When a Child Is Abducted to Singapore from a Non-Hague Country: What International Parents Need to Know

International child abduction cases do not unfold in a vacuum. Outcomes depend not only on where a child is taken, but on whether the countries involved are parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and how local courts treat non-Hague situations.

A decision from Singapore’s highest appellate court provides critical guidance for parents and practitioners navigating cross-border custody disputes involving non-Hague countries, including China.¹

Singapore’s Appellate Ruling: Hague Principles Do Not Apply by Analogy

In XLK v. XLJ, the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court addressed a case in which a child was unilaterally removed from China to Singapore by the father.² China is not a Contracting State to the Hague Convention, while Singapore is.

The Court made a key clarification: when a child is abducted to Singapore from a country that is not a Hague Convention partner, Singapore courts must not decide return applications by importing or analogizing Hague Convention principles.³

Instead, Singapore courts must determine the case exclusively under domestic law, applying the welfare principle, the child’s best interests, as required by Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act.⁴ That provision mandates that “the welfare of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration.”

The Facts Behind the Decision

In XLK v. XLJ, the father removed the child from China to Singapore without the mother’s consent and enrolled the child in school in Singapore, despite a prior Chinese court order expressly providing that the child “shall be raised and educated” by the mother.⁵ The father had already appealed, and lost, that determination in China before removing the child.

Following the removal, the mother commenced proceedings in the Singapore Family Court seeking the child’s return to China.

Family Court vs. Appellate Court: Clarifying the Legal Framework

The Singapore Family Court ordered the child’s return, emphasizing the disruption caused by the unilateral removal and the relevance of the existing Chinese custody orders. On appeal, the father argued that the Family Court had improperly treated the case as if it were a Hague Convention return application and had afforded excessive weight to the Chinese court orders under the doctrine of comity.

The Appellate Division rejected both arguments. It held that the Family Court did not apply Hague Convention principles by analogy and did not allow comity to override the welfare principle.⁶ The decision ordering the child’s return was properly grounded in the child’s best interests.

A Subtle but Crucial Correction: Language Matters

While affirming the result, the Appellate Division cautioned against the trial judge’s statement that the “doctrine of comity of nations has immense force” in such cases. The appellate court clarified that, in non-Hague cases, courts must focus exclusively on the child’s welfare.⁷

Foreign custody orders may be considered only insofar as they materially inform the child’s best interests, not because courts owe deference to foreign states. This clarification is consistent with established Singapore jurisprudence interpreting Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act.⁸

Supporting Singapore Jurisprudence

The decision in XLK v. XLJ builds on a well-developed line of Singapore cases holding that the welfare principle is paramount and holistic:

• In CX v. CY, the court held that no single factor, including parental rights or foreign judgments, is determinative in a welfare analysis.⁹
• In BNS v. BNT, the Court of Appeal confirmed that foreign custody orders are relevant only to the extent they bear on the child’s welfare.¹⁰
• In TAA v. TAB, the court recognized that a return to a child’s habitual residence may be justified on welfare grounds even outside the Hague Convention framework.¹¹

Immediate Return Without a Full Merits Hearing?

The Appellate Division further clarified that a full, extended welfare inquiry is not always required. In appropriate cases, a court may order a swift and immediate return where doing so best minimizes disruption and restores stability in the child’s life.¹²

Where a child is habitually resident abroad, is unfamiliar with the new country’s language and culture, and faces ongoing instability, immediate return may serve the child’s best interests by eliminating disturbing factors as speedily as possible.

How This Differs from Hague Convention Cases in Singapore

When the Hague Convention applies, Singapore courts follow the Convention’s structured return framework, focusing on habitual residence and limited defenses such as grave risk.¹³

By contrast, when the left-behind country is not a Hague partner, as with China, the Convention does not apply, and courts rely entirely on domestic welfare law under the Guardianship of Infants Act.

Why This Matters for International Families, New York and California Parents

As an international family lawyer based in New York and San Francisco, I regularly advise parents navigating cross-border custody and abduction risks involving jurisdictions with uneven Hague participation.

This decision reinforces a central principle of international family law: non-Hague cases are not “Hague-lite.” Outcomes turn on domestic welfare jurisprudence, not treaty analogies. Early jurisdictional analysis and proactive planning are often decisive.

Footnotes 

1. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89.
2. XLK v. XLJ [2025] SGHC(A) 22 (Sing.).
3. Id. ¶¶ 58–62.
4. Guardianship of Infants Act 1934, c. 122, § 3 (Sing.).
5. XLK v. XLJ [2025] SGHC(A) 22 ¶¶ 6–14 (Sing.).
6. Id. ¶¶ 63–71.
7. Id. ¶¶ 72–75.
8. See, e.g., CX v. CY [2005] 3 S.L.R.(R.) 690 (Sing.).
9. Id. ¶¶ 25–31.
10. BNS v. BNT [2015] SGCA 23 ¶¶ 22–27 (Sing.).
11. TAA v. TAB [2015] 2 S.L.R. 879 ¶¶ 52–60 (Sing.).
12. XLK v. XLJ [2025] SGHC(A) 22 ¶¶ 76–82 (Sing.).
13. Hague Convention, supra note 1.