing of the application, the Woman’s ability to meet the children’s expenses from her own income prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, and whether there was any reasonable justification for delaying the maintenance application, given that the children were born in 2016 and 2022.
The Court found that the Woman’s financial burden increased progressively. Her financial situation deteriorated following the end the relationship and departure from the Man’s company in June 2023, after which she experienced a period of unemployment, sought alternative income sources, and incurred loans to meet expenses. Notably, her first documented request for financial support from the Man arose only around that time.
The Court concluded that the need for maintenance only became pressing at the time the maintenance application was filed. As the Man had not neglected to provide reasonable maintenance prior to the filing of application, the Court ordered that backdated maintenance commence from March 2024.
Issue 3: How the Costs of Paternity Testing Should Be Apportioned Between the Parties
The Woman sought an order for the Man to bear the full costs of the paternity test, relying on XIB v XIA [2025] SGHCF 40. However, the Court distinguished that case on the basis that the father was ordered to bear the full cost of a paternity test for children born within a marriage. In the present case, the parties were not married, both had other partners, and the children were born out of wedlock. Moreover, the Woman had stated in a 2016 statutory declaration that the Man was not the daughter’s biological father.
Despite this, the Court observed that the Man was content to maintain status quo, having participated in outings and photographs with the children until the relationship ended. He also did not flat out deny the Woman’s request of $3,000 in respect of one child. While the Man may have wondered about the children’s paternity, the need to formally determine paternity only arose after the Woman filed the child maintenance application, in which she took the position that the Man was their biological father. In these circumstances, the Court considered that the Man had a greater need to know the paternity results, and found it fair for him to bear the cost of the paternity test.
Summary of Court’s Orders
The Court made the following orders in relation to maintenance:
- The Man was ordered to pay $3,600 per month ($1,800 per child), achieving a reduction of 40% from the maintenance amount sought by the Woman.
- The Court accepted the Man’s position that any backdated maintenance should commence from the date of maintenance application, rather than the maximum period sought by the Woman.
- The costs of the paternity test were to be borne by the Man.
This outcome reflects the Court’s careful consideration of both parties’ positions and underscores the importance of a well-supported, evidence-based approach in maintenance proceedings.
Commentary
Backdated maintenance may be ordered at the Court’s discretion, but Courts will consider what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, including whether maintenance had accrued more than three years before application, and whether there were prior proceedings to recover those sums.
The Court will require evidence of financial neglect, that is the parent failed to provide reasonable maintenance before the application was filed. In practice, this means the Court first determines what constitutes reasonable maintenance for the child and only then considers whether the respondent failed to provide it.
In assessing neglect, the Courts will also consider whether a parent knew, or ought to reasonably have known of their biological relationship to the child.
Courts have consistently reaffirmed that parents are legally obligated to maintain their children, even when the child is illegitimate or not in the parent’s custody. For example, in GHR v GHS [2024] SGFC 4, a young man serving national service argued that he should not be required to pay maintenance because he relied on contraception and did not intend to father a child. The Court nevertheless ordered him to contribute to the child’s upkeep, highlighting Section 68 of the Women’s Charter that the duty to maintain applies regardless of whether the child is illegitimate or not in the parent’s custody.
The Respondent was represented by Lim Fung Peen of Yuen Law’s Private Wealth and Family Practice Group.