Re BJU to be called B

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 19 July 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 138
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 170 of 2012 (Registrar’s Appeal Subordinate Courts No 11 of 2013)
• Year: 2013
• Published date: 22 July 2013
• Hearing Date: 17 April 2013,08 May 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: V Ramakrishnan (V Ramakrishnan & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: E (father of infant) in-person (absent)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Adoption
• Citation: [2013] SGHC 138

Choo Han Teck J:

This was an appeal by the appellants C and D who are husband and wife. When they married in 2004, D had a six-year old son named BJU from a previous relationship with the son’s natural father E. D and the male appellant C have a son of their own F, born in 2006. D is a Senior Trust and Corporate Officer earning $4,700 a month and C is a hawker earning $2,678 a month. E, who was previously jailed for nine months for being absent from his national service duties without official leave, is currently serving a six-year prison sentence for a drug offence. He is due to be released in about two years’ time.

C and D have changed BJU’s name by deed poll to B so that his surname is the same as that of C and F. E had ceased having access to B since 2008 when he also ceased paying maintenance. C and D applied to adopt B as their son and a report by the Senior Child Welfare Officer (“SCWO”) from the Ministry of Social and Family Development supported the application. However, E objected to the application and the judge below took into account E’s objection and refused the application by C and D for an adoption order in respect of B and for a dispensation of the consent of E.

The judge below accepted the SCWO’s report and recommendation, and noted that the relationship between D and E was a tumultuous one with frequent quarrels which she attributed to “their inability to cope as a very young couple”. She took into account the “sadness” of E and the fact that B was brought up more by D’s mother than by the appellants themselves. The judge below referred to s 4(4) of the Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4, 1985 Rev Ed) which provided that the consent of the natural parents must be obtained unless the person whose consent is to be dispensed with: (a) has abandoned, neglected, persistently ill-treated the infant or cannot be found and that reasonable notice of the application for an adoption order has been given to the parent or guardian where the parent or guardian can be found; (b) is unfit by reason of any physical or mental incapacity to have the care and control of the infant, that the unfitness is likely to continue indefinitely and that reasonable notice of the application for an adoption order has been given to the parent or the guardian; or (c) ought, in the opinion of the court and in all the circumstances of the case to be dispensed with, notwithstanding that such person may have made suitable initial arrangements...