Child Maintenance for High-Income Parents in Singapore: Is 15% of Income the Benchmark?
When parents divorce or separate, one of the most common disputes concerns how much each parent should contribute towards the expenses of their children.
Where one parent is a particularly high-income earner, a common question arises:
Does earning more mean that you have to pay substantially more child maintenance?
The short answer is: potentially, yes — but there is no fixed percentage of income that must be paid as child maintenance.
Singapore courts assess child maintenance based on the reasonable needs of the child, the parents' financial circumstances, their earning capacities and resources, and the family's circumstances and standard of living.
Interestingly, however, there are High Court cases where child maintenance amounting to approximately 15% of a high-income parent's monthly income was considered reasonable.
What Does the Law Say About Child Maintenance?
Under the Women's Charter 1961, both parents have a duty to maintain their children.
In determining maintenance, the Court may consider matters including:
the child's reasonable financial needs;
each parent's income;
each parent's earning capacity;
property and other financial resources available to each parent;
the family's standard of living;
the child's education and other needs; and
the parents' respective financial commitments and circumstances.
Importantly, the fact that both parents have a duty to maintain their child does not necessarily mean that they must contribute exactly 50:50.
A parent who has substantially greater financial means may be ordered to bear a greater proportion of the child's expenses.
Is Child Maintenance Capped at a Percentage of Income?
No.
There is no rule in Singapore that child maintenance must be 10%, 15%, 20% or any other fixed percentage of a parent's income.
However, the amount of maintenance compared with a parent's income can be relevant when the Court considers whether the proposed maintenance is reasonable.
This was expressly considered by the High Court in WLI v WLJ [2023] SGHCF 15.
WLI v WLJ [2023] SGHCF 15 — Approximately 15.3% of Monthly Income
This is particularly useful authority in cases involving a high-income parent.
The Husband's income, taking into account his salary, director's fees, bonuses and dividends, was approximately:
$1,152,000 per year, or $96,000 per month.
The Court awarded maintenance for the parties' two children amounting to:
$14,708.29 per month.
This represented approximately:
15.3% of the Husband's monthly income.
The High Court found the amount reasonable.
Importantly, however, the Court expressly stated that child maintenance should not simply be pegged to the parents' incomes.
Rather, the maintenance amount relative to the parent's income was another relevant consideration in determining whether the amount awarded was reasonable.
Accordingly, WLI v WLJ does not establish a "15% rule".
What it demonstrates is that where a parent earns a very substantial income, an award of child maintenance which may appear high in absolute dollar terms can nevertheless be reasonable when viewed against that parent's financial means and the children's reasonable needs.
UEB v UEC [2018] SGHCF 5 — $3,000 Maintenance on $20,000 Monthly Income
The High Court in WLI v WLJ referred to the earlier decision of UEB v UEC [2018] SGHCF 5.
In that case, the Husband earned approximately:
$20,000 per month.
He was ordered to pay:
$3,000 per month for the child.
This represented approximately:
15% of his monthly income.
The High Court considered the amount reasonable, placing importance on the fact that the Husband was earning a high salary.
The case is also important for another reason.
The Court explained that determining child maintenance should not become an excessively mathematical exercise where every single expense must necessarily be individually proved and totalled.
The Court is entitled to take a broader view of the child's reasonable needs and the circumstances of the family.
So Is 15% a Useful Benchmark?
It can be useful as a reference point, particularly where the paying parent is a high-income earner, but it should not be treated as a formula.
The decisions in UEB v UEC and WLI v WLJ show that the High Court has considered maintenance of approximately 15% of a high-income parent's monthly income to be reasonable on the particular facts of those cases.
However, the correct question is not:
"What percentage of the parent's salary should be paid?"
The better questions are:
What are the child's reasonable needs? What standard of living has the child enjoyed? What are the respective financial means and earning capacities of both parents? And, having regard to all those circumstances, what is a reasonable contribution from each parent?
For one family, the appropriate amount may represent substantially less than 15% of the paying parent's income.
For another family, particularly one involving multiple children and substantial financial resources, the overall maintenance obligation may be considerably higher.
What Expenses Can Be Included in Child Maintenance?
Depending on the circumstances of the particular family, reasonable expenses may include:
food and groceries;
clothing and shoes;
housing and household expenses attributable to the child;
utilities;
school fees;
tuition;
enrichment and extracurricular activities;
transport;
medical and dental expenses;
insurance;
mobile phone expenses;
domestic helper expenses attributable to childcare; and
other reasonable expenses incurred for the child's welfare.
The fact that an expense is claimed does not automatically mean that the Court will allow it. The Court ultimately considers whether the expense is reasonable in the circumstances.
What If the Parent Has a High Income but Says He or She Cannot Afford Maintenance?
The Court is not confined to looking at a person's basic salary.
For example, where appropriate, the Court may examine:
Bonuses, director's fees, dividends, investment income, rental income, property, savings, investments, earning capacity and other financial resources.
A person's remuneration structure should therefore not obscure his or her true financial capacity.
This is particularly important where a parent is a business owner, director, senior executive, professional or otherwise receives substantial variable remuneration.
What If the Parent Recently Stopped Working?
A reduction in current income does not necessarily determine the issue.
The courts may consider earning capacity, rather than simply the parent's most recent salary.
Accordingly, a parent who previously earned a substantial income may not necessarily be able to substantially reduce his or her maintenance obligation merely because current employment income has fallen.
The Court will consider the circumstances surrounding the change in income together with the parent's broader financial position.
Conclusion
There is no fixed formula for determining child maintenance in Singapore.
In particular, there is no automatic rule that a high-income parent must pay 15% of his or her income as child maintenance.
Nevertheless, High Court decisions such as UEB v UEC [2018] SGHCF 5 and WLI v WLJ [2023] SGHCF 15 demonstrate that maintenance amounting to approximately 15% of a high-income parent's monthly income has been considered reasonable in appropriate circumstances.
Ultimately, the Court looks at the child's reasonable needs together with the parents' respective means, earning capacities, financial resources and circumstances.
Where one parent has substantially greater financial means than the other, the Court may require that parent to bear a significantly greater share of the children's expenses.
If you require advice on child maintenance, whether you are seeking maintenance for your child or responding to a maintenance claim, you may contact 21 Chambers LLC to arrange a consultation with an experienced Singapore family lawyer.