The Welfare Of The Child Is Paramount: How An Adoption Order Passed Without Consent Of Biological Parents

• Published date: 31 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Family and Matrimonial, Family Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Withers LLP
• Author: Ms Shriveena Naidu and Philippa Hewitt

The cornerstone of family law in Singapore is that the welfare of the child is paramount. This was reiterated in the recent decision of Re B [2020] SGFC 46 ("Re B").

In Re B, the Family Court in Singapore made the surprising and difficult decision to override a biological parents' objections to allow a foster family to adopt a young 5 year old child. Re B serves as a timely reminder to all biological parents that they may lose their children to a foster family if remaining with their biological parents is not seen by the Court as being in their child's welfare.

Brief facts in Re B

The child that was the subject of Re B was born prematurely with his twin sister. The twins suffered from multiple medical concerns after birth, and had to stay in the hospital for care to be given to them. Specifically, the child was born with psoriasis, clubfoot and an inguinal hernia which required surgery.

The twins' biological mother had been incarcerated for a drug related offence only 7 months prior to the twins' birth. When the twins were born, their biological father was also incarcerated for a drug related offence. As time progressed, the twins' biological mother failed to upkeep regular visits, despite the fact that she agreed with the Child Protection Services to visit the twins at least twice a week. The Child Protection Services encountered further difficulty arranging long term plans for the twins. None of the biological parents' relatives proved to be suitable candidates to care for the twins. Given that there was no proper support system for the twins, their biological parents entered into a voluntary care arrangement with the Child Protection Services for the twins to be placed in foster care. Following this, the biological parents then became uncontactable after the child was separated from his twin sister to live with a foster family.

Re B was the child's foster parents' application to adopt the child.

Unfortunately, when Re B came before the Family Court, the twins' biological mother was sentenced to a fresh 5 year imprisonment term for a drug related offence, while their father still remained incarcerated.

The child's biological parents vehemently objected to the adoption on the grounds that the twins should not be separated, and that the biological parents' relatives should care for the children. Quite harshly, the biological father said the following about the Child Protection Services: "Whoever give (sic) them this power - the child is ours and how dare...