Legal Research
Cases
Re ASK and the Adoption Act 2000

Re ASK and the Adoption Act 2000

Case [2017] NSWSC 521 9 May 2017

Adoption

Application for declaration of paternity of child

Application for orders dispensing with consent of birth parents

Application for adoption

Application for approval of change of last name of child

Whether name change is in child's best interests

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re ASK and the Adoption Act 2000 [2017] NSWSC 521
Date of orders: 09 May 2017
Decision date: 09 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hallen J
Decision:
The Court:

1) Declares, pursuant to Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW), s 21(2), that D-NW is the father of ASK.

2) Orders, pursuant to Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), s 19(2), that D-NW be included as the father of ASK in the Register of Births Deaths and Marriages.

3) Orders, pursuant to Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), s 67(1)(d), that the consent of the child's natural mother, NHM, be dispensed with.

4) Orders, pursuant to Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), s 88(4), that the Court dispense with the giving of notice on NHM.

5) Orders for the adoption of the child, ASK, in favour of the adopting parents, BCB and KM.

6) Orders that the name “M” as the surname and “ASKM” as the given names of the child be approved.
7) Authorises the publication of the reasons for Judgment, but of no other document relating to the proceedings.
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Adoption - Application for declaration of paternity of child - Application for orders dispensing with consent of birth parents - Application for adoption - Application for approval of change of last name of child - Whether name change is in child's best interests
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Adoption Regulation 2015 (NSW)
Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Application of AW and IW Re Children J and J [2011] NSWSC 1529
Adoption of BS (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 2033
Adoption of GWL [2013] NSWSC 1527
Adoption of KH [2015] NSWSC 274
Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680
Application of O and P [2005] NSWSC 1297
Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813
Adoption of SVS [2015] NSWSC 2043
Application D and D; Re Y [2013] NSWSC 1477
Application of H & H, child JW [2011] NSWSC 93
Director-General, Department of Community Services v Adoptive Parents [2005] NSWCA 385
Director-General, NSW Department of Family and Community Services; re D [2012] NSWSC 223
Director-General; Re JS [2013] NSWSC 306
Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369
Director General Department of Family and Community Services; Re Stephen [2011] NSWSC 1521
Farnell v Penhalluriack (No 2) [2008] VSC 214
H, AM v L, L [2013] SASC 7
Oxfordshire County Council v X [2010] EWCA Civ 581; [2010] Fam Law 790
Re Adoption of RCC [2015] NSWSC 813
Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965
Re K & The Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 858
Re KSE & The Adoption Act 2000 [2006] NSWSC 92
Re M [2002] NSWSC 158
Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia; Re JLR [2015] NSWSC…

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.

Continue reading Re ASK and the Adoption Act 2000

Details

AGLC: Re ASK and the Adoption Act 2000 [2017] NSWSC 521
Case: [2017] NSWSC 521
Decision Date: 09 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Re ASK involved an application for a declaration of paternity of a child, orders dispensing with the consent of the birth parents, and an adoption application. The matter also included an application for approval to change the child's last name. The court was required to consider whether the proposed change of name was in the child's best interests. The applicants, ASK, sought to adopt a child and change the child's surname. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had established the necessary grounds for dispensing with the consent of the birth parents and whether the proposed name change was in the best interests of the child.

The court examined the statutory provisions under the Adoption Act 2000 and the relevant case law to determine if the applicants had satisfied the criteria for dispensing with parental consent. It considered the welfare of the child as the paramount concern, assessing the evidence presented regarding the child's best interests, including the impact of the name change on the child's identity and relationship with the applicants. The court also reviewed the relationship between the child and the applicants, as well as the stability and support the applicants could provide. Ultimately, the court found that the applicants had met the necessary legal standards and that the name change would be in the child's best interests. The court granted the applications for paternity declaration, dispensing with parental consent, adoption, and the approval of the name change.

The final orders of the court included a declaration of paternity, approval for the adoption without the need for consent from the birth parents, and permission for the child's last name to be changed to that of the applicants. The court emphasised the importance of the child's welfare and the positive impact the adoption and name change would have on the child's future. The decision provided clarity on the application of the Adoption Act 2000 in similar circumstances, reaffirming the court's commitment to prioritising the best interests of the child in adoption matters.

Orders