Makes no order as to the costs of any party to the intent that they, she and he, will pay their, her, or his own costs, respectively of the proceedings.
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - Adoption -application for order – adoption by relatives
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - Adoption – Whether adoption in child’s best interests - whether adoption order clearly preferable to any other any other action that could be taken by law in relation to their care
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - Adoption – Whether consent of birth parents required - Consent of child’s birth parents not given in accordance with Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) – Consent not effective – grounds for making consent dispense order – Child is over 12, but less than 18, years old - Child gives sole consent to adoption
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – Adoption – Whether one of the primary purposes of the proposed adoption is to obtain a visa for the child to remain in Australia – Whether a relevant consideration
[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 WS (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re WS (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1160
Case
[2017] NSWSC 1160
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this case were the prospective adoptive parents and the child's birth parents. The central issue was the granting of an adoption order for the child, who was over 12 but under 18 years old, by relatives despite the birth parents' non-consensual stance. The court was tasked with determining whether the adoption was in the child's best interests, considering the lack of effective consent from the birth parents and the child's sole consent. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the primary purpose of the adoption was to secure a visa for the child to remain in Australia, and if this constituted a relevant consideration.
The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) to assess whether the child's adoption by relatives was clearly preferable to any other legal action that could be taken in relation to their care. It was determined that the child's sole consent was sufficient, given their age and the ineffective consent of the birth parents. The court also considered whether the adoption's primary purpose was to obtain a visa, but found that this was not a decisive factor in the decision-making process.
After thorough consideration of the statutory requirements and the child's welfare, the court concluded that the adoption was in the child's best interests. The court found that the child's sole consent, despite the birth parents' non-consensual stance, was valid and that the adoption by relatives was clearly preferable. The court also found that the primary purpose of the adoption did not influence the decision, as the welfare of the child was the paramount consideration. Consequently, the court granted the adoption order, allowing the child to be adopted by their relatives.
The final orders of the court included the granting of the adoption order for the child to be adopted by their relatives, and the determination that the adoption was in the child's best interests. The court also noted that the child's sole consent was sufficient, and that the primary purpose of the adoption did not constitute a relevant consideration in this case.