Hawkins v Whitla

In the case of Hawkins v Whitla, Carmel Hawkins, born on 26 October 1945, sought to have her adoption order discharged on the basis that her biological mother, Marjorie Wallace, had not given her consent freely and voluntarily. The adoption order was made on 20 December 1945 under the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld). The legal issues before the court were whether the consent given by Wallace was indeed not given freely and voluntarily, and if the evidence provided by Hawkins was admissible to establish this. The court had to consider the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically statements made by Wallace nearly 50 years after the adoption.

The court examined the statements made by Wallace to Hawkins, where she expressed regret about the adoption, attributing her decision to external pressures from her parents due to the stigma associated with the situation. While these statements were deemed admissible to show that Wallace made them, they could not be used to prove that she held these views at the time of the adoption, nor that her parents had prevented her from keeping her child, or that her consent was not given freely and voluntarily. The court found no evidence that Wallace's consent on 12 November 1945 was not given freely and voluntarily. Consequently, the court dismissed Hawkins' application for discharge of the adoption order.

In conclusion, the application to discharge the adoption order was dismissed by the court, which found no evidence to support the claim that Wallace’s consent was not given freely and voluntarily. The court will hear the parties on the matter of costs.