Meier and Drummond

[2010] FamCA 191

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEIER & DRUMMOND [2010] FamCA 191

FAMILY LAW—CHILDREN—Adoption—Leave to commence proceedings under s 60G—Where the best interests of the child are taken into account—Where child has limited relationship with biological father—Where existing adoption proceedings are affected by the recent commencement of the Adoption of Children Act 2009 (Qld)—Leave granted

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60G(1), 60G(2), 60F(4)(a), 60HA(3)(a), 61E, 65J, 60CC, 60CG
Adoption of Children Act 1964 (Qld) [now repealed] s 25
Adoption of Children Act 2009 (Qld)  s 92D

APPLICANT 1: Ms Meier

APPLICANT 2: Mr Meier

RESPONDENT: Mr Drummond

FILE NUMBER: BRC 450 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 24 February 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: O’Reilly J

HEARING DATE: 24 February 2010

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT 1: In person

APPLICANT 2: In person

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED

1. The application in a case filed on 18 January 2010 be treated as an initiating application and the amended application in a case filed on 4 February 2010 be treated as an amended initiating application. 

2. The applicants may file when available the original affidavit of service of Mr C sworn 19 February 2010. 

3. Pursuant to s60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Ms Meier and Mr Meier have leave to commence adoption proceedings for the adoption of the child C born … April 1992 by them.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Meier & Drummond is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 450 of 2010

MR AND MS MEIER

Applicant

And

MR DRUMMOND

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under s 60G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by Ms Meier and Mr Meier for leave to commence proceedings for the adoption of C, born in April 1992, who will turn 18 years in April 2010.

2. D’s biological father, Mr Drummond, has been served with the application and supporting material as to which I would make reference to my findings earlier today. Further, on 13 January 2010, an order was made in the Childrens Court by Magistrate Dowse under s 25 of the Adoption of Children Act 1964 (Qld), now repealed, that Mr Drummond’s consent to the adoption of D be dispensed with.

3. The applicants commenced proceedings in Queensland for D’s adoption under the 1964 Act about eight months ago.  However, that Act was repealed, effective 1 February 2010, and replaced, effective on the same date, by the Adoption of Children Act 2009 (Qld). The 2009 Act provides, by s 92(d), that a person may apply to the chief executive to arrange an adoption by the person of a stated child if the person has been granted leave under s 60G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and other matters. Under s 60G(2) of the Commonwealth Act, I am required to consider whether the granting of leave would be in D’s best interests, having regard to the effect of s 60F(4)(a), or s 60HA(3)(a) and ss 61E and 65J. The imminence of D’s attaining 18 years, however, has the effect that, to the extent that these latter provisions may apply at all, they are of minimal importance.

4. I turn then to the matter of D’s best interests. I will refer to the particular provisions of s 60CC to s 60CG of the Commonwealth Act, which relate to the determination of a child’s best interests, only to the extent as on the material may seem relevant. D has a close and meaningful relationship with the applicants, who are her mother and stepfather. They have been in a relationship for 13 years, that is, since D was about four years, and married for 10 years, that is, since D was about seven years.  D has a limited relationship with Mr Drummond, her biological father, who lives in Melbourne.  She sees him on occasions when she visits Melbourne with her mother and has occasional telephone contact with him.  He pays child support.  D’s wishes are for the adoption to proceed.  Having regard to her age, her wishes are of considerable weight.  Indeed, it was D’s idea.  She approached her mother and stepfather about 12 months ago.  Her stepfather willingly has agreed. 

5. As mentioned, the adoption process was commenced with the State authority about eight months ago under the now repealed legislation. The effect of the new 2009 State Act has necessitated this application.  It is not for me to concern myself with the question whether the existing application, under transitional provisions, is continued, or whether the existing application be treated as a new application under the 2009 Act, or indeed whether the applicants will be required to bring a new application.  That is a matter for State law.  For the purposes of the Commonwealth law, I am satisfied in all of the circumstances that it is in D’s best interests that I grant the leave sought and I will do so.

I certify that the preceding four (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice O’Reilly

Associate: 

Date: