Re XYZ (an infant): Adoption Order Amendment and Jurisdiction Dispute
In Re XYZ (an infant), the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the amendment of an adoption order. The appellants sought to remove the infant's original name from his adopted name. The Attorney-General objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction post-adoption order. Woo Bih Li JC dismissed the appeal, holding that the court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to amend the order, finding that the change of name for an adopted infant arises only when an adoption order is made.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to amend an adoption order to change an infant's name after the order was perfected. The court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Won | Won | Dyan Zuzarte of Attorney-General |
| Appellants | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| XYZ | Respondent | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Dyan Zuzarte | Attorney-General |
| Halimah bte Abdul Jalil | HA Jalil & Associates |
4. Facts
- An adoption order was made in 1997 in respect of the infant in favour of the Appellants.
- The infant's full name conferred by the Adoption Order included his original name which referred to the name of his natural father.
- In 2002, the Appellants applied to amend the Adoption Order to delete any reference in the adopted name to the infant’s original name.
- 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.
- The infant was in contact with his natural siblings who told him that he is not the natural son of the Appellants but of his natural father.
- The Appellants did not respond to his inquisitiveness by telling him the truth.
- The Attorney-General 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.
5. Formal Citations
- Re XYZ (an infant), Adp P 377/1996, RA 720037/2002, [2002] SGHC 184
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Adoption Petition No 143 of 1990 was heard by Michael Hwang JC. | |
| Chan Sek Keong J heard Re ABZ (An infant) [1992] 2 SLR 445. | |
| Adp P 377/1996 case number assigned. | |
| Adoption Order made in respect of the infant in favour of the Appellants. | |
| Birth certificate of the infant issued. | |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [2001] 4 SLR 25 was cited. | |
| Appellants applied to amend the Adoption Order. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Adoption Order
- Outcome: The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to amend the Adoption Order after it had been made and perfected.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction of court after making and perfecting of order
- Court's power to vary order instead of amending it
- Jurisdiction of Court
- Outcome: The court determined it was functus officio after the adoption order was made.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Amendment of adoption order
- 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.
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Adoption Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re ABZ (An infant) | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inability to change a birth certificate issued pursuant to section 12 of the Adoption of Children Act to reflect a change of name and the possibility of re-adoption under section 9 of the Act. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited in relation to O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court regarding the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4) | Singapore |
| s 9 Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4) | Singapore |
| s 12 Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Amendment) Act 1993 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter Act (Cap 353) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adoption order
- Amendment
- Jurisdiction
- Functus officio
- Re-adoption
- Birth certificate
- Change of name
15.2 Keywords
- Adoption
- Amendment of adoption order
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Family Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Adoptions | 90 |
| Family Law | 70 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Adoption
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure