SINGAPORE, Dec 17 — A gay Singaporean doctor will be allowed to adopt his five-year-old biological son born in the United States through a surrogate mother.
In a landmark decision on today, the High Court overturned an earlier ruling that rejected the man’s bid.
Delivering the three-judge panel’s decision, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the concern not to violate the public policy against the formation of same-sex family units is not powerful enough to ignore the imperative to promote the welfare of the child.
There is evidence to show that the welfare of the child would be materially advanced by the court granting an adoption order, said CJ Menon. “With not insignificant difficulty, therefore, we conclude that an adoption order ought to be made in this case.”
An adoption order would increase the child’s prospects of securing Singapore citizenship and possible long-term residence in Singapore, where his natural father and family support structures are, noted the High Court.
This has significant bearing on the child’s sense of security and emotional well-being, as well as the long-term stability of his care arrangements, the High Court said in its 145-page judgment.
The child is an American citizen. He was born with the man’s sperm and an egg from an anonymous donor, then carried to term by the surrogate mother.
Last year, the lower court had rejected the man’s application to adopt his biological son, saying the man was well aware that the medical procedures — such as in-vitro fertilisation — undertaken to have his own child would not have been possible in Singapore. He cannot then “come to the Courts of the very same jurisdiction to have the acts condoned”, ruled District Judge Shobha Nair last December.
The 46-year-old man, who works as a pathologist, and his partner — who is also a Singaporean and of the same age — of about 13 years chose to enable the birth of the child by having the in-vitro and surrogate procedures in the United States.
In Singapore, assisted reproduction can only be provided to a married woman with the consent of her spouse. And while the law here does not explicitly prohibit surrogacy, the Ministry of Health prohibits licensed healthcare institutions from providing assisted reproduction services to carry out surrogacy.
“Having so chosen, (the man) seeks to have the courts of Singapore allow the adoption of the child by pointing to the principle of the ‘welfare of the child’,” said the lower court.
The man’s legal bid to adopt the child “is in reality an attempt to obtain a desired result — that is, formalising a parent-child relationship in order to obtain certain benefits such as citizenship rights, by walking through the back door of the system when the front door was firmly shut”, the lower court added.
The child’s welfare does not demand unlocking the back door, the lower court said.
“An adoption order in this particular case serves no other purpose than to ensure that the interests of the adult are not compromised. It does not further the interests of a four-year-old child… (who) will thrive anywhere if in the hands of loving people,” the district judge said.
Menon said the High Court’s decision should not be taken as an endorsement of what the man and his partner set out to do.
He noted the “difficult interplay between law and public policy” in this case, saying: “The law is asked to provide the answer to a dilemma that challenges the mores of a largely conservative society, and this arises partly because science has devised a new paradigm for procreation.”
The court’s role is to apply the law, said Menon. “It is not to determine social policy in our country or to be a player in what has sometimes been seen as the ‘culture wars’ that assail society.” — Today
