Re Adoption of E F - Anonymised - [2020] NSWSC 410

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re Adoption of E F - Anonymised [2020] NSWSC 410
Hearing dates: 9 March 2020
Date of orders: 09 March 2020
Decision date: 09 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
Adoption Orders Made

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW — Children — Adoption — Whether adoption clearly preferable and in the best interests of the child — Where sole consent to the adoption has been given by the child — Where past adoption proceedings led to order for parental responsibility, care and custody — Where child over the age of 12 expresses strong views in relation to adoption — Whether with the giving of notice of the proceedings to the child’s birth father ought to be dispensed with — Change of name
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Adoption of BS (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 2033
Adoption of KH [2015] NSWSC 274
Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680
Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27
Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813
Department of Community Services v D & Ors [2004] NSWSC 124
D v Director-General Department of Community Services & Ors [2005] NSWCA 474
OA v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2019] NSWCA 322
Texts Cited: N/A
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (as they now are) (plaintiff)
D N (first defendant)
I and J F (second and third defendants)
Ms K Renshall, direct legal representative for the child (fourth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms D Ward (plaintiff)
Birth mother (self represented, first defendant)
Ms L Sproston (second and third defendants)
Ms G Mahony (direct legal representative for the child)
Solicitors:
NSW Crown Solicitors (plaintiff)
Self represented (first defendant)
Colquhoun & Colquhoun (second and third defendants)
Kathryn Renshall Lawyers Pty Ltd (direct legal representative for the child)

File Number(s): 2004/80080

Judgment - anonymised

These proceedings concern the adoption of E F (‘E’) in favour of I and J F (‘the proposed adoptive parents’).
The Notice of Motion filed on 8 August 2019 by the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (‘the Secretary’) sought the following orders:

That pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, s 54(3)(b), the court dispense with the giving of notice of the proceedings to the child’s birth father (name unknown).
That pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, s 122(2)(b) the court appoints a direct legal representative for the child, noting that the direct legal representative for the child was previously Kathryn Renshall.
That pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, ss. 50(1) and (3), the Adoption Plan signed by I F and J F on 27 July 2019, E F on 28 July 2019 and a delegate for the Secretary on 31 July 2019, be registered.
That the court makes an order for the adoption of the child E C B A G F in favour of the adopting parents I L F and J M F.
That the court approves the name…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Adoption of E F - Anonymised and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 410
Decision Date: 09 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute over the adoption of a child, identified as E F, who was over the age of twelve. The dispute centred on whether the adoption was clearly preferable and in the best interests of the child, with the sole consent to the adoption given by the child. The court also needed to consider whether the requirement to give notice of the proceedings to the child's birth father should be dispensed with. This case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the adoption was in the best interests of the child, considering the child's age and expressed views, and whether the court should dispense with the requirement to notify the birth father of the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of previous adoption proceedings, which had resulted in an order for parental responsibility, care, and custody.

In determining the matter, the court considered the views of the child, who was over twelve years old, and had expressed strong views in relation to the adoption. The court found that the adoption was clearly preferable and in the best interests of the child, considering the child's age and expressed views. The court also found that it was appropriate to dispense with the requirement to notify the birth father of the proceedings, as it would cause the child unnecessary distress. The court emphasised the importance of considering the best interests of the child in all decisions relating to adoption.

The court made an order for the adoption of the child, E F, and granted permission for a change of name. The court also dispensed with the requirement to notify the birth father of the proceedings, as it was in the best interests of the child. The court's decision was based on the child's age, expressed views, and the previous adoption proceedings.

Orders