Re XYZ (an infant) [2002] 4 SLR 339
High Court — Adoption Petition No 377 of 1996 (Registrar’s Appeal No 720037 of 2002)
Woo Bih Li JC
25 July, 14, 16 August 2002

Adoption — Amendment of adoption order — Whether infant’s name on adoption order may be amended after order made and perfected — Whether court has any jurisdiction or is functus officio after adoption order made

Halimah bte Abdul Jalil (HA Jalil & Associates) for the appellants.
Dyan Zuzarte (State Counsel) for the Attorney General.

The appellants applied to amend the adoption order of their adopted child by deleting any reference in the adopted name to the name of the infant’s natural father. They also applied 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.

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.

The district judge dismissed the application on the ground that she had no jurisdiction to amend the adoption order. The appellants then appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

The district judge was correct in concluding that the court had no jurisdiction to amend the adoption order after it had been made and perfected, unless the amendment was being sought under the slip-rule, which was not the case here.

Under s 12 of the Adoption of Children Act (Cap 4), the change of name for an adopted infant arises only when an adoption order is made.

It was not possible for both the appellants to apply to re-adopt the infant under s 9 of the Adoption of Children Act because s 9 envisages re-adoption by different adopting parents.