Re Wan Yijun and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 25 September 1990
• Date: 25 September 1990
• Docket Number: Adoption Petitions Nos 51 and 52 of 1989
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Wan Yijun and another

[1990] SGHC 65

Wee Chong Jin CJ

Adoption Petitions Nos 51 and 52 of 1989

High Court

Family Law–Adoption–Whether consent of natural mother should be dispensed with–Welfare principle–Section 4 (4) provisos (a), (b), (c) and ss 5 (a) and 5 (b) Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4, 1985 Rev Ed)

The male petitioner was the natural father of twin girls who were born to the respondent natural mother, out of their previous relationship. The male petitioner subsequently married his present wife. The parents of the twins severed their relationship and the natural mother had custody of the twins. An agreement was made with respect to the adoption of the twins but the natural mother subsequently withdrew her consent. In these proceedings, the petitioner and his wife are applying for an adoption order in respect of the girls. The petitioners argued that the court had jurisdiction to dispense with her consent under the Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). They alleged that the natural mother was a compulsive gambler, a dance hostess and had attempted suicide. The petitioners also argued that they were suitable adoptive parents as they could provide a family and a conducive environment for the twins. The natural mother countered that both petitioners had physically abused the children and that the male petitioner had assaulted the female petitioner on previous occasions.

Held, dismissing the petitions:

(1) A plain reading of s 4 (4) provisos (a) and (b) of the Act shows that both (a) and (b) had something related to the misconduct of the person whose consent is to be dispensed with. For consent to be dispensed with under proviso 4 (4) (c), there must be some “culpability” in the conduct, albeit not serious enough to fall within s 4 (4) (a) or 4 (4) (b), on the part of the person whose consent is to be dispensed with: at [29].

(2) Section 5 (b) of the Act required the court to be satisfied that the adoption order, if made, would be for the infant's welfare. The word “welfare” meant the infant's benefit or advantage: at [30] to [33].

(3) Having regard to all the circumstances, the court held that the consent of the natural mother should not be dispensed with. There was nothing in her conduct which questioned her ability and capacity to be a good mother: at [43].

(4) The court held that it would not be in the welfare of the twins to be brought up by the petitioners. There was clear evidence that the relationship between the petitioners was not stable; the male petitioner had assaulted the female petitioner on several occasions. There were also allegations of child abuse against the twins by the female petitioner which were investigated though no prosecution was made: at [45] to [47].

(5) The only factor in the petitioners' favour was the material advantage they could offer the twins. That alone was insufficient to grant an adoption order. It was for the natural mother to choose whether to bring up the twins with her own means or to allow the petitioners to do so and she was entitled to choose the former: at [48].

A (An Infant), In re [1963] 1 WLR 231 (refd)

D, An Infant, In re [1959] 1 QB 229 (refd)

F (An Infant), Re [1957] 1 All ER 819 (refd)

Hitchcock v WB [1952] 2 QB 561; [1952] 2 All ER 119 (refd)

Mace v Murray [1954-1955] 92 CLR 370 (folld)

S S, Re [1974-1976] SLR (R) 230; [1972-1974] SLR 631 (refd)

Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4, 1985Rev Ed)ss 4 (4)provisos (a), (b), (c), 5 (a), 5 (b) (consd)

Adoption of Children Act (1966-1980) (SA)s 27 (1) (e)

Adoption of Children Act1926 (c 29) (UK)s 2 (3)

Adoption of Children Act1950 (c 26) (UK)s 3 (1)

Adoption of Children Act (Vic)s 29

Child Welfare Act (1939-1952) (NSW)s 167 (e)

Richard Sam (Gupta Sam & Wijaya) for the petitioners

K S Chung (Chung & Co) for the respondent

Ng Yuen for the Attorney-General.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

1 In these adoption proceedings, the petitioners are applying for an adoption order in respect of a set of twin girls who were born on 1 December 1983. The twins are also the subject matter of Originating Summons No 352 of 1988 taken out by the natural mother. I dismissed both petitions and now give my reasons.

2 From the affidavits and documents filed, the following facts are not in dispute. The male petitioner, Ban Ah Ping (alias Wan Peng), met the natural mother (Lim Choong Hua) of the twins when they were working at China Pottery in 1981. In or around 1982 both parties cohabited with each other. This state of affairs continued until 1985. In March or April 1982, both parties had gone through some form of customary ceremony dinner. At this dinner both parties presented themselves as husband and wife. Of course, this ceremony did not create a valid marriage under the Women's Charter (Cap 353) even though the natural mother thought they were validly married. Apparently, the reason for the customary ceremony was because the male petitioner's divorce proceedings with his first wife were still pending. The relationship resulted in the birth of the twins.

3 Sometime in November 1985, the natural mother was hospitalised. During this period two events took place. The first was that the male petitioner left her and the second was her discovery that he had married the female petitioner (Ban-Chen Pei Wen), a Taiwanese, on 30 November 1985.

4 Both the male petitioner and the twins' natural mother then severed their relationship. The male petitioner gave custody of the twins to her. He also provided monthly maintenance of $1,000 to $1,500 for the twins. However, the regularity and the cessation of such payments are in dispute.

5 Left alone, the natural mother decided to go into business. This proved to be unsuccessful and she found herself in partnership disputes and costly law suits.

6 Around January 1988, the male petitioner approached her regarding the custody of the twins. They discussed the matter. Though much of the details are in dispute, the following facts are clear:

(a) On 20 January 1988, the male petitioner and natural mother executed two sets of documents, namely, a deed of severance of cohabitation and two consents for adoption of both girls.

(b) The natural mother was to have access to the twins.

(c) The male petitioner would pay the natural mother $200,000.

7 The twins were handed over to the male petitioner on or about 21 January 1988 and adoption papers were filed on 24 February 1988 in the Subordinate Courts. However, there were mounting problems relating to the mother's access to the twins. She withdrew her consent for adoption through her solicitors on 14 March 1988. On 18 March 1988, the Attorney-General was appointed guardian ad litemfor both twins. To overcome the custody problems she commenced an action under the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122) by way of OS 352/1988. Custody of the twins was returned to her on 20 May 1988.

8 The events did not stop there. On or about 31 July 1988 the male petitioner found cane marks...