Randall & Anor and Shire

In *Randall & Anor & Shire* [2012] FamCA 578, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Randall and Ms Frank (the applicants) for leave to commence adoption proceedings for the child L, born in February 2006. The respondent, Mr Shire, is the child's biological father. The applicants sought leave pursuant to section 60G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to adopt the child, with whom they already co-nurture their other child.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicants leave to commence adoption proceedings. This required the Court to determine if it was in the child's best interests to permit adoption proceedings to proceed in the Queensland Magistrates Court, which would have the potential consequence of the biological father ceasing to have parental responsibility for the child. The Court also considered the interplay between the *Family Law Act 1975* and the *Adoption Act 2009* (Qld), noting that leave from the Family Court is a precondition to a step-parent adoption order under state legislation.

Murphy J reasoned that the decision to grant leave under section 60G of the *Family Law Act 1975* is governed by the best interests of the child, as outlined in section 60G(2) and informed by the considerations in section 60CC. His Honour noted that while the Family Court's role is distinct from the state court's role in making the final adoption order, the state legislation's requirements, such as the child being between five and seventeen years old and the need for parental consent or a court order dispensing with it, are directly relevant to the Family Court's decision on whether to grant leave. Crucially, the father, who had previously opposed the adoption, provided his consent in an affidavit sworn shortly before the hearing, having given the matter significant consideration. The Court found that the applicants had a loving relationship with the child, who regarded Mr Randall as his father, and that Mr Randall was committed to the child's care.

The Court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to permit adoption proceedings to proceed in the Queensland Magistrates Court. Consequently, leave was granted to the applicants to commence adoption proceedings. The Court also ordered that existing orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dated 30 June 2006 and 23 February 2007 be discharged, that the respondent father have no parental responsibility for the child, and that the applicant Mr Randall have parental responsibility. Furthermore, the applicants Ms Frank and Mr Randall were ordered to exercise equal shared parental responsibility for the child pursuant to section 65D(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975*.