SINGAPORE — A Singaporean woman has lost her appeal to keep her son with her in Singapore, in the first case under the International Child Abduction Act to go through the courts here.

Justice Judith Prakash, in her written judgment released yesterday, ruled that the mother had failed to establish that her son’s return to Germany, where the child’s father has been granted custody, would expose him to a grave risk. The parties in the case are not named to protect the identity of the child.

However, she required that the mother be extended daily access to their son until custody issues are worked out by the German court, as long as she was in Germany.

The earlier requirement of access twice a week for four hours each time, with Skype access on Sundays, would be “highly stressful” for the child, Justice Prakash said.

The dispute arose after the couple married in October 2009 and settled in Germany. The mother found life in a small German village difficult as she could not speak the language, and had differences with her husband and in-laws.

In January last year, the family came to Singapore to celebrate Chinese New Year. However, the mother and son stayed on while the father returned to Germany. The mother, who was pregnant then, gave birth to their second son in August that year.

The father went to the German court and was granted an interim order in March last year, which gave him sole exercise of “paternal authority” over the older son. He also applied for a Request for Return under the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, on the basis that his son had been wrongfully detained. The International Child Abduction Act, which took effect in March 2011, ratifies the convention.

To resist the order, the mother had to prove that the father had consented to the son’s retention, or that there is a “grave risk” that the child’s return would expose him to physical or psychological harm or place him in an “intolerable situation”.

While the mother had contended that there would be psychological harm caused by the son’s separation from her, Justice Prakash said “if he has a reasonable relationship with a loving father, such distress could be somewhat ameliorated”.

She noted that the son enjoyed a bond with both parents, and that there were no accusations of harm inflicted on the son by the father.

Justice Prakash also noted “there is evidence that there are support facilities supplied by the German state that may be available to the mother as the mother of a German citizen,” as well as the undertakings by the father to alleviate the mother’s difficulties, such as promising to provide her and their second child with rented accommodation within 30 minutes of his home.

The judge noted that the Convention places the burden of proof on the person who opposes return and that the court is not concerned with facts that merely have a bearing on whether a parent is deserving of custody.

“This is an extremely high standard, and rightfully so: A lower standard will de-emphasise the divide between choice of jurisdiction and custody, and perhaps lead to a conflation of both,” she said.