SINGAPORE: Singapore’s Family Justice Courts have ordered a 63-year-old man to remain in a nursing home for at least two more years, ruling that his safety and medical needs outweighed his repeated pleas to return home and live independently.
The case centred on a frail and wheelchair-bound senior who suffers from multiple medical conditions and requires round-the-clock care. The man, who is unmarried and has no children, had argued that he wanted to leave the nursing home and return to the rented HDB flat he shared with his brother so he could continue living in familiar surroundings.
The court heard that before he was admitted to the nursing home in August last year, he had already been struggling with serious health issues. He had been unemployed for years and had depended on welfare payouts since 2009, relying heavily on government subsidies and community support services to get by.
For years, he also received assistance such as meal deliveries and home care services. However, those arrangements eventually stopped because of repeated disputes with service personnel rather than a lack of resources.
The man lived with his brother, who works long hours as a cleaner at a hawker centre. Court documents revealed that the siblings had a strained relationship and that the brother had made clear he was unwilling to take on caregiving responsibilities.
His condition deteriorated sharply in April 2025. Volunteers who visited the flat found it in an alarming state, with rubbish piled throughout the home, human waste on the floor and mattress, and maggots present in the unit. Although volunteers cleaned the flat, the conditions reportedly worsened again within two weeks.
The man later admitted that he could no longer use the toilet independently. While he could collect urine in bottles, he was unable to dispose of them himself.
Authorities subsequently arranged for him to be hospitalised. Medical professionals later assessed that he required continuous care and concluded that placement in a nursing home would be more appropriate.
The man resisted the move from the outset. He insisted he could continue living independently and repeatedly asked to be discharged home. He also suggested that the authorities arrange for a foreign domestic worker to care for him or that his brother assist him instead.
However, the court heard that he could not afford the cost of employing a domestic helper and that his brother was unable to take responsibility for his care, making both proposals impractical.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Protective Services division later applied for him to be placed in a nursing home under the Vulnerable Adults Act.
According to court proceedings, the man reacted strongly after his admission to the facility. He reportedly refused food, removed his urinary catheter, and had to be sent back to the hospital several times.
In January this year, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) sought a court order to extend his stay at the nursing home for a further two years.
The man objected to the application and appealed directly to the court for compassion, saying he wanted to return home and be with his brother.
“I want to leave the nursing home as soon as possible. I want to go home. The reason is that I want to be with my brother; that’s my home, there’s no other reason,” he told the court.
He also repeatedly voiced fears about remaining in the nursing home, saying he worried he would die there like his mother and brother.
MSF argued that the man continued to insist that the government hire a domestic helper for him despite lacking the means to pay for one. The ministry also noted that he continued expecting support from his brother even after the brother clearly stated he could not care for him.
The court heard that after receiving counselling and treatment at the nursing home, the man’s condition gradually improved. He reportedly began taking part in activities, interacting with other residents and showing signs of improved mood and emotional stability.
In delivering the judgment, the judge acknowledged that the law generally seeks to respect an individual’s personal choices and autonomy. However, the judge said intervention became necessary once all community-based care arrangements had failed and the man faced a serious risk of self-neglect.
The court ultimately ordered that he remain in the nursing home for another two years for continued treatment and counselling, after which the matter may be reviewed again.
The judge also expressed sympathy for the man’s desire to return home, noting that his attachment to the flat represented more than just a physical residence.
The court observed that the home symbolised familiarity, independence and dignity for the man, particularly given that he is still relatively young at 63 years old. Nonetheless, the judge said those considerations had to be balanced against the need to ensure his safety and proper care.
The case has attracted attention amid Singapore’s rapidly ageing population, with the judge warning that similar situations may become increasingly common in a “super-ageing” society and that finding a balance between “respecting choice” and “ensuring safety” may become a pressing societal challenge.
This article (Court rejects senior citizen’s request to return home, orders him to remain in nursing home for two more years) first appeared on The Independent Singapore News.
