Re Sarah

Case [2013] NSWCA 379


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Re Sarah [2013] NSWCA 379
Hearing dates:5 November 2013
Decision date: 05 November 2013
Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Barrett JA at [28]
Ward JA at [35]
Decision:

1. Extend time for application for leave to appeal to 5 November 2013;

2. Dismiss application for leave to appeal;

3. Dismiss first respondent's notice of motion of 27 August 2013;

4. Order applicant to pay respondents' costs of these proceedings.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - child welfare under state legislation - adoption - where it is not apparent on the child's instrument of consent that the child's counsellor has certified that the child understands the effect of signing that instrument - where no notification of putative birth father or consent dispense order thereto - whether in the best interests of the child to grant leave to appeal
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
Status of Children Act 1996
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Clyne v NSW Bar Association [1960] HCA 40; (1960) 104 CLR 186
D v Director-General Department of Community Services [2005] NSWCA 474
Director General Department of Family and Community Services; Re Stephen [2011] NSWSC 1521
Director-General, Family and Community Services Re Felicity [2012] NSWCA 272
Druett v Director-General of Community Services [2001] NSWCA 126
GKD v Director-General, Attorney General's Department [2012] NSWCA 219
Krishna v Lovett [2011] NSWCA 354
Moulieux Pty Limited & Girvan NSW Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (Court of Appeal, 20 September 1991, unreported)
Re DG and The Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) [2007] FMCAfam 712; (2007) 38 Fam LR 122
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: JL (Applicant)
KLP and JSP (First Respondent)
Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services (Second Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant self represented
G Moore (First Respondent)
Ms S Christie (Second Respondent)
R D Wilson SC (Amicus curiae)
Solicitors:
Ellis McLachlan Solicitors (First Respondent)
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):CA 2013/212651
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2012-03-02 00:00:00
Before:
Black J
File Number(s):
A167/2011

Judgment

  1. MEAGHER JA: These are my reasons for joining in the orders made by the Court on 5 November 2013. Those orders extended the time for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal and dismissed that application with costs.

  1. The applicant is the natural mother of Sarah who in March 2012 was 12 years and 9 months old. She sought to…

Continue reading Re Sarah

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Sarah [2013] NSWCA 379
Case
[2013] NSWCA 379
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal concerning issues of child welfare and adoption under state legislation. The dispute arose from an instrument of consent to adoption where it was not apparent that the child's counsellor had certified the child's understanding of the instrument's effect. Furthermore, there was no notification of the putative birth father, nor any order dispensing with his consent. The proceedings were heard by Meagher, Barrett and Ward JJA.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the requirements of the relevant state legislation regarding the certification of the child's understanding by their counsellor and the notification of the putative birth father had been met, and if not, whether it was in the best interests of the child to grant leave to appeal in light of these circumstances.

The Court considered the provisions of the relevant state legislation and the circumstances surrounding the consent to adoption. It appears the Court found that the procedural requirements had not been adequately met. However, despite these deficiencies, the Court ultimately determined that it was not in the best interests of the child to grant leave to appeal.

The Court ordered an extension of time for the application for leave to appeal to 5 November 2013. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, as was the first respondent's notice of motion dated 27 August 2013. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Extend time for application for leave to appeal to 5 November 2013;

2. Dismiss application for leave to appeal;

3. Dismiss first respondent's notice of motion of 27 August 2013;

4. Order applicant to pay respondents' costs of these proceedings.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.