Re An Infant

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Christopher Lau JC
• Judgment Date: 28 July 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 180
• Date: 28 July 1995
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Words and Phrases,Adoption,Meaning of 'resident','Resident',Whether liberal meaning to be used,Whether evidence of regular stays in Singapore for many years relevant where entry in Singapore was on social visit passes,s 4(6) Adoption of Children Act (Cap4)
• Docket Number: Adoption Petition No 105 of 1988
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Regina Ow (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Morgan Loh (BL Ong Yeo & Associates)

This is a joint application for the adoption of a male child aged about 13 years by the petitioners, a married couple. The wife is a Singapore citizen and the husband is not. The husband is a stateless individual born in Brunei and his visits and stays in Singapore have been on the basis of social visit passes.

The petitioners were married in Singapore on 10 June 1972. Since 14 June 1982, as the natural parents of the child were unable to care for him, the child (who was born on 13 June 1982) has lived with the petitioners and the petitioners have since cared for him as if he was their own son. They all reside in premises in Singapore bought and paid for by the husband. On 25 August 1982, the child`s natural mother signed a consent to the making of an adoption order in favour of the petitioners.

The welfare officer from the Child Welfare Service, Ministry of Community Development, Singapore, who conducted an investigation into whether it would be appropriate for the infant to be adopted by the petitioners, observed the child to be well cared and provided for by the petitioners. He appeared to be healthy and happy. The petitioners were observed to be affectionate to him. She concluded by saying that she saw no objections to the adoption of this child by the petitioners provided the husband could be said to be a resident of Singapore within the meaning of the Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4) (the Act). Indeed it is not disputed by Miss Regina Ow who appears for the Attorney General as the child`s guardian ad litem that there is a close relationship between the child and the petitioners and that it is in the child`s welfare for him to be adopted by the petitioners. She, however, objects to the adoption application because, she submits, the husband cannot be said to be resident in Singapore under the Act. The social visit pass, she asserts, periodically issued to the husband permits him to enter Singapore for certain specified purposes only, namely for a social, business or professional visit pursuant to reg 12(1)(a) of the Immigration Regulations or as a tourist pursuant to reg 12(1)(b) of the same Regulations. It is Miss Ow`s case that the husband`s visits to Singapore at indeterminate intervals on a pass meant for social visit purposes do not satisfy that degree of permanence required under the Act.

The petitioners are unable to obtain an adoption order in Brunei where the husband has permanent residence as the child is a Singapore citizen.

The issue which has arisen therefore on this application is whether the husband can be said to be resident in Singapore to qualify as an adopting parent under the Adoption Act.

...