The Adoption of Angelo (a pseudonym) - [2025] NSWSC 32

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Adoption of Angelo (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 32
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 7 February 2025
Decision date: 07 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: Nixon J
Decision:
Orders for adoption made; consent of father and mother dispensed with; change of name approved

Catchwords:
CHILD WELFARE – adoption – whether in child’s best interest that adoption order be made – whether adoption order clearly preferable – whether consent of mother should be dispensed with – whether consent of father should be dispensed with, in circumstances where father cannot, after reasonable inquiries, be found or identified – whether change of name should be approved

Legislation Cited:
Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), ss 8, 52, 67, 68, 72, 88, 90, 92, 101, 180
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), Dictionary to the Act

Cases Cited:
Adoption of BL [2018] NSWSC 391
Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7
Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680
Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813
Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27
Adoption of Tiana (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 1561
Application of A - re D [2006] NSWSC 1056
Director General Department of Family and Community Services; Re Stephen [2011] NSWSC 1521
Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369
In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793
Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 241
Re the Adoption of AJH [2017] NSWSC 1751
Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71
Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia v MB and JW [2017] NSWSC 1087
The Adoption of Ashleigh (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 763

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Principal Officer, Anglican Community Services (Trading as Anglicare) (Plaintiff)
Representation: Solicitors:
Plaintiff (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2024/00403844
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

JUDGMENT

This proceeding concerns the proposed adoption of a child, whom I will call Angelo Max Kumara, who is aged six, by the proposed adoptive parents, whom I will call Natalie Sharma and Glenn Dinesh Sharma. For convenience, and without intending any disrespect, I will refer to each of the individuals involved in this matter by his or her first name.
By Summons filed 24 October 2024, the Principal Officer of Anglican Community Services (trading as Anglicare) seeks the following orders:

an order pursuant to section 88(4) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act) that the giving of notice of the application to Angelo’s birth father be dispensed with;

an order pursuant to section 67(1) of the Act that the consent of Angelo’s birth father be dispensed with;

an order pursuant to section 67(1) of the Act that the consent of Angelo’s birth mother be dispensed with;

an order for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Adoption of Angelo (a pseudonym) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 32
Decision Date: 07 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of the adoption of Angelo (a pseudonym) was brought before the court. The primary parties involved were the prospective adoptive parents, the biological mother, and the biological father. The dispute centred around the court's authority to make an adoption order, whether such an order would be in the child's best interests, and whether the consents of both parents were necessary. Angelo, who was approximately two years old at the time of the hearing, had been in the care of the prospective adoptive parents for about a year and a half.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether it was in Angelo's best interests to be adopted, if the adoption order was clearly preferable, and if the court should dispense with the consent of both parents. The court had to consider the welfare and interests of Angelo as the primary consideration, including the need for stability and a permanent family placement. The court also had to determine whether the father's consent could be dispensed with, given that reasonable efforts to locate or identify him had been unsuccessful.

The court held that it was in Angelo's best interests to be adopted by the prospective parents. The evidence demonstrated that the adoptive parents provided a stable, loving, and supportive environment, which was crucial for Angelo's development and wellbeing. The court was satisfied that the adoption order was clearly preferable to any other available options. Regarding the parents' consent, the court found that the mother's consent was not necessary as it was in Angelo's best interests to be adopted without her consent. The court also determined that the father's consent could be dispensed with because reasonable efforts to locate or identify him had been unsuccessful. The court approved the change of Angelo's name as part of the adoption process.

Orders