Re XYZ (an infant)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li JC
• Judgment Date: 16 August 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 184
• Docket Number: Adoption Petition No 377 of 1996 (Registrar's Appeal No 720037 of 2002)
• Date: 16 August 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Plaintiff Counsel: Halimah bte Abdul Jalil (HA Jalil & Associates)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 184
• Defendant Counsel: Dyan Zuzarte (State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Time when infant's change of name occurs,ss 9 & 12 Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4),Whether possible to amend infant's name after making and perfecting of order,Family Law,Whether possible to re-apply to re-adopt infant,Whether court has any jurisdiction or is functus officio after adoption order made,Adoption,Whether adoptive parents have any legal recourse,Whether court can vary order instead of amending it,Amendment of adoption order

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Introduction

1. The infant, who was the subject of the appeal before me, was born in the mid-1990s. He is a male Malay.

2. On 21 March 1997, an adoption order was made (‘the Adoption Order’) in respect of the infant in favour of the Appellants whose names I am also not mentioning because of the sensitive nature of the matter before me. The Appellants are also Malays.

3. At the time the Adoption Order was made, the full name of the infant conferred by the Adoption Order included his original name which in turn referred to the name of his natural father e.g the adopted name was XYZ Bin M, ‘M’ being the name of his natural father.

4. As a result, the birth certificate of the infant issued on 30 May 1997 reflects the adopted name but save as aforesaid, there is no suggestion therein that the infant is adopted by the Appellants whose names are recorded in the birth certificate as his father and mother.

5. In 2002, the Appellants applied to amend the Adoption Order to delete any reference in the adopted name to the infant’s original name and for an order that the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths be directed to re-register the birth and issue a new birth certificate in accordance with the amended Adoption Order.

6. In their supporting affidavit, the Appellants said they had not deleted the original name of the infant from the adopted name at the time when they applied to adopt him because they believed that neither the natural father, his wife or his family would disclose to the infant his true identity after the Adoption Order was made. I should add that the natural father is a brother of the adopting mother.

7. As events turned out, the infant was in contact with his natural siblings.

8. Apparently for the last three months before the application was made, these children, as well as other cousins of the infant, have been telling him that he is not the natural son of the Appellants but of his natural father. This caused him to be very sad and inquisitive. By then, he was about seven years of age.

9. For better or worse, the Appellants did not respond to his inquisitiveness by telling him the truth. Instead, they told him that he is their son, meaning their natural son. The infant then insisted on seeing his birth certificate thus causing the Appellants to be afraid that he would be ‘terribly emotionally affected’ when he learns the truth.

10. Hence, the application was made to amend the Adoption Order. The application was heard by District Judge Regina Ow. The Attorney-General who was the guardian ad litem for the infant pending the making of the Adoption Order appeared and objected to the application on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to amend the Adoption Order as the court was functus officio after the Adoption Order was made.

11. The District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that she had no jurisdiction to amend the Adoption Order. The Appellants then appealed and I heard their appeal. After hearing submissions, I dismissed the appeal. I now give my written reasons.

My reasons

12. Ms Dyan Zuzarte, from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, drew my attention to an unreported decision of Michael Hwang JC (as he then was) in Adoption Petition No 143 of 1990 where he held that he had no power to allow amendment of an infant’s name to include his Hanyu Pinyin name after the adoption order was made and perfected. However, no written reasons were given.

13. Counsel for the Appellants, Ms Halimah Bte Abdul Jalil argued that that decision was wrong.

14. She submitted that the court had jurisdiction to amend the Adoption Order notwithstanding that it had been made and perfected. She relied on s 16 and 17 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) but it was quite clear to me that those provisions did not address the question whether the court had jurisdiction to amend an order after it was made and perfected. Moreover, the initial application of the Appellants for...