re L (a child) (No.2)

[2009] NSWSC 189

CITATION:	Application by Director-General, Department of Community Services; re L (a child) (No.2) [2009] NSWSC 189
HEARING DATE(S):	In chambers
JUDGMENT DATE :	23 March 2009
JURISDICTION:	Equity Adoptions List
JUDGMENT OF:	Austin J
DECISION:	Order extended for one year
CATCHWORDS:	Adoption of children - parental responsibility order - application for extension of interim parental responsibility order by Director-General in his favour - relevant considerations
LEGISLATION CITED:	Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), s 84
CASES CITED:	Application by Director-General, Department of Community Services; re L (a child) [2008] NSWSC 235
PARTIES:	Director-General, Department of Community Services (P)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 80008/08

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
ADOPTIONS LIST

AUSTIN J

MONDAY 23 MARCH 2009

80008/08 APPLICATION BY DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES; RE L (A CHILD) (NO.2)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: For the reasons given in my judgment dated 25 March 2008 (Application by Director-General, Department of Community Services, re L (a child) [2008] NSWSC 235), I made an order, on the application of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, that the Director-General is to have parental responsibility for the child L for the period up to and including Wednesday 25 March. The order was expressed to be subject to terms requiring that Anglicare Adoption Services would provide regular supervision of the child's placement with Mr and Mrs T, and provide a further report to the Department. The order was made under s 84(2) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW). I noted that the order could be extended for another year (Judgment, at [40]), but the order could not extend beyond two years (Judgment, at [15]).

2 I expressed the opinion that it was in the best interests of the child that, for the time being, the Director-General should retain parental responsibility (Judgment, at [37]). I said that I saw a parental responsibility order in favour of the Director-General as part of the arrangements to ensure that a process of settling an effective plan for the long-term care of the child would be brought to fruition. I saw the Director-General as taking an overarching role in driving the process forward towards a satisfactory outcome, but that regular supervision of the child's placement with Mr and Mrs T should be undertaken by Anglicare.

3 By summons filed on 20 March 2009 (wrongly stamped by the Court Registry as 20 March 2008), the Director-General has applied for a further order under s 84(2) having the effect of continuing the existing parental responsibility for L for a further period of one year, with liberty to apply for a further order. If the order is made it will operate until 24 March 2010. In my view the Court has the power to make this order, for the reasons given in my earlier judgment.

4 The evidence before the Court now, in the form of an affidavit by Mary Frances Griffin made on 18 March 2009 with multiple annexures, indicates that there was tension between Mr and Mrs T and Anglicare, leading to Anglicare formally handing over case responsibility for L to the Adoption and Permanent Care Services section of the Department on 22 August 2008. In those circumstances it would not be appropriate for any further parental responsibility order to be made conditional upon regular supervision by Anglicare. The order should be made without making it subject to any terms.

5 Since the Court last dealt with this matter, there have been many quite intricate developments, but the current state of play seems to be as follows:

(a) Mr and Mrs T now wish to apply for the adoption of L, after having preferred a different course at an earlier time;
(b) a further adoption plan has been approved by the birth parents in general terms and has been submitted to them for signature;
(c) other children of the birth mother are currently in the care of the birth mother's mother ("the grandmother"), evidently pursuant to some orders of the Children's Court which are not in evidence;
(d) the birth parents have separated;
(e) after expressing an interest in having care of L, the grandmother has decided not to contest Mr and Mrs T's adoption application;
(f) there have been various meetings, most recently a relaxed and positive meeting on 7 March 2009 of the birth mother, the grandmother, L's brothers and sisters, Mr and Mrs T and L;
(g) these various matters have delayed the adoption process.

6 As far as I can see from the evidence, there is no longer any reason to delay an adoption application by Mr and Mrs T. The grandmother has indicated she will not oppose it. If there is delay on the part of the birth parents in approving the adoption plan, in circumstances where they had previously given their consent to adoption, the Court has the power to make appropriate orders should it appear that the birth parents' delay is not justified and the interests of the child require that orders be made. Ms Griffin has deposed that the Department envisages applying for an adoption order in respect of L in approximately July 2009.

7 In all of these circumstances, I am persuaded that the appropriate course is to make the order requested by the Director-General, extending her parental responsibility for another year.

**********