Re C (WNJ and another, applicants)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jason Gabriel Chiang
• Judgment Date: 12 June 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGFC 17
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons (Adoption) No. 299 of 2020, (Request for Further Hearing of Originating Summons No. 67 of 2022)
• Hearing Date: 11 August 2022,30 November 2022,04 January 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGFC 17
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Michael Loh Yik Ming of M/s Clifford Law LLP
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Ho May Kim & Ms Eliza Chee of Attorney-General's Chambers
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Adoption of Children Act 1939,Adoption,Adoption by Grandparents
• Published date: 17 June 2023

District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang: Introduction

At the centre of this case was the issue of whether it would be in the best welfare of the child to allow the Applicants (i.e. the maternal grandparents) to adopt their grandchild (the “Child”; [C]) or whether there were any policy reasons as to why the Courts should be slow in granting any such adoptions.

In this case, the grandparents had applied to adopt their grandchild. Their daughter had given birth to the child, out of wedlock, when she was still a minor and she had consented to the adoption. The natural mother was reported to lack maturity and there were concerns over her mental health as she had made 2 prior attempts at suicide and further exhibited self-harm tendencies and certain emotional volatility. The natural father was unknown.

I had appointed the Director-General of Social Welfare to be the Guardian in Adoption (“GIA”) on 22 January 2021 to conduct investigations into the matter. Based on the interviews, facts and documents available to the GIA, it was observed and reported that the child was developing well under the Applicants’ care and that the Applicants, who have a stable relationship, were committed to the care of the Child and also shared a good relationship with him. Notwithstanding this, the GIA objected as this would be a “fundamental distortion of the original familial relationships (i.e. this would turn the natural relationship of grandparent and grandchild to that of parent and child and the Child and his Birth Mother would also end up becoming siblings by order of law)” and that “[t]his is against the order of nature and contrary to the Child’s welfare, and the GIA notes that there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case that may justify the making of an adoption order”. In the circumstances, on balance, the GIA assessed the adoption to not be in the Child’s welfare.

As allegations had been made by the Applicants pertaining to the officer of the GIA in their reply affidavits, the GIA was invited to participate in the proceedings. Hence, on 30 May 2022, the Director-General of Social Welfare as the GIA was requested to be added as a party and the GIA appointed the Attorney-General’s Chambers (Civil Division) (“AGC”) as their solicitors.

After several case conferences, I heard the arguments substantively on 11 August and 30 November 2023 and rendered my decision on 30 November 2023. I ultimately found that the adoption of the Child by the Applicants would be in the best welfare of the Child and that there was not a public policy argument that grandparents should not be allowed to adopt their grandchildren that overrode the paramount welfare of the Child. In the circumstances, I allowed the adoption.

There was an issue as to costs, for which a further hearing had been fixed on 20 January 2023, however, the Applicants and the GIA reached an agreement for each party to bear their own costs. As such, the matter was concluded on 4 January 2023 with the recording of the costs order.

Neither the GIA nor the Applicants appealed against this decision. However, both the Applicants’ counsel and AGC requested that a written decision be reported. I also found this to be helpful as there are and have been a significant number of other applications whereby grandparents have applied to adopt their grandchild. In the circumstances, my grounds of decision are provided below.

Facts The parties

The Applicants were both Singaporean in their late forties or early fifties. The Male Applicant was a Civil Servant, and the Female Applicant was a homemaker. They were married in Singapore in November 1997 and had the Natural Mother as their only child.

The Natural Mother gave birth to a Singaporean male child in 2020 (the “Child”). At the time of the order, the Natural Mother had just turned 21 years old, but when she had given birth to the Child when she was only 18 years old. The Natural Mother had shared that she felt very stressed while preparing for her “A” Level examinations and turned to casual unprotected sex to alleviate her stress. These sexual encounters were both in Singapore and overseas when the family had gone on holiday. The Natural Mother reported that she felt devastated when she found out about the pregnancy and it took a week before she mustered up the courage to tell her parents, i.e. the Applicants, about it.

Due to the multiple sexual partners whom she did not keep in contact with, the Natural Mother did not know the identity of the Natural Father and was not able to ascertain his identity. As such, no Natural Father was named in the birth certificate of the Child. Additionally, as there was no known Natural Father, his consent to this application was neither required nor dispensed with.

Since birth, the Child was looked after by the Applicants. The Child was observed to be well-cared, provided for and loved by the Applicants. The Natural Mother continued to reside with the Applicants and the Child, but besides some brief interactions with the Child, she did not take on any duties as a mother.

The Applicants applied to adopt the Child on 23 November 2020, when the Child was 6 months old. At the time of my decision, the Child was about 2 and half years old.

Background to the dispute

The Applicants commenced Originating Summons (Adoption) No. 299 of 2020 (FC/OSA 299/2020; “OSA 299”) on 23 November 2020 to adopt the Child. The Applicants also filed their Supporting Affidavit dated 20 November 2020 (the “Applicants’ 1st Affidavit”) and the affidavit of the Natural Mother also dated 20 November 2020, explaining the circumstances of the birth of the Child (the “Natural Mother’s 1st Affidavit”). The Natural Mother was around 19 years old and a minor at the time of the application, and while she filed her Consent, the Applicants as her parents also filed their Consent.

The matter was first heard on 18 December 2020, where the Applicants were directed to make some amendments. The Consent of the GIA was subsequently filed on 22 January 2021. Also on 22 January 2021, as all preliminary matters were satisfactorily settled, the matter was heard by me, and I granted prayers (a) and (b) of Originating Summons (Amendment No. 1) for the appointment of the Director-General of Social Welfare and the dispensation of service of the originating summons, notice to hear originating summons and all subsequent documents filed in these proceedings on the Natural Mother.

Investigations were conducted by the GIA for about a year and on 16 December 2021, the Child Welfare Officer (“CWO”) executed an affidavit on behalf of the GIA (the “GIA’s 1st Affidavit”). At paragraphs 20 to 24 of the GIA’s 1st Affidavit, it was stated that: 20. The Chid was observed and reported to be developing well under the Applicants’ care. The Applicant are assessed to share a stable marital relationship and are able to resolve any disagreements amicably. They are committed to the care of the Child and share a good relationship with him. 21. Notwithstanding the above, this is a case of the grandparents intending to adopt their grandchild. If the proposed adoption is permitted to proceed, there will be a fundamental distortion of the original familial relationships (i.e. this would turn the natural relationship of grandparent and grandchild to that of parent and child and the Child and his Birth Mother would also end up becoming siblings by order of law). This is against the order of nature and contrary to the Child’s welfare, and the GIA notes that there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case that may justify the making of an adoption order. 22. In particular, the GIA notes that the Birth Mother continues to live together with the Applicants and the Child as a family unit, and that it is intended that the Birth Mother will continue to play an active part in the Child’s life for the foreseeable future, including assisting to care for him and playing with him. Yet, as mentioned above, the Child addresses the Applicants as “Mama” and “Papa”, and the Birth Mother as “Jie Jie”. The Child will thus grow up wrongly believing that the Birth Mother is his sister, and the Applicants are his parents. The Female Applicant shared that the Birth mother is the best choice for the role of an alternative caregiver for the Child. However, the GIA notes that there is no one else the family can name or turn to for support as the Child’s birth history is kept strictly within the family. Similarly, should the Child find out above his birth history in future, there is no one else outside his immediate family that he can turn to for support. It remains unclear if he would also have to participate in keeping his birth history under wraps from his extended family and all other people when he becomes aware of it. 23. Furthermore, when the Child grows up and discovers his birth history and the circumstances of the adoption, it is likely to cause him confusion, and would be potentially detrimental to his mental and emotional well-being. As stated above, at the point of the relevant interviews with the Applicants, it had been observed that the Applicants did not seem to have fully considered the concrete ways in which they could help the Child cope with the truth when he finds out about his birth history. Any emotional or psychological trauma that the Child may suffer when he finds out about the true relationship between himself, the Applicants and the Birth Mother may be compounded if the Applicants are not adequately prepared to help the Child to cope with the truth. The GIA therefore takes the view that, although the Applicants share a close bond with the Child, the risks of possible trauma suffered by the Child in the event of the truth being disclosed is likely to outweigh the benefits which an adoption might bring. 24. On balance, based on the facts and documents that are available to me, as well as the...