APP: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DOCS - CHILD: BCD - [2003] NSWSC 1040

CITATION: APP: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DOCS - CHILD: BCD [2003] NSWSC 1040

HEARING DATE(S): 10/11/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 November 2003

JURISDICTION:
EQUITY

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

DECISION: See [11] - approval of placement of Aboriginal child for adoption.

CATCHWORDS: ADOPTION - Aboriginal Child Placement Principles s.35 - DOCS proposed to place child with H&W where H is Aboriginal and W is non-Aboriginal - on the facts, the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles have been complied with and the Court is satisfied of the matters in subs.35(3) - declaration accordingly.

LEGISLATION CITED: Adoption Act 2000

PARTIES :
The Director-General of the Department of Community Services

FILE NUMBER(S): SC A80097/2003

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS: Dept. of Community Services (officers of Department)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
ADOPTIONS LIST

BRYSON J.

TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER 2003

A80097/03 The application of the Director General of the Department of Community Services
Child: BCD

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: Section 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 imposes a restriction on publication of the identity of parties to adoption proceedings. It is an offence to publish the names of any of the parties, or to publish any matter reasonably likely to enable any of them to be identified; the restriction appears more fully in s.180. I have not authorised the publication of names or any identifying matter, and have drafted these observations so as to avoid stating names or giving other identifying information. I propose to publish these reasons, as this is the first application of this kind which has come before the Court, but I point out that it is a punishable offence to publish identifying material.

2 The plaintiff, the Director General of the New South Wales Department of Community Services, applies by Summons of 31 October 2003 for an order approving placement of the child with proposed adopting parents.

3 The decisions which I am called on to make by this application are required by s.8 of the Adoption Act 2000 to be made with regard to the principles set out in s.8, which I have considered. My consideration of those principles has led me to take a favourable view on the present application. Consideration of the placement of the child for adoption is a matter upon which subs.80(2) of the Adoption Act 2000 requires that a preliminary hearing be held. A preliminary hearing was held on Monday 10 November 2003. The birth parents, and also the proposed adoptive parents were notified of the preliminary hearing, in circumstances which gave them an opportunity to attend if they wished to oppose the application or to be heard on it, and they did not do so. The proceedings were heard in camera as required by s.119. Officers of the Director General were the only persons who attended.

4 The child was born early in 2003. She is an Aboriginal child, as both her birth parents are Aboriginal within the meaning of that word as defined in subs.4(1) of the Adoption Act 2000. Accordingly, in…

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 APP: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DOCS - CHILD: BCD 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: [2003] NSWSC 1040
Decision Date: 11 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Director General of the Department of Communities (DOCS) seeking a declaration that the placement of an Aboriginal child with a prospective parent, H, who is Aboriginal, and another prospective parent, W, who is non-Aboriginal, complied with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles. The matter was heard in the Australian court, where the central issue was whether the placement adhered to the relevant statutory provisions and if the court could be satisfied of specific matters under the legislation.

The primary legal issue revolved around whether the prospective parents, H and W, met the criteria set out in the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles. The court had to determine if the decision to place the child with H and W was in accordance with the legislative framework designed to protect and promote the interests of Aboriginal children. Specifically, the court examined if the principles were appropriately applied and whether the decision was in the best interest of the child, considering the legislative criteria.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions presented regarding the placement of the child. The court found that the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles had indeed been complied with, and the proposed placement was in line with the legislative intent. The court was satisfied of the matters stipulated in subsection 35(3) of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles, concluding that the prospective parents could provide a suitable environment for the child. Consequently, the court granted the declaration sought by the Director General of DOCS.

The court's final orders were that the placement of the child with H and W was in compliance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles and met the statutory requirements. The court issued a declaration affirming that the placement was appropriate, ensuring that the child's welfare and cultural heritage were safeguarded in accordance with the law.

Orders