Ebert and Anor and Traimand

This matter concerned an application by Mr and Mrs Ebert for leave to commence adoption proceedings pursuant to section 60G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in relation to the child B. The respondent, Mr Traimand, is the biological father of the child. Mrs Ebert is the child's mother and Mr Ebert is her stepfather. Mr Traimand was served with the application but did not appear at the hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicants leave to commence adoption proceedings. This required the Court to consider the best interests of the child, as mandated by section 60G(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The Court also considered the implications of granting leave under state legislation, specifically the *Adoption Act (Queensland) 2009*, which requires prospective step-parents to satisfy certain age criteria for the child and obtain leave from the Court. Furthermore, the Court examined the consequences of adoption under the *Family Law Act 1975*, including the cessation of parental responsibility and parenting orders for the biological parent, unless the adoption is by a "prescribed adopting parent" and leave was not granted under section 60G.

The Court found that the child, B, was between five and seventeen years of age, satisfying a key criterion under the Queensland legislation. The Court was satisfied that the biological father, Mr Traimand, had never had any relationship with the child, had never provided financial support, and had made no attempt to contact either the child or the mother since the child's birth. In contrast, the evidence demonstrated that the child considered Mr Ebert her father, referred to him as "Papa," and lived a happy and contented life with both applicants as a family unit. Mr Ebert actively participated in the child's daily care and upbringing and wished to assume full legal parental responsibility.

Having regard to all the circumstances and the obligation to consider the best interests of the child, the Court was satisfied that it was in the child's best interests to permit the adoption proceedings to proceed. Accordingly, leave was granted to the applicants to commence adoption proceedings.