She Raised the Child for 20 Years — So Why Did the Court Still Refuse the Adoption When He Was Nearly 19?

A child was taken into a family when he was only about one month old. He remained with the same family throughout his childhood and was raised according to Chinese culture, customs and traditions. For almost 20 years, the woman who raised him treated him as part of her own family.

Yet when she finally decided to formalise the relationship through a legal adoption application, she encountered serious legal obstacles. The High Court ultimately refused the application.

PEN was a 57-year-old widow and businesswoman who already had seven children of her own. Approximately 20 years earlier, an Indonesian domestic worker in her household gave birth to a baby boy, KAL. According to PEN, the domestic worker disappeared shortly after giving birth and was never heard from again.

At the time, KAL was only about one month old. PEN and her late husband took the child into their care out of compassion and raised him as part of their family. He grew up under their care and was brought up according to Chinese culture, customs and traditions.

For the family, KAL had effectively become one of their own.

However, it was not until June 2021 that PEN formally applied to adopt KAL under the Adoption Act 1952. By then, KAL was already approaching 19 years of age, with only approximately six months remaining before his 19th birthday.

What appeared to be an attempt to formalise a relationship that had existed for almost two decades soon became much more complicated.

During the welfare authorities’ examination of KAL’s birth certificate, an important detail emerged: the document recorded KAL as a Muslim.

That single entry raised a fundamental question concerning whether the Adoption Act 1952 could even apply.

Section 31 of the Adoption Act 1952 provides that the Act does not apply to Muslims. Therefore, where the child is legally regarded as a Muslim, the ordinary adoption mechanism under the Act cannot simply be used by non-Muslim adoptive parents to obtain an adoption order.

PEN attempted to argue that KAL had been raised entirely within her family according to Chinese cultural traditions and had not lived according to Islamic practices. She therefore sought to challenge the significance of the religious status recorded in his documents.

The Court, however, did not accept that the practical manner in which the child had been raised could simply overcome the statutory framework governing adoption.

The issue was not merely how KAL had lived, but whether the Adoption Act 1952 was legally applicable to him. Where the statute expressly excludes Muslims, the Court had to consider the legal status of the child within that framework.

Even beyond the religious issue, however, the application faced another significant obstacle: the consent of the biological parent.

Under the Adoption Act 1952, the consent of the biological parents is generally required for an adoption. Where a biological parent cannot be found, an applicant cannot simply tell the Court that the parent has disappeared and expect the requirement to be automatically waived.

If an applicant seeks to dispense with the biological parent’s consent, the Court must be satisfied that appropriate efforts were made to locate that parent before the adoption application was filed.

PEN maintained that KAL’s biological mother had disappeared many years earlier. However, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence showing that PEN had actually made meaningful efforts to locate the woman during the intervening years.

For example, where an applicant claims that a biological parent has been missing for many years, the Court may expect evidence of reasonable attempts to locate that person, such as police reports, newspaper advertisements, enquiries through relatives or other appropriate efforts. In this case, however, PEN did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that she had actively searched for KAL’s biological mother during those 20 years.

The length of time involved also became significant.

If KAL had entered PEN’s care when he was approximately one month old and his biological mother had disappeared around that time, why had the formal adoption application only been made when KAL was almost 19 years old?

That 20-year gap was something the Court could not simply ignore.

It was not enough for PEN to say that she did not know where the biological mother was. When an applicant asks the Court to dispense with a biological parent’s consent, the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to justify why that requirement should be waived. A mere assertion that the parent could not be found, particularly after many years without formal action, was insufficient.

The case also highlights an important distinction that is sometimes misunderstood by the public: the welfare of the child is highly important, but it does not mean that every statutory requirement in an adoption case can simply be disregarded.

In custody disputes, the welfare of the child is often a central consideration. Adoption, however, involves a separate statutory framework. The Court must still comply with the requirements of the Adoption Act 1952, including the requirements concerning biological parental consent and, where appropriate, whether there is sufficient justification for dispensing with that consent.

The High Court ultimately dismissed PEN’s adoption application.

The outcome may appear harsh when viewed purely from the perspective of the family’s actual life together. PEN had cared for KAL for approximately 20 years. She had provided him with a home and raised him according to her family’s cultural traditions. Nevertheless, the Court was not simply deciding who had cared for the child for the longest period. It was determining whether the statutory requirements for a lawful adoption had been satisfied.

PEN v KAL & Anor therefore provides an important warning to prospective adoptive parents: before taking a child into a family with the intention of eventually adopting the child, the child’s birth certificate and identity records should be carefully examined.

Religious status is particularly important. If the child’s official records indicate that the child is Muslim, the ordinary adoption mechanism under the Adoption Act 1952 may not be available. Adoptive parents should not assume that raising a child according to another culture or lifestyle will automatically change the child’s legal religious status.

The second major lesson is equally important: do not wait for 10, 15 or 20 years before formalising the adoption.

If a child has been placed in the care of another family from a young age, the prospective adoptive parents should obtain legal advice as early as possible and address issues concerning biological parental consent, adoption eligibility and the child’s legal identity.

If the biological parent has disappeared, reasonable efforts to locate that parent should also be made as early as possible. Police reports, newspaper advertisements, communications, enquiries through relatives and other relevant evidence should be preserved to demonstrate that genuine attempts were made to locate the biological parent.

After 10 or 20 years, simply telling the Court that “the biological mother disappeared” naturally invites another question: what did you actually do during all those years to try to find her?

For prospective adoptive parents, the safer approach is not to raise a child for many years and only address the legal position when the child reaches adulthood or requires official documents. Instead, birth registration, biological parentage, religious status, adoption procedures and the child’s future legal identity should be addressed as early as possible.

The ultimate lesson from PEN v KAL & Anor is clear: raising a child for 20 years demonstrates commitment and care, but it does not replace the legal requirements for a formal adoption.

Love and responsibility can create a family, but legal recognition of that family relationship still requires the correct legal process at the appropriate time.