- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 29,844
- Points
- 113
'I want to go home': S'pore man, 63, appeals to leave nursing home & live at home, rejected by court
The judge believed he is unable to protect himself against self-neglect due to various reasons including his physical infirmities and lack of community care network.
Xueting Wu
Image from Canva (for illustration purposes only)
mothership.sg
A single and childless 63-year-old man objected to an application by the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Protective Services (PSV) to place him in a nursing home, as he wished to live independently in his flat.
According to a judgement dated May 7, the man has been residing in a nursing home since his transfer in August 2025, but sought to be discharged.
The case was thus brought to the Family Justice Courts to decide whether he should be placed in a nursing home against his express wishes for his safety and protection.
Ultimately, the district judge ordered that he continue to be placed under the care of his nursing home, or such other suitable facility, for two more years until May 4, 2028.
He was also diagnosed with cognitive impairment and agitation issues, resulting in personality and disruptive behaviour.
Financially, he is unemployed and has been on long-term financial assistance for his daily needs since around 2009. The last monthly payout he received was over S$1,000.
The Social Service Office terminated short-term financial assistance to him after he was admitted to the nursing home.
Since around 2015, the man had a "consistent pattern" where various care services given to him were terminated due to conflicts with the service providers, the judge said.
The PSV intervened in May 2025 after the man was admitted to a hospital due to poor health conditions.
The hospital assessed that he needed either a full-time community caregiver or institutional care to meet his care needs, but community services were assessed to be insufficient to support his needs.
Although the man consistently objected to nursing home placement during the PSV's engagements, PSV filed for an order to place him in one for six months.
"I request to leave the old folks’ home as soon as possible; I want to go home… The reason for returning home is to be with my younger brother. This is my home; no other reason," he wrote.
However, the judge noted that the man's younger brother expressed that he had a strained relationship with the man and did not want to be involved in his care. He was also supportive of the man being placed in a nursing home.
The judge believed that the man's mobility difficulties, reduced care network, and the lack of his brother's involvement in his care had led to his living in grossly unsanitary or hazardous conditions in his home.
He would also be at risk of experiencing such conditions again if he were to return home, the judge added.
Though the man insisted that he would nonetheless be able to take care of himself at home, evidence from medical professionals showed otherwise, the judge said.
According to the judge, the man told medical professionals he feared passing away in the nursing home, as that had happened to his mother and elder brother.
However, the judge said, the order was for a two-year placement that was not permanent, and the care plan would be reviewed again afterwards.
Several additional orders were given, including for the man to continue attending counselling to manage his emotional regulation and adaptation to the nursing home.
The PSV will also explore whether the man would qualify for an assisted living facility in future, and give the court an update at the next case review on May 7.
In closing, the judge said the following:
The judge believed he is unable to protect himself against self-neglect due to various reasons including his physical infirmities and lack of community care network.
Xueting Wu
May 11, 2026, 06:32 PM
Image from Canva (for illustration purposes only)
mothership.sg
A single and childless 63-year-old man objected to an application by the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Protective Services (PSV) to place him in a nursing home, as he wished to live independently in his flat.
According to a judgement dated May 7, the man has been residing in a nursing home since his transfer in August 2025, but sought to be discharged.
The case was thus brought to the Family Justice Courts to decide whether he should be placed in a nursing home against his express wishes for his safety and protection.
Ultimately, the district judge ordered that he continue to be placed under the care of his nursing home, or such other suitable facility, for two more years until May 4, 2028.
The man's medical and financial state
As the man has multiple medical conditions and uses a wheelchair, he was assessed to require a full-time caregiver or institutionalised care to assist with his activities of daily living, the judge said.He was also diagnosed with cognitive impairment and agitation issues, resulting in personality and disruptive behaviour.
Financially, he is unemployed and has been on long-term financial assistance for his daily needs since around 2009. The last monthly payout he received was over S$1,000.
The Social Service Office terminated short-term financial assistance to him after he was admitted to the nursing home.
Since around 2015, the man had a "consistent pattern" where various care services given to him were terminated due to conflicts with the service providers, the judge said.
Intervention
In April 2025, a volunteer group visited the man's one-room rental flat and observed his house to be in an unsanitary condition, with faeces, used toilet paper, spoiled food items, clutter, and insect and maggot infestations.The PSV intervened in May 2025 after the man was admitted to a hospital due to poor health conditions.
The hospital assessed that he needed either a full-time community caregiver or institutional care to meet his care needs, but community services were assessed to be insufficient to support his needs.
Although the man consistently objected to nursing home placement during the PSV's engagements, PSV filed for an order to place him in one for six months.
Wants to be with his brother
In a statement on Mar. 10, 2026, the man urged the judge to show leniency to him."I request to leave the old folks’ home as soon as possible; I want to go home… The reason for returning home is to be with my younger brother. This is my home; no other reason," he wrote.
However, the judge noted that the man's younger brother expressed that he had a strained relationship with the man and did not want to be involved in his care. He was also supportive of the man being placed in a nursing home.
The judge believed that the man's mobility difficulties, reduced care network, and the lack of his brother's involvement in his care had led to his living in grossly unsanitary or hazardous conditions in his home.
He would also be at risk of experiencing such conditions again if he were to return home, the judge added.
The judge's decision
The judge ultimately evaluated that the man is a vulnerable adult who, due to his physical infirmities, is unable to protect himself against self-neglect.Though the man insisted that he would nonetheless be able to take care of himself at home, evidence from medical professionals showed otherwise, the judge said.
According to the judge, the man told medical professionals he feared passing away in the nursing home, as that had happened to his mother and elder brother.
However, the judge said, the order was for a two-year placement that was not permanent, and the care plan would be reviewed again afterwards.
Several additional orders were given, including for the man to continue attending counselling to manage his emotional regulation and adaptation to the nursing home.
The PSV will also explore whether the man would qualify for an assisted living facility in future, and give the court an update at the next case review on May 7.
Understood his resistance
Although the court understood that the man resisted losing his independence, familiarity, and routine, its overriding consideration was for his safety, protection, his welfare, and best interests.In closing, the judge said the following:
