JUDGMENT

James Foong FCJ:

Introduction

(1) To fully appreciate the four questions posed to us, we shall start by stating the facts of this case. We shall describe the parties as they were in the court of first instance.

Background

(2) The plaintiff is an American citizen. In December 1998, when he was in Malaysia, he met the 1st defendant, a Malaysian of Chinese origin. They started dating. Sometime in April 1999, the 1st defendant travelled to the United States of America to visit the plaintiff. There at the Little Church of the West, in Las Vegas, she got "married" to the plaintiff. After that, the 1st defendant returned to Malaysia while the plaintiff remained in America.

(3) On 21 March 2000, the 1st defendant gave birth to a boy in Kuala Lumpur. She gave him an English name followed by the Chinese name but for the sake of the child we shall refer him as J. The 1st defendant must have indicated to the plaintiff that J is his son for soon after birth, the plaintiff travelled to Malaysia to be with the 1st defendant and J. He even attended Js christening ceremony. Subsequently, the plaintiff claimed to have travelled to Malaysia on a number of occasions to see the 1st defendant and J and at one time all three travelled to Manila. Initially, according to the plaintiff, he had planned for the 1st defendant and J to live in America but when it became apparent that the 1st defendant was reluctant, he dropped the idea. Nevertheless, he continued to send money to the 1st defendant for herself and J.

(4) Sometime in September 2004, intending to set up a more structured maintenance scheme for J, the plaintiff engaged the services of a firm of solicitors. Through them, he discovered that in Js birth certificate he is not named the father. Instead, it was "Engelbertus Antonious Marius Van Hoek" ("Bart"). Prior to this, the plaintiff claimed that the 1st defendant had informed and shown to him a copy of Js birth certificate listing his name as the father of this child. He later discovered that this document was tampered with to make it appear that he was the father. Why this was done will soon become apparent as the saga unfolds.

(5) When the plaintiff realized this, he secured a profiling test for J and himself. It confirmed that he is the natural father of J. But things did not stop there. In the course of this, he discovered that J was adopted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants on 18 February 2004 and they have subsequently converted him into the Islamic faith. Js name was changed to an Islamic name.

(6) The 2nd defendant is the sister of the 1st defendant. She has converted to the Islamic faith when she married the 3rd defendant, a Muslim. Initially, the 2nd defendant had assisted the 1st defendant in looking after J when the latter went to work. Eventually, according to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, J was left to their care and ultimately, the 1st defendant consented to their adoption of J. This, however, was denied by the 1st defendant who insisted that at no time had she relinquished custody of J to the 2nd and 3rd defendants though she admitted, except when she was at work. As to the adoption, she maintained that she has never consented to it nor to the conversion of J to the Islamic faith and the change of his name.

(7) Enraged by this, both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant took out originating summonses against the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. In the plaintiffs application, he requested that:

(a) he be declared the biological father of J;

(b) the 4th and 5th defendants (who are the Registrar of Births and Deaths and Registrar of Adoptions respectively) rectify their respective registers to name him as the father;

(c) the 4th defendant rename J to his original name;

(d) the adoption of J by the 2nd and 3rd defendants be declared null and void;

(e) he be granted sole custody and guardianship of J;

(f) the conversion of J to the Islamic faith be declared null and void;

(g) the 3rd and 4th defendants to deliver