Anala and Green

[2019] FamCA 338

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANALA & GREEN [2019] FamCA 338

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – leave to make an application pursuant to the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60G
FIRST APPLICANT:	Mr Anala

SECOND APPLICANT: Ms Anala

RESPONDENT: Mr Green

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1626 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 10 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Baumann J

HEARING DATE: 10 April 2019

REPRESENTATION

THE FIRST APPLICANT APPEARED IN PERSON

THE SECOND APPLICANT APPEARED IN PERSON

NO APPEARANCE BY THE RESPONDENT

Orders

1. That pursuant to s.60G of the Family Law Act 1975, MR ANALA be granted leave to make an application pursuant to the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld) for the adoption of the child, Z GREEN born … 2010.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Anala & Green has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1626 of 2019

MR ANALA

First Applicant

And

MS ANALA

Second Applicant

And

MR GREEN

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(settled from oral reasons delivered)

1. These proceedings relate to an application brought by the husband, effectively, of the biological mother of a little girl Z Green, born … 2010.  She is now eight and a half years of age.  When Z was born in South-East Queensland, the mother was 19 years of age and the father Mr Green was 20 years of age.  The evidence suggests they had an ambivalent relationship and there is no suggestion that the biological father Mr Green has had any real contact with Z since her birth.  I should mention at this early stage that by Affidavit filed in the Court on 13 February, Mr Green says:

   “2.      I hereby confirm that I have given the Applicants full consent to proceed with the adoption process.

   3.        I am confident this is in the best interests of my biological daughter Z Green as I have not had any contact with her for most of her life now and both myself and Ms Anala wish that there is no contact maintained any [sic] or any financial obligations whatsoever.”

2. The mother and the Applicant Mr Anala, who is a United States Citizen, met online in June 2011.  At that stage, the child would not have reached her first birthday.  By February 2014, the relationship between the mother and Mr Anala had progressed to a stage where Mr Anala decided to leave the United States, cease his studies he was undertaking at that stage and move to Australia.  He did so on 21 March 2014 and in the five-year period since then, he has maintained a family unit with the mother and the child Z.  Mr Anala and the mother were married in Sydney in New South Wales on … 2014, and in January 2015 Mr Anala applied for a permanent visa under the spouse migration category.  After the issue of a temporary residence visa in June 2016, a permanent residence visa was granted on … January 2018.

3. In all respects on the evidence before the Court, it is in the best interests of the child Z that the informal arrangements as to her parenting between the mother and her husband be formalised, if possible, under the state adoption laws.  I have made it clear to Mr Anala that, of course, this Court does not approve adoption.  The Family Law Act 1975 provides at s 60G that a person seeking to proceed with adoption must first get an order from a Family Court to make an application pursuant to the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld). In the circumstances of this case, it is in the best interests of the child Z that I make such an order, which I do.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann delivered on 10 April 2019.

Associate: 

Date:  27 May 2019