JUDGMENT

Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

On 5 September 1991, Joyce Kala Vandaiyar (hereinafter called "Joyce"), was born to Jamuna a/p A.S. Sockalingam and Chandrasekaran a/l Thangavelu (hereinafter referred to as "the natural parents"). This child was left in the care of the grandmother immediately after being discharged from hospital. Joyce only stayed with her for six months as in April 1992 the grandmother left for India. Quite promptly, on 1 May 1992 the natural parents brought Joyce to the house of AL Annamalai and Vasantha d/o K Sockalingam Chettiar, respectively the brother-in-law and sister of Jamuna. Jamuna requested that these two persons (hereinafter referred to as "the adopted parents") nurture and take care of Joyce. For good measure the original birth certificate was left with them. The natural mother vide a letter dated 9 April 1996 (exh. A3), conceded that the adopted parents had been Joyce's "guardian and foster parents since 1992," and supported any decision taken by them regarding Joyce's education and overall well being. The natural parents on the other hand, in their affidavit (encl. 7), denied that they had de facto given away Joyce for adoption.

It was not denied by all parties that at that juncture the natural parents were being beset by marital problems. It was also not denied that during that adoptive period, visits were made by the natural parents to see the child. Problems began for the adopted parents when on 18 December 1998, about six years and seven months later, Jamuna appeared on the scene, informing them, that she was on the verge of a reconciliation with her husband. To cement that dawn of a new era, Joyce was required to be returned to their folds. Unfortunately she failed in that attempt as Joyce refused to follow her. The aftermath of this incident was that a police report was made by the adopted parents. Thenceforth bad blood brewed and the relationship of these two family units deteriorated. To cut the story short, the natural parents filed an originating motion registered as 25-13-1998 (interchangeably referred to as "the habeas corpus action"), for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Joyce was being detained against her will. The adopted parents, not wishing to be left out of the legal arena, filed Originating Summons No. 24-30-1999 (interchangeably referred to as "the adoption action") praying for the legal adoption of Joyce pursuant to the Adoption Act 1952. At the hearing date, due to the intertwining nature of the two actions, what with the facts being applicable for both, parties agreed that the court hear the adoption case first, with the other bound by that decision.

This adoption case is one of those dreaded cases where no amount of precedents or legal provisions could neutralise the highly charged atmosphere prevailing at the material time in court. It is not a simple scenario of the judge unfeelingly being required to hand over the child to the natural parents or ensuring that the child is entrenched with the adopted parents, without due consideration of the other condition precedents.

For the proceedings, I had the benefit of the affidavits of both parties and the report from the welfare department. In the privacy of my chambers, without the presence of solicitors I managed to elicit the views of Joyce pertaining to the adoption application. Present at that material time was one Puan Jasvendar Kaur, an interpreter of my court.

Assessment And Evidence Of The Child

Even though there is no requirement in law for me to interview the child, as her wishes could be communicated through the report of the welfare department, in the circumstances of the case I thought it was wise to do so (Re G (An Infant) [1963] 2 QB 73). Before eliciting any evidence from her I conversed casually with her, in the hope of breaking the ice and dispel any possible inhibition that she might suffer from. My good intentions were unnecessary. As it were, I could safely confide that she instead was the one