Adoption of RML - [2019] NSWSC 1302

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adoption of RML [2019] NSWSC 1302
Hearing dates: 26 August 2019
Decision date: 27 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
The Court will formally make the following orders in court at a future hearing:
(1) That, pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act, the consent of RML’s birth mother LDC be dispensed with.
(2) That, pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act, the consent of RML’s birth father LRL be dispensed with.
(3) Order for the adoption of the child, RML, in favour of the adopting parents JMVC and PWC.
(4) Order approving the name “C” as the surname and “RML” as the given names of RML.

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

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)
Cases Cited: Adoption of BS (No. 3) [2013] NSWSC 2033
Adoption of IEK [2019] NSWSC 171
Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7
Adoption of NG [2014] NSWSC 680
Adoption of PRC [2019] NSWSC 855
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (Plaintiff)
LDC (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Harris (Plaintiff)
L Goodchild (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors’ Office (Plaintiff)
Ark Law (Defendant)

File Number(s): A111/2018

Judgment

The principal question in these proceedings is whether the Court should make an order for the adoption of a six-year old child, who I will call RML, in favour of proposed adoptive parents, JMVC and PWC. The application was commenced by the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (the Secretary) on 25 June 2018.
The application is opposed by RML's birth mother, LDC, who has been joined as a party to the proceedings and filed an appearance on 15 August 2018. RML’s birth father, LRL, does not consent to the adoption but has not filed an appearance (see the first affidavit of the Delegate, dated 19 June 2018 (First Affidavit) at [173]-[178]). For completeness, I note further that the evidence suggests that the birth father accepts the likelihood that an adoption order will be made, and is happy for RML to remain living with the proposed adoptive parents.
Consequently, the Court will not be able to make the adoption order sought by the Secretary unless it makes additional orders sought, being orders pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act) that the consent of LDC and LRL be dispensed with.
The Secretary also seeks an order approving the surname of the proposed adoptive parents as the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adoption of RML and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWSC 1302
Decision Date: 27 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adoption of RML, heard in the Family Court of Australia, involved a dispute regarding the adoption of a child, RML, by prospective adoptive parents. The primary concern was whether an adoption order was clearly preferable to any other order that could be made with respect to the care of the child. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the consent of the birth parents should be dispensed with, as well as whether the child's name should be changed as part of the adoption process.

The legal issues before the court required a thorough examination of the statutory provisions governing adoption under the relevant state legislation, particularly focusing on the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. The court had to assess the evidence presented regarding the child’s best interests, including the stability and suitability of the prospective adoptive parents, and the potential benefits of the adoption to the child's well-being. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted dispensing with the consent of the birth parents, given the statutory requirement for their consent in adoption proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions provided by the parties. The court concluded that the adoption order was indeed clearly preferable for the child's welfare, considering the supportive and nurturing environment the adoptive parents could provide. The court found that the prospective adoptive parents were well-suited to meet the child's needs, and that the adoption would significantly benefit the child’s future development and stability. The court also found that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the dispensing of the birth parents' consent, as their involvement had been minimal and detrimental to the child's welfare. Finally, the court ruled that changing the child’s name was in the child’s best interest, facilitating a fresh start and integration into the adoptive family.

The court ordered that the adoption proceed without the consent of the birth parents and that the child's name be changed to reflect the new family. The adoption was finalised, providing RML with a stable and loving environment.

Orders