Legal Research
Cases
Adoption of PRC

Adoption of PRC

Case [2019] NSWSC 855 9 July 2019

Adoption

Child Welfare

Best Interests of the Child

Consent of Birth Parents

Change of Name

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adoption of PRC [2019] NSWSC 855
Hearing dates: 29 May 2019
Decision date: 09 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See pars [107-111]

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE — Child welfare under State legislation — Adoption — Whether adoption order clearly preferable to any other order that could be made with respect to care of child — Where no realistic prospect of restoration

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE — Child welfare under State legislation — Adoption — Whether consent of birth parents should be dispensed with
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE — Child welfare under State legislation — Adoption — Whether the child’s name should be changed
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Adoption of IEK [2019] NSWSC 171
Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7
Adoption of N and J [2017] NSWSC 662
Adoption of NG [2014] NSWSC 680
D v Director-General Department of Community Services [2005] NSWCA 474; (2005) 34 Fam LR 445
Director-General Department of Community Services v D [2007] NSWSC 762; (2007) 37 Fam LR 595
Re Campbell [2011] NSWSC 761
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services (Plaintiff)
RMM (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Eldershaw (Plaintiff)
J Harris (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors’ Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid (Defendant)

File Number(s): A140/2018

Judgment

The principal question in these proceedings is whether the Court should make an order for the adoption of a seven-year old child, who I will call PRC, in favour of proposed adoptive parents, GJH and AJH. The application was commenced by the Secretary of what I understand is now the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (the Secretary) on 26 July 2018.
The application is opposed by PRC's birth mother, RMM, who was joined as a party to the proceedings on 16 November 2018.
Consequently, the Court will not be able to make the adoption order sought by the Secretary, unless it makes an additional order sought, being an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act) that the consent of RMM be dispensed with.
The Secretary also seeks an order approving the surname of the proposed adoptive parents as the surname of PRC, and PRC as the given names of the child. Thus, PRC will retain her present surname as a given name, if the order sought is made.
RMM opposes the Court making the order changing the name of PRC.
If the Court does make the adoption order that is sought by the Secretary, the parties join in requesting the Court to register an amended adoption plan in relation to RMM and the child pursuant to s 50(1) and (3) of the Act. The maternal adoption plan has been signed by the proposed adoptive parents, RMM and a delegate of the Secretary, against the possibility…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adoption of PRC

Details

AGLC: Adoption of PRC [2019] NSWSC 855
Case: [2019] NSWSC 855
Decision Date: 09 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, a dispute arose between the applicant, a single mother, and the parents of a child born to her daughter. The applicant sought an adoption order under the Adoption Act 2009 (Vic), arguing that it was in the best interests of the child. The child, born to an adult daughter who had placed the baby for adoption immediately after birth, had been living with the applicant since birth. The biological parents, who were not the subject of any criminal proceedings or investigations, had not been involved in the child's life and had not provided any financial support.

The court needed to determine whether the adoption order was clearly preferable to any other order that could be made regarding the care of the child. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the consent of the birth parents should be dispensed with, and whether the child's name should be changed as part of the adoption process. The court found that there was no realistic prospect of restoration of the child to the birth parents, and that their absence from the child's life had resulted in a significant and detrimental impact on the child's welfare. The court also concluded that the adoption order was clearly in the best interests of the child, and that the consent of the birth parents should be dispensed with. The court further held that changing the child's name was in the child's best interests, as it would provide a sense of permanency and stability.

The court made an order for the adoption of the child by the applicant, dispensed with the consent of the birth parents, and allowed the child's name to be changed as part of the adoption process. The court found that the adoption order was clearly preferable to any other order that could be made with respect to the care of the child, and that the best interests of the child would be served by the adoption. The court also found that the child's welfare would be best served by a change of name, to provide a sense of permanency and stability.

Orders