Reported Decision:
(2006) 24 ACLC 856
New South Wales
Supreme Court
CITATION: J and the Adoption Act, Re [2006] NSWSC 1276 HEARING DATE(S): Ex parte judgment in Chambers
JUDGMENT DATE :
27 November 2006JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Adoption ListJUDGMENT OF: Palmer J DECISION: Application for adoption dismissed. CATCHWORDS: ADOPTION – Step-parent adoption of adult child – child not living with step-parent continuously prior to adoption application – adoption prevented by s.30(b) – proposal for law reform. LEGISLATION CITED: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) – Pt 9, s.23, s.52(1), s.67(1) CASES CITED: DG and the Adoption Act, Re [2006] NSWSC 968 PARTIES: A – Applicant
J – ChildFILE NUMBER(S): SC 124/06 COUNSEL: N/A - Ex parte in Chambers SOLICITORS: TressCox Lawyers – Applicant
124/06 Re J and the Adoption Act
1 This is an application for the adoption of an adult by his stepfather. To preserve the anonymity of the parties as required by the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), I will refer to the stepfather as A and to the person to be adopted as J. A is now 94 years of age and J is 57 years of age. A married J’s mother when J was about two years old and J lived in the family home with his mother and A until he was about twenty years old. J has been married for about twenty-five years and has two children. J has lived continuously with his own family since his marriage. 2 The relationship between J and A has always been warm and loving. It is the earnest desire of both A and J, supported by their families, that their bond be formally recognised by the law. The affidavits filed by A in support of the application show that in every respect the adoption would be in the best interests of J and of the whole family. I would have no hesitation in making the adoption order. 3 Unfortunately, however, there is a legal problem and it is insuperable. Section 30(b) of the Adoption Act relevantly provides that the Court “must not make an adoption order in favour of a step-parent of a child unless … the step-parent has lived with the child and the child’s birth or adoptive parent for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately before the application for the adoption order” . “Child” in this context includes an adult person. 4 In DG and the Adoption Act [2006] NSWSC 968, Austin J carefully reviewed this section and, at paragraph 32, held that:
JUDGMENT
27 November, 20065 The evidence filed in the present case shows that J has lived in his own home with his own family at all times since his marriage, although he visits A very frequently. As Austin J held in DG , frequent visits to a stepparent’s home do not qualify as living with the step-parent for the purposes of s.30(b). Accordingly, and very regrettably, s.30(b) prevents the Court in the present case from making and adoption order, which would certainly have been made otherwise. 6 I entirely agree with the observations of Austin J in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment in DG that s.30(b) should be amended as his Honour suggests. I join with his Honour in recommending to the Attorney General reform of the law in this regard. 7 In the result, however, I have no choice but to dismiss the Applicant’s Summons.
“… the requirement of s 30(b) that the step parent must have lived with the child means that they must have shared the same facilities of day-to-day living on a regular and recurrent basis, in circumstances where there is a close relationship of a parental kind between the step parent and parent and the child.”
I respectfully agree with his Honour’s conclusion.
– oOo –
Details
- AGLC
- Re J and the Adoption Act [2006] NSWSC 1276
- Case
- [2006] NSWSC 1276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of J and the Adoption Act, Re, the Family Court of Australia was called upon to consider the validity of a step-parent adoption application where the adult child had not resided with the step-parent continuously for the required period prior to the application being made. The child, who had reached the age of 18, sought to be adopted by the step-parent, and the step-parent filed an application seeking to formalise this relationship through adoption. However, the statutory requirement that the child must have lived with the step-parent continuously for a specified period before the application could be made, as stipulated by section 30(b) of the Adoption Act, posed a significant obstacle.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory requirement could be interpreted in a manner that would permit the adoption to proceed, despite the child not having lived with the step-parent continuously as required. The court was tasked with determining whether the literal interpretation of the statute was mandatory or if there was room for a more flexible interpretation that could accommodate the unique circumstances of the case. The court also considered whether the current legislative framework was in need of reform to better address the realities of family dynamics and relationships.
The court held that the statutory requirement under section 30(b) of the Adoption Act was clear and unambiguous, necessitating a continuous period of residency with the step-parent before an adoption application could be made. The court found that it was not within its purview to interpret the statute in a way that would circumvent the plain meaning of the legislation. Additionally, the court noted the potential for legislative reform to address the complexities and nuances of modern family structures, suggesting that the current statutory requirements may not adequately reflect the realities of family life. Consequently, the adoption application was dismissed due to the non-compliance with the statutory residency requirement.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory requirement could be interpreted in a manner that would permit the adoption to proceed, despite the child not having lived with the step-parent continuously as required. The court was tasked with determining whether the literal interpretation of the statute was mandatory or if there was room for a more flexible interpretation that could accommodate the unique circumstances of the case. The court also considered whether the current legislative framework was in need of reform to better address the realities of family dynamics and relationships.
The court held that the statutory requirement under section 30(b) of the Adoption Act was clear and unambiguous, necessitating a continuous period of residency with the step-parent before an adoption application could be made. The court found that it was not within its purview to interpret the statute in a way that would circumvent the plain meaning of the legislation. Additionally, the court noted the potential for legislative reform to address the complexities and nuances of modern family structures, suggesting that the current statutory requirements may not adequately reflect the realities of family life. Consequently, the adoption application was dismissed due to the non-compliance with the statutory residency requirement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.