Adoption of B

[2019] NSWSC 908

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Adoption of B [2019] NSWSC 908
Hearing dates:	26 June 2019; further written submissions 12 and 15 July 2019
Decision date:	16 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Adoptions List
Before:	Stevenson J
Decision:	Order for adoption made
Catchwords:	CHILD WELFARE – adoption – order – whether it is clearly preferable that an adoption order be made   CHILD WELFARE – definition of “Aboriginal child” – whether the child is of Aboriginal descent
Legislation Cited:	Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680 Director-General, Department of Community Services v D (2007) 37 Fam LR 595; [2007] NSWSC 762 Helen Fischer v Ashley Thompson (Anonymised) [2019] NSWSC 773 J v C [1970] AC 668 Re D; Application of A (2006) 36 Fam LR 142; [2006] NSWSC 1056 Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71
Texts Cited:	Practice Note SC EQ 13
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services (Plaintiff) BD (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: M Barnett (Plaintiff) G Moore (Defendant)   Solicitors: Crown Solicitor for NSW (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)
File Number(s):	A136/2018

Judgment

1. The Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services seeks an order under s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the adoption of B in favour of MI.

2. B was born in 2007. She is now 12.

3. Her parents are AC and BD.

4. On 24 September 2007, when B was just six months old, she was assumed into care pursuant to s 43 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (the “Care Act”).

5. On 17 October 2007 B was placed with MI and her husband NH.

6. Exactly one year later, on 17 October 2008, the Children’s Court at Walgett made orders placing B under the parental responsibility of the Minister until she turned 18.

7. B lived with MI and NH until MI and NH separated in 2013.

8. B continues to live with MI.

9. Despite MI and NH’s separation, B sees MI and NH as her day to day parents and calls them “Mum” and “Dad”.

10. MI has two now adult children by her first husband, both of whom live independently.

11. B has had no face to face contact with her mother, AC, since 7 September 2012 and her father, BD, since 8 March 2013.

12. B has a sibling, S, who is now 8 years old, and who lives with AC’s mother, RB. B visits S and RB several times a year.

13. B has four half siblings. They are T, M, L and C, all of whom are adults.

14. B has some contact with T but has not had contact with her other half siblings since 2011.

15. B’s mother, AC, has played no role in these proceedings.

16. B’s father, BD, is the defendant and opposes the making of an adoption order.

17. It is however important to emphasise that BD acknowledges that “MI has done a good job in raising B”.

18. His counsel, Mr Moore, opened his cross-examination of MI by stating:

“Q.   You know that [BD] doesn’t seek to have B live anywhere but with you?

A.   Yes.”

19. In his written submissions Mr Moore said:

“[BD] does not seek any Order that would result in B ceasing to reside with MI.”

20. Mr Moore opened his oral submissions by stating:

“Your Honour, can I just begin by saying that my client acknowledges the care that [MI] has provided to B over the last 12 years, and he is grateful for that. Your Honour knows that there is no challenge to B residing with [MI]. What flows from that, obviously, is that there is an acceptance that there is a close relationship between B and [MI], and it is reciprocated by both of them. There is no challenge to the quality of care that has been provided.”

21. As Dr Barnett, who appeared for the Secretary submitted, there is no doubt that MI is taking admirable care of B. Their relationship is, in every sense, that of a loving mother and daughter.

22. These matters were not in contest in the hearing before me.

23. There is no dispute that the formal requirements under the Adoption Act have been complied with. It is unnecessary to set out the detail of those matters.

24. On 15 March 2019 B signed a form of consent to the adoption. The requirements of the Adoption Act concerning the giving of that consent have been complied with.

25. As B is now 12, and has consented to the adoption, the consent of AC and BD is no longer necessary: s 54 of the Adoption Act.

Is the making of an adoption order clearly preferable?

26. I must be satisfied that an adoption order is in B’s best interests and that the making of such an order is clearly preferable: s 90(3) of the Adoption Act.

27. Mr Moore’s submission was that although it was in B’s best interests that she remain in the full time care of MI, the making of an adoption order was not “clearly preferable”, that is “obviously, plainly or manifestly” preferable, to any other action that could be taken by law in relation to B’s care for the purpose of s 90(3) of the Adoption Act: Director-General, Department of Community Services v D (2007) 37 Fam LR 595; [2007] NSWSC 762 at [25] (Brereton J); see also Re D; Application of A (2006) 36 Fam LR 142; [2006] NSWSC 1056 at [53] (Palmer J).

28. Mr Moore submitted that the “legal alternative” to adoption that should be ordered is the making of an order giving MI parental responsibility for B under s 92 of the Adoption Act.

29. Mr Moore submitted that:

“The advantage of this order would be it would maintain the legal link between B and her birth parents yet at the same time recognise that MI is and will be the one who provides for B”.

30. What appears to lie behind Mr Moore’s submission is BD’s apprehension that the making of an adoption order will have the result that his efforts to resume contact with B will be less likely to succeed than would be the case were an order made giving MI parental responsibility for B.

31. However, I do not think that the making of an adoption order will make any difference to BD’s prospects of resuming contact with B. Currently, B expresses the strong view that she does not wish to see BD.

32. That is not surprising. B has not seen BD since March 2013, over six years ago. B was then only six years old. Contact arrangements were then problematic. In that regard, MI gave this evidence which Mr Moore did not challenge:

“My attitude towards contact is I feel disappointed for B, in that her birth parents just suddenly stopped coming to contact one day, with no explanation at all. I felt that before it stopped, I was forced by FACS into a position of supervision. As we have progressed down the road of this adoption journey, and I received feedback from great case workers and relevant training, it has become apparent to me that birth parent contact should have been cancelled more often than not, as there [were] substance abuse issues and aggression towards myself. For example, I recall that during a contact visit for B’s second birthday BD yelled at AC constantly during the visit as they could not get the new camera working. AC was slurring her words and was crying throughout the visit. I recall that at the beginning of the contact visit for B’s third birthday, BD spoke in what I considered an agitated way to myself and NH about his ‘lack of rights’ and said words to the effect ‘you have brainwashed B into thinking you’re her parents’. BD also called NH a ‘dickhead’ and yelled at me words to the effect ‘go home and make up some more bullshit stories’. I had not received any training or information in relation to what should and should not be allowed to happen at a contact visit. B’s birth parents always insisted that I was out of hearing distance. I did not know that this was unacceptable.”

33. One reason BD has not seen B since 2013 is that he has spent some time in gaol.

34. BD did not dispute that there had been some difficulties in the past. In his affidavit he said:

“Even though I don’t agree with things that have been said about me, I am a completely different person to the person I was when I was with B’s mum AC. I am happily settled with LS [BD’s partner] and her family, and look after her and her grandkids, they are an important part of my life”.

35. In the course of her evidence, I asked MI whether she saw it as part of her role to encourage B to see BD. MI responded:

“No, no. I believe that it -- you need to know B and she is a very complex young lady. If I were to encourage her, then my concern would be that she would do it because she thinks I want her to and she would want to please me. I want her to make a decision about what she wants, and it's, am, not just in relation to this, that's everyday life I have to be really careful about, am, because she does look to me.”

36. However, a short time later we had this exchange:

“A. …but do you ever say to her ‘look, you might change your mind about that’?

A. Yes.

Q. Keep an open mind?

A. Yep, yep, absolutely. Yep, yep. That might change down the road, you know. That's a comment, definitely a comment that I would make.

Q. And if she were to say ‘look, I wouldn't mind taking some steps to get in contact with BD’, what would your response to that be?

A. Okay, let's, we'd probably say, am, ‘talk to Kimberly [Tufrey; a child psychologist that B has been seeing] about that and what would you, you know, how do you see that happening, what do you think you might like to do’.

Q. So you wouldn't discourage it?

A. Oh goodness no, no. I think it's important for her to know, am, who her family is. Absolutely.”

37. Arising out this exchange, MI agreed to a change in the Paternal Adoption Plan so that, relevantly, it read as follows:

“At the time of this adoption plan, B expressed the view that she does not want to have contact with BD. Should B wish to have contact with BD in the future, MI is supportive of contact occurring between B and BD. MI will encourage B to be open to contact with BD and will use the assistance of B’s counsellor/psychologist to do so. Upon receiving appropriate correspondence from BD, MI will share it with B directly or with the assistance of B’s counsellor/psychologist. Contact arrangements will consider B’s age, development and expressed wishes.”

38. I accept that BD is sincerely trying to re-establish a relationship with B. He is having supervised contact with B’s younger sister, S. But B is adamant, at the moment, that she does not wish to see BD. With some encouragement from MI, that may change over time. Hopefully BD can find within himself the patience and perseverance to persist with his efforts to establish contact, even if there is no positive response from B to those efforts in the short term. Time will tell.

39. What I think is clear is that the making of an adoption order now will not, itself, effect BD’s prospects of resuming contact with B at some point in the future.

40. On the other hand, there are many factors pointing, quite decisively in my opinion, to the conclusion that it is clearly preferable that, rather than an order allocating parental responsibility to MI under s 92, an order be made for adoption.

41. MI’s evidence emphasised the security that an adoption order would bring to B’s life.

42. To adopt the words of Brereton J in Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680 at [77] to [78] (with adjustments to reflect the circumstances here), in addition to providing certainty and permanence for B, an adoption order will have the result that:

1. B will be raised in a legally recognised family, rather than remaining a State ward for the duration of her childhood. She will no longer be in “out of home care”, but “in home care”. The need for departmental intervention in her care and departmental approval for significant decisions will be removed as will the stigma potentially associated with being a State ward;

2. B’s legal status will be brought into conformity with reality. Psychologically and residentially, she is a member of MI’s family. An adoption order would bring the legal position into line with this. Her membership of the family that she regards as her own would be perfected, providing her with a sense of security and permanent belonging in that family. B will be a member of that family, not only during her childhood but for life; and

3. B’s legal name will correspond with that of the family which she lives and identifies. She will be enabled to choose for herself whom she tells of this status, without it being self-evident from her name.

43. The paramount consideration when determining whether an adoption order should be made is the best interests of the child: s 8(1)(a) of the Adoption Act.

44. Importantly, the words “paramount consideration” should be understood to “connote a process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child's welfare as that term has now to be understood”: J v C [1970] AC 668 at 710-711 (Lord MacDermott); Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71 at [169].

B’s best interests

45. Section 8(2) of the Adoption Act sets out the matters that I must consider in determining B’s best interests.

46. I shall deal with each of them. What follows is drawn in large part, with gratitude, from the written submissions of Dr Barnett.

Any wishes B has expressed

47. B wishes to be adopted by MI and has reaffirmed this recently.

B’s age, maturity, level of understanding, gender, background and family relationships

48. B is 12 and has expressed a strong wish to be adopted.

49. Under s 91 of the Adoption Act a report in writing concerning the proposed adoption must be prepared. In this case the report was prepared by Ms Gaye Wilson. Her report is dated 21 June 2018.

50. Ms Wilson reports that B has developed a “clearer understanding” of adoption. B understands that she will be provided with a new birth certificate that reflects the new legal relationships that will be created and understands that S and T would no longer be her legal sisters.

51. On 12 March 2019 Ms Kim Gross, a Family and Community Services Regional Adoption Caseworker, conducted counselling with B to assess her capacity to give her informed consent to the adoption. Ms Gross concluded that B was capable of understanding the effect of consenting to her adoption.

B’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including B’s sense of personal, family and cultural identity

52. Although B has had some behavioural and emotional issues, there is no doubt that MI has taken good care of her. The evidence suggests that B internalises her feelings, but MI uses arts and crafts as an outlet for her. MI and NH readily engage with B’s former psychologist, and her current psychologist, Ms Kimberly Tufrey. B participates in a variety of extracurricular activities in MI’s care, including horse riding.

53. The evidence shows that B’s education, health, psychological and social needs are all being met to a high standard. This is reflected in the affidavits given by MI’s referees who report that MI’s home provides a “nurturing and very stable environment for B” and that MI has “always been loving and supportive of her daughter” and has “created a safe and loving home”.

54. MI is a qualified primary school teacher. She has decided to home school B this year and is currently undertaking Grade 6 work for her. MI and B are currently travelling around Australia, having commenced their travels in March this year. They are due to return in December 2019. Throughout this trip, MI is ensuring that B maintains contact with friends and other important people in B’s life.

55. The plan is for B to attend High School next year at a school where NH is one of the teachers.

56. A Behaviour Management Plan and an Intervention Plan have been created to assist improving B’s emotional wellbeing and supporting her peer relationships, emotional identification and coping strategies.

Any disability B has

57. B maintains good health, although she had some difficulty with her social behaviours at school.

58. B has a biochemical imbalance which is being treated medically to enable B to sleep more soundly and feel more relaxed in her school attendance.

59. B has some particular sensitivities and has had recurring aggressive outbursts and anxieties at times.

Any wishes expressed by either or both of B’s parents

60. As I have mentioned, BD is opposed to the adoption for the reasons I have set out.

61. AC has played no role in the adoption process.

The relationship that B has with her parents, siblings and any significant other people (including relatives)

62. As I have mentioned, B maintains contact with her maternal grandmother, RB, and her sister, S.

63. MI has stated that she will continue to seek opportunities for B, S and T to meet and continue to build their relationship.

The attitude of MI to B and to the responsibilities of parenthood

64. MI impressed me as a calm and determined person. She has engaged the services of psychologists to better develop coping strategies for B.

65. In her continued care of B since 2007, MI has demonstrated that she has the attitude and aptitude needed to fulfil the responsibilities that will be required of her in being B’s parent.

66. MI has expressed a willingness to maintain B’s contact with her birth family and this is reflected in the adoption plan to which I have referred.

The nature of B’s relationship with MI

67. It is clear that B has a warm, loving and affectionate relationship with MI. She describes MI as “the best mum”.

The suitability and capacity of MI to provide for B’s needs, including her emotional and intellectual needs

68. MI is most certainly a suitable and capable parent. It is clear that she has a strong and loving relationship with B.

69. MI has been supportive of B’s education, her extracurricular activities, her medical needs and contact with her birth family. There is no reason to doubt that she will continue to do this.

70. MI is settled within her community. She works as a marriage celebrant and as a part time or casual primary school teacher. MI assists with B’s schooling and extracurricular activities.

The need to protect B from physical and psychological harm

71. As I set out earlier, there have been difficulties with B’s contact with BD.

72. MI has written to BD updating him on B’s progress and development.

73. BD is, presently, endeavouring to re-establish contact with B and has, in recent months, sent a number of letters to her.

74. It is clear that MI is the person best placed to ensure that B’s best interests are promoted in this regard.

The alternatives to an adoption order

75. I have discussed these matters above. I am satisfied that adoption is the clearly preferable course to be taken to promote B’s best interests.

Is B an Aboriginal child?

76. There remains for consideration the suggestion in the evidence that B may be of Aboriginal descent and thus may be an “Aboriginal child” for the purpose of s 4 of the Adoption Act.

77. For B to be “Aboriginal child” she must be a child descendent from an “Aboriginal”, which is defined as having the same meaning as “Aboriginal person” in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), namely a person who:

1. is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; and

2. identifies as an Aboriginal person; and

3. is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal person.

78. Section 4(2) provides that “the Court may determine that a child is an Aboriginal for the purposes of this Act if the Court is satisfied that the child is of Aboriginal descent”. Sackar J recently observed in Helen Fischer v Ashley Thompson (Anonymised) [2019] NSWSC 773 at [210]:

“What s 4(2) does, is to permit the Court to determine a child is Aboriginal on the basis of descent alone, but as I have said, the child must still be a descendant of an Aboriginal who meets the test. It is not a question of discretion, it simply gives the Court jurisdiction where relevant, to determine a child is Aboriginal, not having satisfied the definition of Aboriginal as otherwise defined.”

79. The evidence before me on this question is that:

1. on 13 February 2008, when B was 11 months old, the Department of Family and Community Services lodged a “Care Plan” under s 78 of the Care Act with the Children’s Court recording that B was not an Aboriginal; there is no evidence as to what basis that conclusion was reached;

2. at some point during the proceedings in the Children’s Court, which proceedings were finalised in October 2008, AC stated that she identified as being Aboriginal;

3. on the other hand, on 21 June 2008 B’s maternal grandmother, RB, is reported to have said that “there is no Aboriginal heritage in the family”;

4. on 1 August 2008 an officer of the Department of Family and Community Services wrote to AC’s then solicitor “I note your client claims Aboriginality. Please request your client to provide a Certificate of Aboriginality”; there is no evidence that there was any reply to that letter; the Department has no record of following the matter up;

5. on 19 October 2015 AC, told a caseworker that she, AC, identified as Aboriginal, that her paternal grandfather, DC, was Aboriginal from the Kamilaroi clan and that B was therefore an Aboriginal child;

6. on the same day, AC’s father, also named DC, and the son of the DC referred to in (e), told a caseworker that he was Aboriginal and identified as such;

7. On 26 November 2015, Ms Val Hill, an Adoptions Assessor consulted an Aboriginal Elder from Moree, Ms Noelene Briggs-Smith who, Ms Hill reported “provided me with a lot of information about the family of MMY who is said to be B’s great grandmother [although it does appear that MMY was B’s great great grandmother]”. Ms Hill continued “Noelene said the family did not like to be recognised as Aboriginal in those days, which fits DC [the younger, AC’s father] and AC’s understanding of this”;

8. on 15 January 2016 an organisation called “Native Title Service Provider” reported that B’s great great great grandparents, that is MMY’s parents, were “in our records”; inferentially because those persons were in that organisation’s records as members of the Aboriginal race;

9. but on 4 October 2016 AC’s father, DC the younger, is recorded as saying after his mother’s death the previous year that there had been “further conversations and diggings in relation to the family tree” and that “there is no Aboriginal connection through his family line” and that his grandmother MMY was Maori, rather than Aboriginal, and that her husband was Chinese;

10. two weeks later on 19 October 2016 an organisation called “Pius X Aboriginal Corporation” issued a “Confirmation of Aboriginality” certifying that by resolution of the Management Committee of that organisation that B (who was then 10) was of Aboriginal descent, identified as an Aboriginal and was recognised as an Aboriginal; there being no evidence as to upon what basis that resolution was passed; and

11. a “genogram” or family tree prepared by an organisation called “Link-Up (NSW)” which purports to depict B’s maternal ancestry.

80. If B is an Aboriginal child, an adoption order must not be made unless I am satisfied that “the Aboriginal placement principles have been properly applied”: s 90(1)(e) of the Adoption Act. Thus, I must come to a conclusion as to whether B is an Aboriginal child.

81. I may act on any statement, document, information or matter that may assist me reaching a conclusion about this, whether or not such material would be admissible in evidence: s 126 of the Adoption Act.

82. However, Practice Note SC EQ 13, which applies to proceedings under the Adoption Act, states at [33]:

“Although under the Adoption Act s 126 the Court has a discretion to act on any statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it whether or not it would be admissible in evidence, this should be regarded as exceptional and ordinarily the court expects evidence to be given in a form and manner which is admissible in proceedings generally. However, the court will receive copies of learned texts and articles from peer-reviewed journals in relevant fields such as sociology and psychology without further proof.” (Emphasis added.)

83. In any event, this scant and conflicting evidence does not enable me to come to any conclusion as to whether B is of Aboriginal descent. Evidently AC believes that she is of Aboriginal descent, but her paternal grandfather has evidently made inquiries which suggest the ancestry is of Maori rather than Aboriginal, origins. There is no evidence before me as to who prepared the genogram or what documents were relied on to create it. Nor is there evidence as to what matters the Pius X Aboriginal Corporation had regard to when issuing its confirmation of B’s Aboriginality.

84. That is not to say that I have reached a conclusion that B is not of Aboriginal descent.

85. It may well be that one day B will read these reasons. I would like B to understand that nothing that I say here should discourage her from exploring her heritage for herself. If it turns out that B is a person of Aboriginal descent, that is a matter of which she can be proud. I am saying no more than that, on the material before me, I cannot reach any firm conclusion about B’s heritage.

86. MI is however actively supporting B’s understanding of her possible Aboriginal heritage as is revealed by this evidence in MI’s affidavit:

“I am supporting B to maintain connections with her cultural background in the following ways:

a)   Hiking in our local area with a view to respecting the flora and fauna and discussing how Aboriginal people lived on the land and respected their surroundings. I get information from the NEW National Parks and Wildlife Service regarding whose traditional land the hike is on.

b)   I visit the local library to further research Aboriginal culture.

c)   I read B DreamTime stories (of her choosing) from local and school library. We then discuss themes, ideas, and morals and why these stories were told and the significance of storytelling in her culture.

d)   B and I attend local tours by Aboriginal Elders, such as the Star Night led by Len Waters (a local Aboriginal Elder) on 19 April 2018. These opportunities are always put forward as a choice to B, and where ever possible, I left her make the decision about which events she would like to attend.

e)   In July 2017, B and I participated in a Women’s Weaving Workshop with local Gomerio woman Amy Hammond. This was an occasion in which B declined by initial invitation, but I decided that we would attend, even just for the opening, to see what it was all about. We ended up staying for the whole day and had a wonderful time learning about the tradition of weaving.”

87. MI also gave this evidence in answer to my questions:

“A. Can I just on that issue, am, let you know that B does not identify as Aboriginal. We have got again all of that information we have been given, and it's fantastic information - I wish I had it for myself - but again I have left that decision to her and she chooses entirely, am, and at the moment she doesn't identify but we have had some fantastic experiences in the Northern Territory and what have you, looking at culture and spending time with indigenous women and painting and going on walks and

Q. Do you speak to her about her Aboriginal heritage?

A. Yes, absolutely, and I've stated as a fact ‘you do have Aboriginal heritage’ but as to whether she identifies as Aboriginal that is entirely her decision. I think that that's something that she would need to, am, she can't dispute that she has Aboriginal heritage

Q. What is your sense of what she feels about her Aboriginal heritage?

A. Am, I think she finds it all a little bit too confronting. Again it's something that's emotive and that's something that B struggles with and on a day to day basis it really doesn't factor into her life.

…

A. …it's just something that I gently -- when things come up I say. She now knows where to find her mob on the indigenous map of all the countries and what have you. She --

Q. Who were her people?

A. Yes.

Q. What are her people?

A. Kamilaroi. So she knows where to find that, and it was quite exciting actually, probably only two weeks ago that she found it on the map and she said ‘that's me’ and I said ‘yes, it is, that's you’; and she said ‘we're here and this is these people’. ‘Yep’. ‘And we've been here and that's these people’, and so she's joining the dots. But she is not a child that comes to anything quickly. She likes to take her time to process.

Q. You've been travelling through the Northern Territory?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you discussed with her there the various First People's Nations that you are travelling through?

A. Oh absolutely, constantly.”

88. As I am not satisfied that B is an Aboriginal child, I do not need to be satisfied that the Aboriginal placement principles have been properly applied.

Conclusion

89. I am satisfied that it is in B’s best interests that the order for adoption be made. This course is clearly preferable to making an order under s 92 placing B under the parental responsibility of MI.

90. There is no dispute about the form of orders that should be made. BD consents to orders confirming his paternity of B.

91. I make the following declaration and orders:

1. Declare pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that BD is the father of B.

2. Order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) for the inclusion of BD as the father of the child B in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

3. Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act that the amended Adoption Plan in relation to the birth mother and the child, signed by the proposed adoptive parent, the child, and a delegate of the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services on 20 June 2019 be registered.

4. Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act that the amended Adoption Plan in relation to the birth father and the child, signed by the proposed adoptive parent and a delegate of the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services on 26 June 2019 be registered.

5. Order for the adoption of the child B in favour of the adopting parent MI.

6. Order approving the name “I” as the surname and “BJ” as the given names of the child.

**********

Amendments

18 July 2019 - Coversheet - jurisdiction correct