Application of "P" and "C"

[2004] NSWSC 436

CITATION:	Application of "P" and "C" [2004] NSWSC 436
HEARING DATE(S):	Application in Chambers
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 May 2004
JURISDICTION:	Equity Adoption List
JUDGMENT OF:	Campbell J
DECISION:	Name change approved
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW - adoption - name of child - change of name of child - whether addition of new first name in child's best interests
LEGISLATION CITED:	Adoption Act 2000 Adoption of Children Act 1965
CASES CITED:	Application of "M" and "S" [2004] NSWSC 203
PARTIES :	"P" and "C" - Applicants Department of Community Services
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 80054/04
COUNSEL:	Unprepresented - Applicants Department of Community Services
SOLICITORS:	In person - Applicants Department of Community Services

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

CAMPBELL J

20 MAY 2004

80054/04 APPLICATION OF “P” AND “C”

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by a married couple to adopt a boy born in Taiwan. The only matter of contention concerns the name of the child.

2 The child was placed in the custody of his prospective adoptive parents on 21 September 2002, before the Adoption Act 2000 commenced. Thus, pursuant to the transitional provisions in the Adoption Act 2000 (in Schedule 3, Clause 8) the adoption of the child is dealt with under the Adoption of Children Act 1965.

3 The child, at or soon after birth, was given a Chinese forename. The adoptive parents wish the child to be known by a different name, a name which is commonly used as a forename in Anglo-Celtic Australian families. They wish that forename to be added in front of his Chinese forename, so that the Chinese forename becomes his middle name.

4 In her affidavit relating to the application, the delegate of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services (“DOCS”) opposes this change to the forename of the child. She suggests that pursuant to section 101(5) of the Adoption Act 2000 the Court should make an order approving that the child maintain his Chinese given name as his first name, and add the Anglo-Celtic name as his middle name.

5 I considered the principles applicable to this sort of case in Application of “M” and “S” [2004] NSWSC 203, and will not repeat them here.

6 In the present case, the Anglo-Celtic forename appears as the child’s first name in a civil ruling of the Taipei District Court, Taiwan, given on 15 August 2002, which approved the child being made available for adoption to these particular intending adoptive parents. He was known by that Anglo-Celtic name for at least some of the time he spent in the nursery in Taiwan. A record of his immunisation, written in both English and Chinese, and originating from the nursery of the orphanage from which he was adopted, contains a handwritten note of the Anglo-Celtic version of his forename. The same applies to records of his physical development maintained by that institution. As those documents also show the surname of the intending adopting parents, I would not be prepared to assume that they showed that he was known by that Anglo-Celtic name for very long in Taiwan, but at least they confirm that for some period of time he was known there by that name. A letter dated 13 September 2002 from the Taiwan office of the Christian Salvation Service, a social welfare foundation connected with adoption, certifies that the adoptive parents have adopted the child with the assistance of their organisation. In that letter he is referred to by a name which includes the Anglo-Celtic name.

7 On 25 September 2002, DOCS issued a “To Whom It May Concern” document, on DOCS letterhead, certifying that the child was placed with the prospective parents for the purpose of adoption. In that document he is referred to, twice, by a name which puts the Anglo-Celtic name first among the forenames. He was baptised on 19 January 2003 by the Anglo-Celtic forename.

8 For the whole of the time he has been in Australia, approximately one and a half years, he has been known by the Anglo-Celtic name. The child is now over two years old. He has thus been known by that name for the vast majority of his life. It would be confusing for him now to change back. The social worker’s report gives no ground for concern that the proposed adoptive parents will not fully recognise his Chinese origins and heritage, and his connection with the forename he was first given is retained by keeping that name as a middle name.

9 In these circumstances, and particularly where DOCS has, from the time of his arrival in Australia, known and until recently not objected to, the adoptive parents using the Anglo-Celtic name as the first of his forenames, it is for the benefit of the child that I approve the continued use of the Anglo-Celtic name as his first forename. I will so order.

**********

Last Modified: 06/01/2004