The Court of Appeal ruled that obtaining a biological parent's consent is a mandatory substantive requirement that must be fulfilled before an adoption order can be granted.PUTRAJAYA: A biological mother broke down in tears after the Court of Appeal set aside an adoption order involving her child, ruling that her consent to permanently surrender her parental rights was never validly obtained.The woman, who had remained composed throughout the proceedings, became emotional after a member of the public seated near her in the courtroom gallery informed her that the appeal was allowed.Outside the courtroom, she fell at the feet of her lawyers in gratitude for securing her legal victory before being helped back up.Delivering the unanimous judgment yesterday, Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid said the adoption order could not stand because the biological mother's consent, a mandatory requirement under the Adoption Act 1952, had not been properly obtained.Sitting with Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, Kamal said Section 6(a) of the Act requires the court to be satisfied that biological parents understand that an adoption would permanently deprive them of their parental rights.Kamal said the requirement was a substantive condition that must be fulfilled before an adoption order could be granted. He said the mother's conduct showed that she had never intended to permanently surrender her child.He said the mother's continued breastfeeding, financial support, regular contact with the child, and the fact that she was informed whenever the child suffered injuries demonstrated that she continued to act as the child's parent.The appellate court also found that the statutory declaration relied upon to prove the mother's consent was defective.The evidence showed that it was not signed before a commissioner for oaths, her name was absent from the official records, she was hospitalised on the date it was allegedly executed, and the document failed to comply with the Adoption Rules 1955.Kamal further held that the High Court had erred in finding that the mother admitted signing the consent document and in drawing an adverse inference against her for failing to produce evidence."The burden of proving valid consent rested on the respondents, not the appellant, as one cannot be expected to prove a negative assertion," he said.The Court of Appeal also found the guardian a…
Summary from source