District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang:
Introduction
This case revolved around a difficult situation involving the adoption of a child by foster parents where the natural father contested proceedings. Considerations of the paramount welfare of the child had to be weighed against the wishes of the natural father for a potential reunification with his daughter, whom he only had some brief contact with.
I had appointed the Director-General of Social Welfare to be the Guardian in Adoption (the “GIA”) on 18 June 2021 to conduct investigations into the matter. Based on the interviews, facts and documents available to the GIA, it was assessed that the adoption would be in the Child’s best welfare. On 25 November 2022, having heard the arguments by the Applicants and the Natural Father, who was legally aided, I too, found that the adoption would be in the Child’s best welfare and allowed the adoption. The Natural Father being dissatisfied with this decision, has appealed it.
Facts
The parties
The Applicants were both Singaporean in their mid-thirties. The Male Applicant was an aircraft technician, and the Female Applicant was a homemaker. They were married in Singapore in August 2008 but had no biological children of their own. The Applicants had previously been appointed as the foster parents of a Singaporean female child born in 2014 (the “Child”). The Applicants were subsequently also appointed to be the foster parents of 2 younger children from different families.
At the time of my decision, the Child had recently turned 8-years-old. The Child had been placed in the care of the Applicants by Child Protective Services (“CPS”) about a month after her birth, as both of the Child’s Natural Parents were incarcerated for respective offences. The Child was born while the Natural Mother was still incarcerated. As neither side of the Natural Parent’s family members were able to care for the Child, both Natural Parents, at that time, agreed to the Child being placed in foster care.
The Natural Mother and the Natural Father were both Singaporean and were also married, but due to their various prison incarcerations, they had not spent time together since before the Child was born in 2014. The Natural Father had indicated that he intended to divorce the Natural Mother.
The Natural Mother subsequently consented to the Applicants’ adoption of the Child. However, when adoption proceedings were being contemplated, the Applicant’s lawyers had visited the Natural Father in prison to discuss the matter, and he had indicated that he was unwilling to consent to the Applicants’ adoption of the Child.
While the Natural Mother ceased to have contact with the Child after birth, after the Natural Father was released from prison, some supervised visitations were arranged for the Natural Father to familiarize himself with the Child in the hopes of an eventual reunification. However, the Natural Father defaulted on a significant number of such sessions and was subsequently incarcerated again for another drug-related offence, where he remained during the majority of these proceedings. This was the only contact the Natural Father had with the Child.
The Applicants, the Natural Parents and the Child were all Malay and of Islamic faith.
Background to the dispute
The Applicant commenced Originating Summons (Adoption) No. 176 of 2020 (FC/OSA 176/2020; “OSA 176”) on 17 July 2020 to adopt the Child. While the Applicants had filed the Consent of the Natural Mother and had indicated that the Natural Father had intended to contest the proceeding, they had yet to serve the court papers on the Natural Father by the time of the 1st hearing.
At the 1st hearing of OSA 176 on 7 August 2020, I had directed the Applicants to serve the court papers on the Natural Father in prison and to file an affidavit of service. The Natural Father subsequently wrote to the Court stating that he did not agree to the adoption and intended to engage a lawyer to contest the application. In the circumstances, I made an order to bring the Natural Father up from prisons for the 2nd hearing.
At the 2nd hearing on 28 August 2020, the Natural Father informed the Court hat he had applied for Legal Aid assistance and needed time for their assessment and recommendation. At the same time, the Applicants were awaiting the Consent of the Director-General of Social Welfare to be appointed as the GIA. As such, the matter was adjourned. It was status quo at the 3rd Hearing on 2 October 2020 and the matter was further adjourned.
On 5 November 2020, the Applicants filed the Consent of the GIA. At the 4th Hearing on 6 November 2020, the Natural Father informed the Court that his request for Legal Aid had been approved, but that the assigned lawyer would be contacting him soon thereafter. In the circumstances, the matter was further adjourned. On 9 February 2020, the Grant of Aid was filed with the appointment of 1st set of solicitors for the Natural Father.
At the 5th hearing on 16 April 2021, the Natural Father’s 1st set of legally appointed lawyers informed the Court that they had just met with the Natural Father at the end of March 2021 and would be rendering an opinion to the Legal Aid Bureau (“LAB”) on the matter before taking any further steps. Subsequently, on 3 May 2021, Legal Aid was cancelled with the Natural Father’s 1st set of LAB-appointed lawyers ceasing to be his counsel. However, on 11 May 2021, the Natural Father filed a notice of appointment of newly appointed lawyers also assigned through LAB.
At the 6th Hearing on 14 May 2021, the Natural Father’s lawyers informed the Court that the Grant of Legal Aid was still being sorted out and that the Natural Father was seeking to file an affidavit in reply. In the circumstances, I fixed timelines for the filing of the Natural Father’s affidavit and for parties to file their written submissions for the application. I also presented the Natural Father with the option of whether he would prefer for the GIA to complete their investigations before arguments are made for his contest of the adoption and the determination of whether the Natural Father’s Consent was to be dispensed with or not. The Natural Father’s counsel informed the Court that they would take further instructions on this.
On 14 June 2021, the Natural Father filed his reply affidavit and the Grant of Legal Aid. On 17 June 2021, the Applicants filed a further reply affidavit and both the Applicants and the Natural Father filed their respective Written Submissions, albeit late.
At the 7th Hearing on 18 June 2021, The Natural Father’s counsel confirmed that the Natural Father was objecting to the appointment of the GIA and also to the adoption but would reserve full arguments on the objections top the adoption subsequent to the GIA’s investigations. I heard both sides’ oral arguments and granted the order for the appointment of the GIA to conduct investigations on the intended adoption but adjourned the issue of the adoption and dispensation of the Consent of the Natural Father till such investigations were to be completed. I found that an independent neutral parties’ assessment of the circumstances of the case would provide the Court with significant assistance before making any further determinations. I also allowed both sides liberty to file reply affidavits after GIA’s affidavit containing their investigation report had been filed and for further written submissions to be filed before the next hearing of the matter.
On 13 December 2021, the Natural Father filed an affidavit to reply to certain allegations made in the Applicants’ affidavit filed on 17 June 2021, which I retrospectively provided leave to admit.
On 3 August 2022, the Applicants filed a Request for Further Hearing of Originating Summons, FC/RFH 135/2022 (“RFH 135”), with GIA’s Affidavit, supporting the adoption. A hearing was fixed for 23 September 2022 to allow parties to file their affidavits and written submissions beforehand.
At the 8th hearing of the matter, but the 1st hearing of RFH 135, on 23 September 2022, the Natural Father’s counsel updated the court that the Natural Father was being released from prison shortly and would be placed in a halfway house. In the circumstances, the Natural Father was seeking an extension of time for the filing of his affidavit in reply to GIA’s Affidavit. The Applicants had raised no objections to this, save that they be at liberty to file a reply affidavit to this a week after. In the circumstances, I directed for the filing of both the Natural Father’s and the Applicants’ affidavits and written submissions and fixed a hearing on 11 November 2022 for oral arguments. Due to scheduling issues, this hearing had to be adjourned to 25 November 2022 instead.
The Natural Father filed his affidavit late on 18 October 2022, and thus, I extended the timeline for the Applicants to file their reply affidavit, which they did by 25 October 2022. Written Submissions were filed by the Natural Father on 3 November 2022 and by the Applicants on 4 November 2022.
On 25 November 2022, having considered the evidence, the written submissions and oral arguments by parties, I decided to dispense with the Natural Father’s Consent and grant the adoption to the Applicants. This order was subsequently extracted on 2 December 2022, and as the matter was concluded, the cancellation of grant of aid and notice of ceasing to act for the Natural Father was filed on 5 December 2022.
The Natural Father being displeased with my decision filed an appeal, HCF/DCA 111/2022 on 6 December 2022, with a provisional grant of aid with LAB appointed as his solicitors. Hence, I set out the full grounds of my decision below.
Issues to be determined
This is a unique case whereby the Applicants have had the care of the Child, shortly after her birth in 2014, having been placed in their foster care by social services. So, the only...
