In the Adoption of Eight Young People

[2025] NSWSC 719

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

In the Adoption of Eight Young People [2025] NSWSC 719

Hearing dates:

4 July 2025

Date of orders:

4 July 2025

Decision date:

04 July 2025

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Adoptions List

Before:

Kunc J

Decision:

Adoption and related orders made

Catchwords:

CHILD WELFARE — Adoption — Order — No issue of principle — Public interest in encouraging fostering and adoption of children where restoration to birth parents or family not possible

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Principal Officer, Adoption, Life Without Barriers (Applicant)

Representation:

Counsel:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors (Applicant)

File Number(s):

2024/474149

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

1. It is not normally the practice of the Court to give reasons in uncontentious adoptions. That is not because those adoptions are unimportant. It is simply because there is no particular legal issue or contest whose resolution must be added to the public record of the Court's work in applying and developing the law.

2. The judges of the Court exercise their statutory role to make adoption orders under s 23 of the Adoptions Act 2000 (NSW), acutely conscious that every adoption is an important and life-changing event. You may be assured that we are also conscious and grateful for the privilege of sharing the joy of the adopted young people and their now legal “forever families” that comes with these occasions. Joyous occasions are rare and welcome exceptions to the more sombre, but no less important, other work that makes up the vast majority of the life of a judge.

3. I deliver these reasons, which are published with all names being pseudonyms (nominated by the family members themselves at the Court’s invitation), because, in my respectful view, it is in the public interest that the circumstances of these proceedings be available to the community for two reasons.

4. First, these reasons are a grateful, public acknowledgement of the adoptive parents and these young people. Second, I do so in the hope that this family’s story might inspire other suitable members of our community to undertake the profoundly important service to young people of becoming foster carers and adoptive parents. If I may respectfully say so, it is also an example of the vitality of multicultural Australia.

5. The adoptive parents are Bob and Sarah. Bob is an Australian of Middle Eastern Muslim background. Sarah is now an Australian citizen, but was born in Central Europe and was raised in the Orthodox tradition. They have been together as a couple for nearly 15 years.

6. The eight young people who are the subject of these proceedings are part of a large and complex sibling group of fifteen children. Their birth parents, in various combinations, are six adults. I record, without any judgment of their respective birth parents, that because of various challenges and circumstances faced by those birth parents, these eight young people became the subject of care proceedings in the Children's Court of New South Wales and were eventually ordered to be under the parental responsibility of the Minister until they turned 18.

7. What followed is not a straightforward story. There were twists and turns along the way that I do not need to recite. However, in broad terms, it is fair to say that those responsible for their care recognised the importance of not breaking up this group, if at all possible, in the interests of each of them. But who, it might be asked rhetorically, would assume the care of (then) seven children?

8. Each of these young people is an individual with his or her own personality, abilities and aspirations. Each of them, to varying degrees, still carries the burden of trauma from the circumstances which led to them coming into care. Some of them, to varying degrees, have learning, health and psychological difficulties. The evidence amply demonstrates that Bob and Sarah love and support each one of these young people and help each of them to thrive.

9. It is sufficient to record that Bob and Sarah first met seven of these young people in 2013 when they were “house parents” at the location where the children were then placed. They both continue to work in the disability and care sector. Remarkably, they decided in the interests of keeping the young people together that they would apply to become, and did become, the authorised carers of the entire group under out of home care arrangements pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW).

10. The seven oldest children have lived continuously with Bob and Sarah since July 2014. The youngest was placed in their care when he was five days old in 2014 and, after a period of return to his birth mother, has lived continuously with Bob and Sarah since late 2016.

11. I will next say something about each of the young people and make some reference to the necessary formalities in relation to consent, including dispensing with the consent of some of the birth parents in relation to some of the young people. The Court also notes in the applicable cases the proposed maternal and paternal (as applicable) adoption plans as being appropriate in all the circumstances.

12. I will identify each of the young people in descending order of age.

13. The oldest is David. He is now 20 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was 10 years old. Because David is over 18, all that is relevantly required is his consent to the adoption, which he has given.

14. The next is Ilia. He is also now 20 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was 9 years old. Because Ilia is over 18, all that is relevantly required is his consent to the adoption, which he has given.

15. The next is Jeff. He is 18 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was 8 years old. Given his age, all that is relevantly required is his consent to the adoption, which he has given.

16. The next is Fatima. She is also 18 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since she was 7 years old. Given her age, all that is relevantly required is her consent to the adoption, which she has given.

17. Next is Abdul. He is 17 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was 6 years old. There is no possibility of restoration to his birth parents, he has formed a secure and loving bond with Bob and Sarah, and adoption by them would clearly promote his welfare. A consent dispensation order has been sought, and I am satisfied that the necessary prerequisites of Abdul providing his consent and 14 days' notice being given to his birth mother have been met. An order to dispense with notice to Abdul’s birth father will be granted because the Court is satisfied that, after reasonable inquiry, he cannot be found.

18. The next young person is John. He is 15 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was four years old. There is no possibility of restoration to his birth parents. He has formed a secure and loving bond with Bob and Sarah and adoption by them would clearly promote his welfare. A consent dispensation order has been sought and I am satisfied that the necessary prerequisites of John providing his consent and 14 days' notice being given to his birth mother have been met. An order to dispense with notice to John’s birth father will be granted because the Court is satisfied that, after reasonable inquiry, he cannot be found.

19. The next is Peter. He is 14 years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was three years old. There is no possibility of restoration to his birth parents. He has formed a secure and loving bond with Bob and Sarah and adoption by them would clearly promote his welfare. A consent dispensation order has been sought and I am satisfied that the necessary prerequisites of Peter providing his consent and 14 days' notice being given to his birth mother have been met. An order to dispense with notice to his birth father will be granted because the Court is satisfied that, after reasonable inquiry, he cannot be found.

20. The youngest child is Jimmy. He is ten years old, and has been with Bob and Sarah since he was two years old. They are the only parents of whom he has a memory. A consent dispensation order has been sought in relation to both his parents. Jimmy is under the age of 12, so he cannot provide formal consent. I am satisfied that the prerequisites for dispensation orders have been met, namely, Jimmy having an established, stable and loving relationship with Bob and Sarah and his adoption by them both promoting his welfare and being in his best interests.

21. It is then necessary to say something more general about the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction to approve an adoption.

22. The very fact that Parliament has reserved the approval of adoptions to the highest court in the State is a sign of the importance that our community attaches to doing everything that can be done to ensure that every child has the best chance to flourish and be all that that child can be. It has been the experience, I would venture to say, of humankind since time immemorial that the best chance for any child is achieved by ensuring that, wherever possible, they grow up in a loving, stable family environment.

23. What has changed with time, including in very recent times, is what we understand that family can look like. Today, that family can be a couple, like Bob and Sarah. It can be a gay couple. It can be a single person of any gender. All that is ultimately required is that it is a person or persons who are prepared to make the lifelong commitment that every parent understands is their task. They are a parent's child forever. It is only what the child needs from their parent that changes with time.

24. When the Court makes an adoption order, the governing principles in s 7 of the Act may, in my view, be distilled into three overarching considerations which inform the Court's decision.

25. The first and most important, as its name suggests, is the paramountcy principle. What guides the Court in its decision-making above all else is identifying what is in the best interests of the child, because it is the child and only the child that matters. I have no doubt on the material that I have seen that it is in the best interests of each of these young people to be adopted by Bob and Sarah.

26. The second thing that we bear in mind is that the adoption of a child is a service and not a right. No one has the right to adopt a child. Again, it is abundantly clear from the evidence that Bob and Sarah understand that what they are doing is providing a unique and quite extraordinary service to each of these young people. It is a service that the parents in court today know brings great joy, that has challenges, that has its ups and downs, but is one of the most special things that anyone can have the privilege to do.

27. The third matter of importance today is that our community now practises “open” adoption. Two or three generations ago, the white lace curtains of suburbia were firmly drawn shut over the idea of adoption. It was thought to be something shameful. It was thought to be a sign of failure. It was not something discussed in polite society.

28. But we have since learned that is not the right way to proceed. There have been examples that you may have read about, where people have discovered that they are biologically related to someone with whom they might be thinking about forming a relationship. Those examples are thankfully rare.

29. Medical science has also now drawn to attention the psychological trauma that has been visited on people who have discovered they are adopted and who have then spent their lives trying to find their birth parents, in some cases only to identify them after those parents have died.

30. In my view, the most serious problem with adoption being kept a secret was that what should be one of the most essentially trusting and open set of relationships that anyone has, that is the relationship of family, was built on a lie. It may not have been a deliberate lie of commission, but it is certainly was one of omission in failing to tell the child concerned that they were adopted.

31. All those problems have passed. However, having spoken about open adoption you may think it rather peculiar that, in accordance with s 119(1) of the Act, we are sitting in a closed hearing, but there are nevertheless 50 or 60 people sitting in the well of the court. Technically they are present because the Court considers their presence to be appropriate in accordance with s 119(2) of the Act. And why is their presence appropriate? It is because those 50 or 60 people are the living proof of open adoption. They have walked with this family in their adoption journey. They have supported them. These young people know they are adopted. They know that you, those present in court, know they are adopted, and together you form part of the rich circle of extended family and friends that surround Bob, Sarah and these young people.

32. A significant aspect of open adoption it that there has to be an opportunity and a willingness, where it is possible and safe to do so, for adopted children to know about their birth family history and to continue to have contact with their birth parents and other birth family members. Again, the Court is satisfied on the evidence that Bob and Sarah understand that. They will facilitate, wherever it is safe and possible, and to the extent the individual young person might want that to occur, that they should have contact with their birth parents, should know about their birth family history and have the opportunity for contact with other birth relations that they may have.

33. In summary, the Court finds that all the necessary statutory requirements under the Act for the adoption and related orders that are to be made have been satisfied. It is clear from all the evidence that Bob and Sarah have created a large and loving family. Today, this family’s social reality as parents and children will become their legal reality.

34. For the reasons I have given, I will now proceed to make the formal adoption and related orders. In doing so, on behalf of the Court, and I would venture to say on behalf of the community this Court serves, I wish Bob, Sarah and each of these young people the very best for their continued life together, from today as a legally recognised family.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 July 2025