Re JLR

Case [2015] NSWSC 926 14 July 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia; Re JLR [2015] NSWSC 926
Hearing dates: 14, 15, 16, 17 April 2015; 22 May 2015
Date of orders: 14 July 2015
Decision date: 14 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Adoption List
Before: Bergin CJ in Eq
Decision:
Orders dispensing with consent of birth parents; order for adoption; order for registration of Adoption Plan; approval of the changes to child’s names.

Catchwords: ADOPTION – where child taken into care in infancy – where birth parents have little or no contact with child – where paternal grandmother opposes adoption order – where position changes during hearing – where access visits with birth family subject of Adoption Plan - whether order for adoption in best interests of child – whether Adoption Plan should be registered.
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Adoption Director-General, Department of Family & Community Services; Re TVK [2012] NSWSC 1629
Adoption of KH [2015] NSWSC 274
Application of A; Re D [2006] NSWSC 1056; (2006) 36 Fam LR 142
Application of H & H, child JW [2011] NSWSC 93; (2011) 45 Fam LR 681
D v Director-General, Dept of Community Services [2005] NSWCA 474; (2005) 34 Fam LR 445
Director-General, Department of Community Services NSW v D [2007] NSWSC 762; (2007) 37 Fam LR 595
Director-General, NSW Department of Family and Community Services 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
Re G [2006] 1 WLR 2305
Re K & The Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 858
Re KSE and The Adoption Act 2000 [2006] NSWSC 92
Re WJP and the Adoption Act 2000 [2014] NSWSC 783
William and Jane, Re [2010] NSWSC 1435; (2010) 44 Fam LR 292
Texts Cited: J Triseliotis, “Long-Term Foster Care or Adoption? The Evidence Examined” (2002) 7 Child and Family Social Work 23
J Cashmore, “What the Research Tells Us: Permanency Planning, Adoption and Foster Care reported in Children Australia” (2000) 25(4) Children Australia 17
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia (Plaintiff)
Birth Mother - BM (1st Defendant)
Paternal Grand Mother – PGM (2nd Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
DL Ward (Plaintiff)
M Neville (1st Defendant)
EA Lawson (2nd Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Plaintiff)
Aboriginal Legal Service (1st Defendant)
Leonie Miller (2nd Defendant)

File Number(s): A67/2014
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This is an application by the plaintiff, Secretary New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services (the Department), by his delegate the Principal Officer, Adoptions, of Barnardos Australia (Barnardos) for an order pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act

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 JLR

Details

AGLC: Re JLR [2015] NSWSC 926
Case: [2015] NSWSC 926
Decision Date: 14 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Family Court of Australia involved a child, referred to as JLR, who had been taken into care since infancy. The paternal grandmother of the child opposed the adoption application made by the Department of Communities and Justice. The dispute centred around whether granting the adoption order would be in the best interests of the child, considering the proposed Adoption Plan which included access visits with the child's birth family. The court needed to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the adoption and the registration of the Adoption Plan.

The legal issues before the court included whether an adoption order should be made despite the opposition from the paternal grandmother and if the Adoption Plan, which included provisions for contact between the child and her birth family, aligned with the child's best interests. The court also had to consider the child's welfare and the importance of stability and continuity in her upbringing, along with the potential benefits of maintaining connections with her birth family.

The Family Court of Australia, after evaluating the evidence and arguments presented, concluded that the adoption would be in the best interests of the child. The court recognised the importance of the child's relationship with her birth family and the potential benefits of the proposed access arrangements. The court determined that the Adoption Plan provided a suitable framework for the child's ongoing development, balancing her need for a stable and nurturing environment with the importance of maintaining ties to her biological heritage. Consequently, the court granted the adoption application and ordered that the Adoption Plan be registered.

The final orders of the court included the approval of the adoption application, the registration of the Adoption Plan, and the granting of access visits to the child's birth family as stipulated in the plan. This decision underscored the court's commitment to prioritising the child's welfare and ensuring that her future is secured within a supportive and loving environment.

Orders