The Adoption of Beth and Amy March

[2025] NSWSC 952

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

The Adoption of Beth and Amy March [2025] NSWSC 952

Hearing dates:

4 – 5 August 2025

Date of orders:

21 August 2025

Decision date:

21 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Adoptions List

Before:

McGrath J

Decision:

Orders for adoption made, consent of birth parents dispensed with, approval of there being no change of name, adoption plans approved and maternal adoption plan registered

Catchwords:

CHILD WELFARE — Adoption — two sisters — three older siblings restored to birth mother’s care — where proposed adoptive parents are children’s current foster parents — whether adoption order is in each child’s best interests — whether adoption order clearly preferable to alternatives — whether birth parents’ consent should be dispensed with — where no change of names proposed — whether adoption plans are in the best interests of each child and proper in the circumstances — HELD — adoption order is clearly preferable and in each child’s best interests — consent dispense order is in the best interests of each child — no change of name approved — adoption plans are in the best interests of each child and proper in the circumstances — maternal adoption plan registered

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), ss 8, 23, 28, 50, 52, 54, 55, 63, 66, 67, 72, 90, 92, 95, 101, 122, 180

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), ss 79, 90

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 69ZK

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 56.13

Cases Cited:

A Child Proposed for Adoption [2019] NSWSC 1653

Adoption of NG [2014] NSWSC 680

Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813

Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369

Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 641

Re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239

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 v MB [2017] NSWSC 1087

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (Plaintiff)
M March (First Defendant)
R March (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
D McMullen (Plaintiff)
K Phillips (Legal Representative for Beth March)
N Laurie (Legal Representative for Amy March)
V Cataldi (First Defendant)
D Allen (Second Defendant)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Solicitor for Beth March)
Neligan Law (Solicitor for Amy March)
Rafton Family Lawyers (First Defendant)
Du & Associates (Second Defendant)

File Number(s):

2022/00195161

Publication restriction:

This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

1. This case concerns an application by summons filed 4 July 2022 by the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) by their delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia, that two siblings, Beth Tai Yang March (now 11 years of age) and Amy Yue Liang March (now 6 years of age) be adopted by the proposed adoptive parents, Daisy Brooke and Friedrich Vaughn, by order of this court pursuant to s 23 the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (Act).

2. The Secretary also seeks orders:

1. dispensing with the consent of the birth parents of Beth and Amy, Marmee Hoffmann and Robert March;

2. approving the name “March” as the surname for Beth and Amy and their respective given names of “Beth Tai Yang” and “Amy Yue Liang”;

3. approving and registering the maternal adoption plan; and

4. approving the paternal adoption plan.

3. Beth and Amy have three older siblings – John March (now 16 years of age), Laurie March (now 15 years of age) and Margaret March (now 13 years of age).

4. On 2 January 2020, John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy were all taken into the care of the Secretary. On 10 September 2020, the Children’s Court of New South Wales made orders allocating parental responsibility for all of them to the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services. At the end of 2023, parental responsibility for John, Laurie and Margaret was restored to Marmee but the same order was refused for Beth and Amy.

5. Each of Marmee and Robert are defendants in the proceedings and strongly oppose the adoption orders being made for Beth and Amy. Each of Marmee and Robert were separately legally represented by solicitors and counsel in the proceedings and at the hearing before me.

6. Each of Beth and Amy were separately legally represented in the proceedings and at the hearing before me.

7. In this judgment, I will refer to each of the family members and other individuals involved by their first names for convenience and without intending any disrespect. In this published version of the judgment, all affected persons referred to have been assigned pseudonyms in keeping with s 180 of the Act.

8. The central issue I am required to decide is whether an adoption order should be made for Beth and Amy in circumstances where their three older siblings are now back under the parental responsibility of Marmee. Whatever order I make will apply to both Beth and Amy as it was agreed that they should not be separated.

9. For the reasons set out below, I have determined that in the difficult circumstances of this case, I should order that each of Beth and Amy be adopted by Daisy and Friedrich; make a consent dispense order with respect to both Marmee and Robert; approve there being no change of name for Beth and Amy; and approve the adoption plans, with the maternal adoption plan to be registered.

Beth

10. Beth was born on 8 January 2014 at a hospital in New South Wales. During her infancy, Beth lived with relatives in China for three years. Beth is an Australian citizen.

11. Beth is in Year 6 at a public school, which is within walking distance of her home with Daisy and Friedrich. In her school reports, Beth is said to demonstrate high levels of academic ability and is regarded as an excellent, well-rounded and talented student. Beth enjoys going to school.

12. Beth is said to be happy, confident, compassionate, clever, energetic, articulate and friendly with a strong attachment to Daisy and Friedrich. Beth attends Girl Guides and swimming lessons each week and has expressed a desire to swim competitively. Beth has strong friendship groups at school and within the townhouse complex where she lives. She enjoys riding her bike, exploring her neighbourhood and playing with her cat, Yellow.

13. Beth has a close and strong relationship with Amy.

14. Beth is in good health and has her health reviewed regularly.

Amy

15. Amy was born on 14 September 2018 at a hospital in New South Wales. Amy is an Australian citizen.

16. Amy is in Year 1 at a public school, the same school that Beth attends. In her school reports, Amy is described as having a positive attitude to her schooling and actively tries her best in the classroom. Amy has both excitement and pride in relation to her school.

17. Amy is described as a happy, extroverted, bright, caring, kind, social and active girl who enjoys the company of others, particularly Daisy and Friedrich. Amy attends swimming lessons, Girl Guides and piano lessons on a weekly basis. She also enjoys an array of toys and creative activities.

18. Amy has a strong attachment to Beth and loves copying the things she does.

19. Amy is also in good health and has her health reviewed regularly.

The proposed adoptive parents

20. Daisy was born on 15 May 1976 in Dubbo, New South Wales and is now 49 years of age. Daisy has resided in New South Wales for 46 years. Daisy has Chinese heritage. Daisy works as a Design Verification Coordinator. Daisy has dual Australian and Italian citizenship.

21. Friedrich was born on 21 April 1981 in Castiglione delle Stivere, near Verona in Italy, and is now 44 years of age. Friedrich has resided in New South Wales for 13 years. Friedrich has Italian heritage. Friedrich works as a Senior Property Manager. Friedrich was also adopted at birth but had no information about his birth family as it was a closed adoption. Friedrich used his experience to provide support to adoptive parents in his community during his teenage years. Friedrich has dual Australian and Italian citizenship.

22. Daisy and Friedrich married on 27 October 2012. They have no biological children. Daisy and Friedrich are practising Catholics.

23. Daisy and Friedrich have lived together at the home they jointly own in New South Wales since 28 November 2016. It is in a townhouse complex, with three bedrooms, a double garage, two courtyards and shared facilities including a gym and pool.

24. Daisy and Friedrich are authorised carers who have had the care and responsibility for Beth and Amy under out of home care arrangements pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (Care Act) since 14 December 2020. During that time, Beth and Amy have lived with Daisy and Friedrich at their home in New South Wales. Beth was nearly 7 years old and Amy was 2 years old when they commenced to live with Daisy and Friedrich.

25. The referees for Daisy and Friedrich have observed that they have a loving, stable and happy marriage. Daisy is described as pragmatic, sensible, reliable, witty, down-to-earth, very kind, compassionate, caring, thoughtful and organised. Friedrich is described as hilarious, personable, confident, incredibly hard-working, intelligent and generous.

26. In their relationship with Beth and Amy, Daisy is described as loving but firm and Friedrich is described as playful and adorable. All of their referees have vouched that Daisy and Friedrich have the capacity to raise adopted children.

27. Daisy and Friedrich are both in good general physical health and lead a healthy and active lifestyle.

Birth parents and siblings

28. Marmee was born on 25 May 1987 in Kiribati and is now 37 years of age. Marmee lives in Kogarah, New South Wales. Marmee is of Kiribati heritage and was raised in the Catholic faith. Marmee had a difficult upbringing.

29. Robert was born on 24 December 1956 in China and is currently 68 years of age. Robert lives in Woronora, New South Wales. Robert is of Chinese heritage and practises in the Buddhist faith. Robert had a very strict upbringing.

30. Marmee and Robert were in a relationship for 12 years, became married sometime between 2016 and 2019 (the records of the date are unclear) and separated in April 2022.

31. Beth and Amy were the fourth and fifth children born to Marmee and Robert and, as stated above, they have three older full siblings:

1. John, born 4 September 2008 and now 16 years of age;

2. Laurie, born 9 January 2010 and now 15 years of age; and

3. Margaret, born 2 November 2011 and now 13 years of age.

32. John, Laurie and Margaret are presently under the parental responsibility of Marmee pursuant to orders in the Children’s Court made on 7 November 2023 (in the case of Laurie and Margaret) and 15 December 2023 (in the case of John). John, Laurie and Margaret were restored to Marmee’s care in January 2024, having previously been under the parental responsibility of the Minister pursuant to an order made in the Children’s Court on 10 September 2020. Before they were returned to the care of Marmee, John lived at a residential group home while Laurie and Margaret resided together with foster carers.

33. Beth and Amy have one maternal half sibling, Hannah Hoffman, born 19 October 2005 and now 19 years of age. Hannah is severely disabled with limited sight and hearing and lives in a disability residential group home. Hannah was under the parental responsibility of the Minister prior to turning 18 years of age. She now has a Public Guardian appointed.

34. Beth and Amy have one paternal half sibling, Josephine March, born 6 February 1997 and now 28 years of age. Josephine’s mother also has Kiribati heritage. Josephine resides independently in Revesby, New South Wales.

BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE

Child protection, Children’s Court proceedings and placement with the proposed adoptive parents

35. Between 27 December 2014 and 1 January 2020, the DCJ received 19 Risk of Significant Harm (ROSH) reports concerning John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy, with a further five reports being made that fell just below the ROSH threshold. The reported concerns included domestic violence, neglect, parental substance abuse, physical safety of the home, lack of supervision, psychological harm, inadequate care and parental mental health.

36. On 7 November 2019, a provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) prohibiting Robert from approaching or having contact with John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy was put in place by New South Wales Police after Laurie disclosed multiple physical abuse incidents involving excessive discipline perpetrated by Robert.

37. On 17 August 2020, a final ADVO was made by the Local Court of New South Wales prohibiting Robert from approaching or having contact with John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy until 23 August 2023.

38. Between 10 and 25 December 2020, there were four fires in the family home and a fifth fire in emergency accommodation in which the family was living.

39. On 1 January 2020, Marmee was arrested in respect of the fires, but the matter did not proceed in the Local Court of New South Wales as the charges were later withdrawn by the Police.

40. On 1 January 2020, due to Marmee’s arrest and the ADVO against Robert, and with no other extended family members living in Australia who could care for John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy, they entered a placement under a temporary care arrangement.

41. On 2 January 2020, John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy were assumed into care due to ongoing ROSH reports, with Robert and Marmee refusing support and being unwilling to work with the DCJ.

42. From 7 January 2020 until 14 December 2020, Beth and Amy were in foster care through a placement made by Settlement Services International (SSI).

43. On 10 September 2020, the Children’s Court made a final order under s 79 of the Care Act allocating parental responsibility to the Minister for John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy until they reach 18 years of age.

44. On 9 December 2020, the case management and delegated parental responsibility for Beth and Amy was transferred from SSI to Barnardos.

45. On 14 December 2020, Beth and Amy commenced living with Daisy and Friedrich following a 12-day transition with the permanency goal of open adoption.

Procedural history of these proceedings, further Children’s Court proceedings and District Court appeal

46. On 4 July 2022, the Secretary filed the summons seeking adoption orders for Beth and Amy. Both Marmee and Robert separately contested the making of the adoption orders.

47. On 3 August 2022, Marmee and Robert were joined as defendants to the proceedings.

48. On 10 October 2022, a preliminary hearing occurred in these proceedings before Stevenson J at which the final hearing was listed on 20 and 21 March 2023.

49. On 24 February 2023, the first expert report of Penelope Haskins (First Haskins Report) was completed. Ms Haskins is a qualified social worker with 50 years’ experience, 28 years of which have been spent working in relation to a vast array of adoption issues, including the suitability of adoption, providing post placement reports following placement of a child for adoption and preparing s 91 reports in adoption matters.

50. Ms Haskins conducted interviews with each of Beth; Daisy and Friedrich; Robert; Marmee; John; and Laurie for the purposes of preparing the First Haskins Report. Ms Haskins attempted to interview Margaret but was unsuccessful in being able to speak with her.

51. The First Haskins Report contains recommendations at that time for further casework to be undertaken with Daisy and Friedrich, Beth, Amy and their birth family members and for visits between Beth, Amy, Marmee, John, Laurie and Margaret to increase in frequency. Further reference to the First Haskins Report is made below.

52. On 24 February 2023, Marmee filed an application under s 90 of the Care Act in the Children’s Court seeking the rescission of the care orders made in respect of John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy and the restoration of them to her care.

53. On 13 March 2023, a directions hearing took place in these proceedings before Stevenson J at which the final hearing listed on 20 and 21 March 2023 was vacated and the proceedings were stood over for directions on 17 April 2023 to enable the Children’s Court’s determination of Marmee’s s 90 application to be known.

54. These proceedings were then stood over at successive directions hearings before Stevenson J in chambers during 2023 awaiting the determination of Marmee’s s 90 application to the Children’s Court.

55. On 7 November 2023, the Children’s Court granted final orders for Laurie and Margaret for restoration with parental responsibility being allocated to the Minister for six months and parental responsibility to then be allocated to Marmee, with the exception of contact which was allocated to the Minister until Laurie and Margaret reached 16 years of age. During the hearing, John did not consent to final orders being made for him as he expressed concerns regarding his contact with Beth and Amy and wished to remain a party to these proceedings.

56. On 15 December 2023, the Children’s Court dismissed Marmee’s s 90 application in relation to the care of Beth and Amy. During this hearing, final orders were made for the restoration of John into Marmee’s care with parental responsibility being allocated to the Minister for six months and parental responsibility to then be allocated to Marmee, with the exception of contact which was allocated to the Minister until Laurie reaches 16 years of age. Detailed reasons for the making of these decisions were provided.

57. On 12 January 2024, Marmee filed an appeal in the District Court of New South Wales of the Children’s Court decision to dismiss her s 90 application for Beth and Amy (District Court appeal).

58. These proceedings were then stood over at successive directions hearings before Stevenson J in chambers during the first half of 2024 awaiting the determination of the District Court appeal.

59. On 27 March 2024, a directions hearing in the District Court appeal was held to deal with Marmee’s non-compliance with the timetable, at which the existing final hearing date of 4 April 2024 of the District Court appeal was vacated and a new hearing date was fixed for 29 May 2024.

60. On 29 May 2024, the District Court appeal hearing before Judge Cole was due to be held, at which time Marmee’s District Court appeal was withdrawn and dismissed.

61. On 5 June 2024, a directions hearing was held in these proceedings before Stevenson J at which the final hearing was listed on 18 and 19 November 2024.

62. Arising from an assessment undertaken by Ms Haskins at the request of Barnardos on 14 October 2024, Ms Haskins stated that the proposed final hearing dates of 18 and 19 November 2024 were too soon and further work was required to rebuild the sibling relationships between John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy.

63. On 6 November 2024, a directions hearing was held in these proceedings before Stevenson J at which the Secretary sought that the matter be relisted to allow Ms Haskins to complete additional therapeutic work between Daisy and Friedrich, Beth, Amy and their birth family members. At that directions hearing, Stevenson J vacated the final hearing dates of 18 and 19 November 2024 and listed the final hearing on 12 and 13 May 2025.

64. On 28 November 2024, Stevenson J made an order in chambers that Beth and Amy each be appointed a legal representative pursuant to s 122 of the Act.

65. On 2 December 2024, Stevenson J made an order in chambers that Kerri Phillips be appointed as the legal representative for Beth and Dian Neligan be appointed as the legal representative for Amy pursuant to s 122 of the Act.

66. On 22 April 2025, the updating expert report of Ms Haskins (Second Haskins Report) was completed. The Second Haskins Report contains an update of the opinions expressed by Ms Haskins in the First Haskins Report based on events which had occurred since the date of the First Haskins Report and further separate interviews that Ms Haskins had conducted with each of Daisy and Friedrich; Marmee; John, Laurie and Margaret; Beth and Amy. The Second Haskins Report contains Ms Haskins’ assessment of the respective risks to Beth and Amy of the following alternatives:

1. restoration of Beth and Amy to Marmee’s care;

2. a guardianship order over Beth and Amy in favour of Daisy and Friedrich; and

3. an adoption order for Beth and Amy in favour of Daisy and Friedrich.

67. The Second Haskins Report also contains the recommendation of Ms Haskins in relation to each of these alternatives. Further reference to the Second Haskins Report is made below.

68. On 30 April 2025, a directions hearing was held in these proceedings before me at which I vacated the hearing on 12 and 13 May 2025 in light of the further matters required to be undertaken for the preparation of the proceedings for hearing.

69. On 7 May 2025, a directions hearing in these proceedings was held before me at which the final hearing was listed on 4 and 5 August 2025. At that directions hearing, I noted that the parties had agreed that Ms Haskins would be asked to conduct consultations with Marmee, Daisy and Friedrich, Beth and Amy and their siblings in relation to the draft maternal adoption plan prior to 20 June 2025, following which any recommendations by Ms Haskins would be made on or before 25 June 2025.

70. As is evident from the procedural history outlined above, there has been significant delay in these proceedings being ready for hearing. As outlined in further detail below, that delay has brought unfortunate strains into the relationships between Daisy and Friedrich, Beth, Amy and their birth family members.

Final hearing

71. On 4 and 5 August 2025, the final hearing of the proceedings was held before me.

72. At the final hearing, affidavit evidence was provided from Olivia Rennie (Principal Officer, Adoptions for Barnardos), Deborah Willick (Program Manager, Adoptions for Barnardos), Patricia Ibanez (Senior Case Manager, Adoptions for Barnardos), Veronica Calefati (Case Manager, Adoptions for Barnardos), Ms Haskins, Daisy, Friedrich, Marmee (through an interpreter), Robert and referees for Daisy and Friedrich.

73. Ms Rennie, Ms Calefati, Ms Haskins, Daisy, Marmee (through an interpreter) and Robert (through an interpreter) were each cross-examined during the final hearing.

74. At the final hearing, Ms D McMullen appeared for the Secretary instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office, Ms K Phillips of Legal Aid NSW appeared as Beth’s legal representative, Mr V Cataldi appeared as counsel for Marmee instructed by Rafton Family Lawyers, Mr N Jackson appeared as counsel for Amy instructed by Neligan Law and Mr D Allen appeared for Robert instructed by Du & Associates.

Contact with the birth family

75. The contact arrangements between Beth and Amy and their birth family have a complicated history.

76. The ADVO against Robert had conditions that prohibited him from contact with his children. On 3 September 2020, the ADVO was varied to allow supervised contact visits with Robert. On 7 December 2020, visits resumed with Robert.

77. The DCJ care plan attached to the orders of the Children’s Court of 10 September 2020 noted that supervised contact was to occur at a minimum of 12 times per year with Marmee, six times per year with Robert and fortnightly with their siblings, including their maternal and paternal siblings.

78. During the balance of 2020 and throughout 2021, the visits of Beth and Amy with Marmee were reported to be positive and the children were observed to have a close attachment to her. Marmee engaged with Beth and Amy in a warm, playful and focused manner and Beth was observed to have a close bond with her sister, Margaret. During the visits involving Robert, he was observed to be affectionate towards the children although he primarily interacted in Mandarin with John. On 16 April 2021, there was an altercation involving John and Laurie during a contact visit which resulted in the development of a safety plan.

79. During 2021, additional informal contact was facilitated by Daisy and Friedrich sending updates, photos and videos.

80. From July 2021 to October 2021, visits between Beth, Amy, John, Laurie and Margaret were facilitated via online video chat due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and related restrictions. Initially this occurred as a group video contact but then it moved to individual online contact. The visits also moved from being fortnightly to monthly in line with the contact with Marmee.

81. Around February 2022, there was a placement breakdown for Laurie and Margaret which resulted in Daisy and Friedrich providing whole day and weekend overnight respite for them, with informal visits increasing. Beth and Margaret attended Mandarin classes together every Saturday and there was additional informal contact by way of play dates and sleepovers involving Beth, Amy, Laurie and Margaret.

82. During 2021 and 2022, there was informal contact between Beth, Amy and Josephine. Daisy informed Josephine of the dates of the siblings contact and invited her to attend if she wished. Outside of the scheduled contact visits, Daisy facilitated the informal contact between Beth, Amy and Josephine.

83. On 5 February 2022, Robert was non-responsive towards Daisy and Friedrich during a contact visit.

84. In April 2022, Robert failed to advise that he would not be attending a scheduled contact visit. He did not seek to reschedule the visit.

85. In April 2022, the contact arrangements were changed when Marmee and Robert separated. From that time, the visits were held separately for Marmee and Robert and were reduced to six times per year, occurring on the same day one after the other.

86. On 4 June 2022, Daisy and Friedrich commenced providing Robert with email photo updates of Beth and Amy but he did not respond to them.

87. On 7 June 2022, Robert declined successive suggestions from Daisy and Friedrich that he have additional informal contact with Beth and Amy to observe them at their swimming lessons and to hold a video call with them.

88. Between June 2022 to December 2022, Marmee had a total of three visits with Beth and Amy.

89. In July 2022, an allegation was made against Daisy that she had assaulted Beth during a contact visit. Daisy denied the allegation. In August 2022, the allegation was investigated by the DCJ and found not to be reportable.

90. In November 2022, during a contact visit, Robert behaved aggressively and made a threat to Daisy. Following that visit, Robert made a report to the Police about the allegation made in July 2022 against Daisy, saying that he went to the police station in person (T53). Daisy again denied the allegation. The Police then investigated the allegation and determined that no further action was required.

91. In cross-examination, Robert agreed that he was angry during the visit (T51) but claimed not to have taken any rude or aggressive action towards Daisy (T51). Based on my observations of the aggressive way in which Robert conducted himself while giving evidence about these matters saying that “I couldn’t control myself” (T53), in my assessment, I have no doubt Robert did behave aggressively towards Daisy during this visit.

92. On 5 December 2022, Barnardos sent a letter to Robert advising him of the guidelines he was required to follow during his scheduled visits with John, Laurie, Margaret, Beth and Amy. In the letter, Barnardos warned Robert that his visit may be cancelled and he “may be asked to leave the premises if [he] presented as extremely distressed, agitated or threatening”. In cross-examination, Robert agreed that he received this letter (T54).

93. In February 2023, during a contact visit between Beth, Amy and Robert, Robert stayed for five minutes, did not engage with Daisy and Friedrich and then told Beth that “Daisy is a bloody woman, don’t listen to that woman”. Since that visit, Robert has not had any in-person or virtual visits with Beth and Amy. In cross-examination, Robert agreed that the visit lasted for five minutes, but did not recall using the phrase alleged (T55). In my assessment, Robert did use that phrase in respect of Daisy.

94. In accordance with the independent assessment recommendation of Ms Haskins, Barnardos then made a decision that contact visits with Robert would only occur via video call until Robert could demonstrate that he accepts his rights to see Beth and Amy and enjoys a positive relationship with them, with an accompanying responsibility to ensure that the visits promote the best interests of Beth and Amy and do not threaten their wellbeing.

95. In May 2023, July 2023 and March 2024, Robert has also been offered video calls with Beth and Amy but he has either not responded to those offers or has declined them. In cross-examination, Robert accepted that he said that he did not want a video call with Beth and Amy on those occasions, saying that he refused them because he wanted a face-to-face visit (T56–57).

96. During 2023, Marmee had a total of five in-person visits and three video calls with Beth and Amy, with the visits being generally warm. Marmee greeted Beth and Amy with a hug, but had minimal engagement with Daisy and Friedrich. During these visits, Daisy often prompted the engagement between Beth and Marmee.

97. In September 2023, John sent a threatening text message to Daisy.

98. In November 2023, John and Margaret were alleged to have told Beth to tell them that Daisy assaulted her. When Daisy informed the siblings that she, Friedrich, Beth and Amy would be leaving the visit, John said that he would call the Police if they did so.

99. In November 2023, an allegation was made against Friedrich in respect of Amy. Friedrich denied the allegation. The allegation was investigated by the Police and Barnardos and found not to be substantiated.

100. Between November 2023 and April 2024, the visits between Beth, Amy and Marmee moved to video calls in accordance with Beth’s wishes.

101. In February 2024, Daisy received another threatening text message from John.

102. In April 2024, a review conducted in accordance with the independent assessment recommendation of Ms Haskins led to the decision to increase the frequency of visits with Marmee to occur 12 times per year, with an additional four times per year for the siblings only.

103. In 2024, Marmee attended eight in-person visits and three video calls. During a visit on 22 April 2024, Marmee made a comment in front of Beth, Amy, John, Laurie and Margaret about wanting to assault Daisy. In cross-examination, after Marmee initially said that she could not remember, she admitted that she had made this comment and considered that it was okay to say this in front of Beth and Amy because “Daisy is not their mother” (T47). Marmee also said that she does not care how this makes Beth and Amy feel (T47).

104. In 2025, further visits occurred at which Marmee greeted Beth and Amy with hugs and kisses but then engaged in minimal communication with them, spending most of her time with Amy and having limited interaction with Beth.

105. During cross-examination, Marmee admitted that during a visit in March 2025, she took Beth off to the side away from Daisy and Friedrich, told Beth that she was upset at not being called on the telephone and suggested that Daisy and Friedrich were stopping Beth from calling her (T46).

106. In further cross-examination, Marmee admitted that at times during visits in 2025, she has sought to persuade Beth and Amy to come to live with her (T46–47).

107. Marmee also stated that she is not happy that Daisy and Friedrich come to visits with Beth and Amy, she wants visits with Beth and Amy to occur without Daisy and Friedrich being there and that it is painful to her to watch Beth and Amy calling Daisy their “Mummy” (T45–46).

108. It has been observed that as a result of the allegations made against Daisy and Friedrich, as well as these proceedings, there has been a particular strain in the relationship between Daisy, Friedrich and Marmee. There appears to be minimal to no communication between them. Marmee indicated that she did not want to rebuild her relationship with Daisy and Friedrich. Daisy and Friedrich indicated that they did wish to rebuild their relationship with Marmee. In cross-examination, when Marmee was asked whether she would be willing to work with an experienced adoption specialist if an adoption order is made to help her relationship with Daisy and Friedrich, Marmee said that she would “try and understand” (T49).

109. In cross-examination, Daisy acknowledged that the relationship between her and Marmee had become strained from the time of the s 90 application by Marmee in the Children’s Court seeking the restoration of Beth and Amy into Marmee’s care but that she absolutely believes it can be repaired and has consulted Ms Haskins in relation to doing so (T23–24).

Circumstances in which Beth and Amy were placed on the Watchlist

110. In April 2025, Barnardos was informed by Daisy and Friedrich of their plans to travel with Beth and Amy to Italy in July 2025 for a holiday to visit Friedrich’s family, which would include their attendance at the wedding of Friedrich’s father.

111. On 9 May 2025, Barnardos as delegate of the Minister issued an Authority to Travel – International in respect of the proposed trip to Italy in which they gave permission for Beth and Amy to travel to Italy during 1 to 24 July 2025.

112. On 23 June 2025, Ms Calefati (Case Manager at Barnardos) had a telephone conversation with Marmee to discuss the review meetings for Beth and Amy that had been held that morning. During that conversation, Ms Calefati informed Marmee that Beth and Amy would be travelling to Italy with Daisy and Friedrich from 1 to 24 July 2025 for a holiday and to visit Friedrich’s family. Marmee responded by saying “no, no” and hung up. In cross-examination, Marmee admitted she was angry when she was told that Daisy and Friedrich planned to take Beth and Amy to Italy and immediately objected (T47–48).

113. Marmee then called Ms Calefati back and spoke in a raised tone of voice and asked where the court documents were to permit the travel. Ms Calefati stated that Beth and Amy did not need court documents but had passports and the Authority to Travel from Barnardos. Marmee then expressed concern that Daisy and Friedrich would flee to Italy with Beth and Amy. Ms Calefati assured Marmee that Beth and Amy would be returning at the end of July 2025. Marmee stated that she felt very angry about the travel plans and, using expletives, stated that Daisy and Friedrich were not the mother and father of Beth and Amy.

114. John then spoke to his paternal grandmother, being Robert’s mother Demi Moffat, who resides in China. John then told Marmee that Demi planned to file an application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (T48). Marmee denied that she asked John to ask his grandmother to make the application to the Family Court to stop Beth and Amy leaving Australia (T49).

115. On 24 June 2025, Ms Calefati sent a text message to Marmee, which enclosed the Authority to Travel.

116. On 24 June 2025, Ms Calefati sent an email to Robert which stated, amongst other things, that Beth and Amy would be going on holiday to Italy from 1 to 24 July 2025 with Daisy and Friedrich and that there was an Authority to Travel authorising their travel plans. In cross-examination, Robert agreed that this was the first time that he was informed of the proposed trip to Italy (T57).

117. On 30 June 2025, Demi filed an initiating application and supporting affidavit in the Family Court (which are in English, not translated into Mandarin, signed by Demi and witnessed by a solicitor in Beijing) seeking interim and final orders that:

1. Demi have sole decision-making rights regarding long-term issues for Beth and Amy;

2. Beth and Amy spend no time with Daisy and Friedrich; and

3. Daisy and Friedrich be restrained by injunction from removing Beth and Amy from Australia and placing Beth and Amy on the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Watchlist.

118. In the affidavit, Demi states she is currently residing in China and requires a Mandarin interpreter. The affidavit alleges that Daisy and Friedrich abused Beth and Amy by hitting them and are not allowing Beth and Amy to see their real parents. Demi states that she had reported these concerns to the Police in 2023 but the Police had not taken any action. Demi also states in the affidavit that she is aware that Daisy and Friedrich are taking Beth and Amy to Italy on 1 July 2025, she does not know when they will return and she is concerned that they will not return to Australia due to Friedrich being an Italian citizen.

119. In cross-examination, Robert denied that he told Demi that Daisy and Friedrich were going to take Beth and Amy to Italy (T57), said that he did not learn about the application before it was filed by Demi and denied that he asked Demi to file the application (T58). In further cross-examination, Robert said that Demi had been in hospital and he did not have any communication with her for almost six months (T58). He also said that, in accordance with Chinese tradition, as a son he cannot control what his mother does (T59).

120. On 30 June 2025, it appears that the Family Court made an order which placed Beth and Amy on the Watchlist.

121. On 1 July 2025, Beth, Amy, Daisy and Friedrich attended Sydney Airport to catch their flight to Italy as scheduled. While they were travelling through customs, Beth and Amy were stopped and the AFP spoke to them, Daisy and Friedrich. The AFP informed them that there was a court order in place restricting Beth and Amy from travelling arising from Demi’s application to the Family Court seeking custody of Beth and Amy and for their names to be placed on the Watchlist.

122. On 1 July 2025, unsuccessful attempts were made by Daisy to contact Ms Calefati, who was unavailable on leave. Daisy was then able to contact Ms Rennie and their subsequent efforts to have the names of Beth and Amy removed from the Watchlist were unsuccessful. The AFP stated that they were unable to remove the names of Beth and Amy from the Watchlist without an order of the Family Court.

123. On 3 July 2025, the initiating application filed by Demi was rejected for filing after Barnardos provided evidence to the Family Court that on 10 September 2020 orders were made in the Children’s Court which allocated parental responsibility for Beth and Amy to the Minister until they were 18 years old. The Family Court noted that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the initiating application due to the operation of s 69ZK of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

124. The result was that the planned trip of Daisy, Friedrich, Beth and Amy to Italy was cancelled, causing frustration, sadness and disappointment for Daisy, Friedrich, Beth and Amy. Beth considered that Robert had caused the issue and said that she did not want to see him.

125. After the incident, Beth posted a story to Snapchat stating, “when your father is manipulative and stops you travelling to Italy”.

126. Daisy and Friedrich are seeking to have the costs of the flights refunded on travel insurance and are uncertain as to whether to rebook their trip. They are likely to reschedule it after any adoption orders are made, to avoid uncertainty and additional expenses.

127. I regard the circumstances in which the names of Beth and Amy came to be placed on the Watchlist as disgraceful and reprehensible. This latter description was urged on me by counsel for Robert (T79–80) and I am satisfied that it should be described in that way. On the evidence, I am unable to determine who asked Demi to make the application to the Family Court other than to say that it came from someone within the birth family of Beth and Amy. Whoever requested Demi to make that application and Demi herself were certainly not acting in the best interests of Beth and Amy throughout the entire episode.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND CONSIDERATION

Adoption orders

128. In respect of adoption orders generally, s 90(1) of the Act stipulates that the court must not make an adoption order in relation to a child unless it is satisfied as to certain matters, relevantly:

(a)   that the best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption, and

(b)   that, as far as practicable and having regard to the age and understanding of the child, the wishes and feelings of the child have been ascertained and due consideration given to them, and

(c)   if the prospective adoptive parent or parents are persons other than a step parent or relative of the child-that the prospective adoptive parent or parents have been selected in accordance with this Act, and

(d)   that consent to the adoption of the child has been given by every person whose consent is required under this Act or that consent has been, or should be, dispensed with, and

…

(h)   in the case of a child (other than an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child)-that the culture, any disability, language and religion of the child and, as far as possible, that the child’s given names, identity, language and cultural and religious ties have been taken into account in the making of any adoption plan in relation to the adoption.

129. Section 90(2) of the Act provides:

The Court may not make an adoption order if the parties to the adoption have agreed to an adoption plan unless it is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the plan are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

130. Section 90(3) of the Act provides:

The Court may not make adoption order should unless it considers that the making of the order would be clearly preferable in the best interests of the child than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the care of the child.

Note–

Other action that could be taken in relation to a child includes a parenting order under the Family Law Act 1975 of the Commonwealth or a care order under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. Part 1 of Chapter 4 describes the persons who may be adopted and the persons who may adopt.

131. In respect of an application for adoption by a couple, s 28 of the Act requires that both members of the couple be:

1. resident or domiciled in New South Wales (s 28(1)(a)), and have lived together continuously for a period of at least two years immediately prior to the adoption application (s 28(4));

2. of good repute and fit and proper persons to fulfil the responsibilities of parents (s 28(1)(b)); and

3. 21 or more years of age and at least 18 years older than the child (s 28(3)).

132. In the present case, the requirements of s 28(1)(a), (3) and (4) of the Act are all met, as is s 28(1)(b) of the Act, for reasons I will give below. The considerations set out in s 90 of the Act are also addressed below.

Adoption orders generally and the “best interests” principles under the Act

133. Determining adoption applications is an important part of the court’s work: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services v MB [2017] NSWSC 1087, Sackar J at [9].

134. An order for adoption is one of great magnitude, not least because the legal and social consequences that flow from an adoption are far-reaching (for the child themselves, as well as persons connected to the child) and involve a particular degree of finality: Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71, Hallen J at [157], citing Re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239, Sir Thomas Bingham at 251G-H.

135. As observed by Hallen J in Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS at [150]:

An adoption order is status changing. It severs, in law, but not in fact, the existing relationship of blood, and creates an adoptive relationship in place of the natural relationship, which in fact, although not in law, continues, unchanged. New family ties are created which approximate blood ties. The child becomes part of his, or her, adoptive parents’ family, solely through operation of law, and there is no necessity for any actual blood relationship to exist between them. He, or she, thereafter, is regarded, in law, as the child of the adoptive parents, and the adoptive parents are regarded in law as the parents of the adopted child: s 95(2) of the Act. The adopted child also ceases to be regarded, in law, as the child of the birth parents and the birth parents cease to be regarded in law as the parents of the adopted child: s 95(2)(d) of the Act. The effect of an adoption order is to extinguish any parental responsibility of the birth parents. They no longer qualify as parents for the purpose of taking part in any future proceedings about the child. Thus, the adoption order directly affects three parties, namely the child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents.

136. I note that the adoption order sought in the present case is one in favour of long-term foster parents, Daisy and Friedrich, with whom Beth and Amy have been living for a continuous period of nearly 5 years.

137. Because of the seriousness and significance of the decision, and in line with s 90(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, I must not make an adoption order for each of Beth and Amy unless for each of them I am satisfied that the best interests of Beth and Amy will be promoted by the adoption; and that, as far as practicable and having regard to their age and understanding, the wishes and feelings of each of Beth and Amy have been ascertained and duly considered.

138. I must have regard to the best interests of each of Beth and Amy, both in youth and later life, this being the paramount consideration as stated in s 8(1)(a) of the Act. I must also have regard to the principles that adoption is to be regarded as a service for the child (s 8(1)(b) of the Act) and that no adult is entitled as of right to adopt the child (s 8(1)(c) of the Act).

139. In determining the best interests of a child, I must have regard to the matters contained in s 8(2) of the Act, including:

1. any wishes expressed by the child;

2. the child’s age, maturity, level of understanding, gender, background and family relationships and any other relevant characteristics of the child;

3. the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including the child’s sense of personal, family and cultural identity;

4. any wishes expressed by either or both of the parents of the child;

5. the relationship that the child has with his or her parents and any siblings (if any) and any significant other people (including relatives);

6. the attitude of each proposed adoptive parent to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood;

7. the nature of the relationship of the child with each proposed adoptive parent;

8. the suitability and capacity of each proposed adoptive parent, or any other person, to provide for the needs of the child, including the emotional and intellectual needs of the child;

9. the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused, or that may be caused, by being subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour, or being present while a third person is subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour; and

10. the alternatives to the making of an adoption order and the likely effect on the child in both the short and longer term of changes in the child’s circumstances caused by an adoption, so that adoption is determined among all alternative forms of care to best meet the needs of the child.

140. The requirement in s 90(3) of the Act that the making of the order must be clearly preferable in the best interests of the child rather than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the care of the child “requires something more than a slight preponderance of considerations in favour of adoption over the alternatives”; and “the requirement that the Court consider that an adoption order be “clearly preferable” is one that adoption be obviously, plainly or manifestly preferable to any other action that could be taken by law”: Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813, Brereton J at [14].

141. Consideration of whether adoption would promote the child’s best interests, and whether it is clearly preferable to any other order that could be made, involves identification of the likely effects of adoption, and of the various available alternatives, and examining their respective benefits and detriments from the perspective of the best interests of the child, so as to conclude whether adoption is, or is not, clearly preferable to all the others: Adoption of NG [2014] NSWSC 680, Brereton J at [74].

142. The question of what is in a child’s best interests involves the making of a judicial evaluation and the balancing of many factors from which an overall conclusion must be reached. It will, inevitably, be impressionistic and inexact: Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 641, Nicholls LJ (with whom Mackay, Hoffmann, Millett and Rodger LLJ agreed) at [16], cited with approval in Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369, Hallen J at [90].

143. I will now deal with each of the matters contained in s 8(2) of the Act.

Any wishes expressed by the child: s 8(2)(a)

144. Beth has stated firmly that she wants to be adopted by Daisy and Friedrich. She has repeatedly expressed her wishes for several years in a manner that shows that she has a considered and intelligent understanding underpinning them. Amongst the examples of what Beth has said and how she has said it are the following:

1. Beth thinks adoption means “Friedrich and Daisy have responsibility for me for life” and guardianship means “Friedrich and Daisy have responsibility for me until I am 18” (Second Haskins Report, at [120]);

2. “I want adoption because it’s for life” (Second Haskins Report, at [121]);

3. “I’m really happy here [with Daisy and Friedrich]” (Second Haskins Report, at [123]);

4. “[I]t would be wrong to send me back to my mum just because that’s what she wants, because she is begging and begging” (Second Haskins Report, at [123]);

5. “I want to stay here … I like this life and I want this life”; “I don’t think that my mother could take care of Amy and me as well as John, Laurie and Margaret”; and “I worry … about John and Laurie and Margaret’s education - I know they miss school a lot sometimes” (Second Haskins Report, at [122]);

6. “I do worry sometimes that John and Laurie and Margaret will be angry with me for wanting to be adopted” (Second Haskins Report, at [122]);

7. “I want to stay living here [with Daisy and Friedrich], I want to go to high school with my friends and I want to go to Uni too … I see my future here and I want to grow up here” (Second Haskins Report, at [50]);

8. In a handwritten note dated 18 September 2024 to the “Judge”, Beth wrote:

I really wanna stay here cause I love my friends here as well. I love Daisy and Friedrich and I just really want them to be my legal carers forever.

145. Beth’s views reflect a nuanced understanding of the impact of staying with Daisy and Friedrich will have on John, Laurie and Margaret. Although Beth is still only 11 years old, her intelligence in expressing her views shines through.

146. Ms Haskins assessed Beth’s views about wanting to be adopted by Daisy and Friedrich as having become “definite” over the six months prior to April 2025 (Second Haskins Report, at [120]). Ms Haskins also expressed the following conclusions about Beth’s views (Second Haskins Report, at [170]):

Further guiding my view is Beth’s clear, powerful and considered advocacy requesting adoption for her and her sister. She understands that her siblings may be angry but she is prepared to weather this because of her determination that adoption is best for her and for Amy. She is very happy and settled and trusts Daisy and Friedrich completely to always meet her needs and to understand what will be the best way to do this.

147. Beth will soon turn 12 years old. She will shortly be commencing her transition to high school. It is very important to Beth that the uncertainty and stress of this case comes to an end before she starts high school.

148. Beth’s wishes were confirmed by the oral and written submissions made on behalf of Beth at the hearing.

149. Beth has also signed each of the maternal adoption plan and the paternal adoption plan (in relation to which I gave dispensation from the requirement for an affidavit from her under r 56.13(3)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)), providing further evidence of her definite commitment to be adopted.

150. Amy is only six years old. Amy’s wishes have been expressed in an age-appropriate manner which is also in favour of her adoption.

151. During a home visit in September 2024, Amy described open adoption as being “when someone takes care of you forever” and when she was asked how she felt about Daisy and Friedrich being her “forever parents”, Amy pointed to the ‘happy’ face in front of her from the range of emotions depicted and stated “I want to live here forever”, referring to the house of Daisy and Friedrich. Amy also stated that she knew that she would be able to continue seeing her birth family if an adoption order was made in relation to her.

152. Amy calls Daisy and Friedrich “Mum” and “Dad” respectively and told Ms Haskins in March or April 2025 “they are my family” (Second Haskins Report, at [113]). Amy has an understanding of adoption as being “when someone takes you in to their family to take care of you” (Second Haskins Report, at [116]).

153. When Ms Haskins asked Amy what she thought about Marmee wanting her back, Margaret replied “No, no” while shaking her head (Second Haskins Report, at [117]).

154. In cross-examination, Daisy described Amy as not having a worry about going back to her “tummy mummy” but being worried about being removed from Daisy and Friedrich (T28).

155. Amy’s wishes were confirmed by the oral and written submissions made on behalf of Amy at the hearing.

The child’s age, maturity, level of understanding, gender, background and family relationships and any other relevant characteristics of the child: s 8(2)(b)

156. As outlined above, Beth is an 11-year-old girl who is intelligent and has an understanding of adoption which is appropriate to her age. Beth has expressed a strong and clear view that she wishes to be adopted by Daisy and Friedrich.

157. As also outlined above, Amy is a six-year-old girl who also has an understanding of adoption which is appropriate to her age. Amy has a clear sense of belonging with Daisy and Friedrich, identifies them as her forever family and that her home is with them.

The child’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including the child’s sense of personal, family and cultural identity: s 8(2)(c)

158. All of the physical, emotional and educational needs of each of Beth and Amy have been met by Daisy and Friedrich since they commenced caring for them in December 2020.

159. The attachment of each of Beth and Amy to Daisy and Friedrich is loving and strong. They both have displayed natural physical affection towards Daisy and Friedrich. Ms Haskins observed (Second Haskins Report, at [125]):

Daisy and Friedrich remain warm, caring and mature people who have devoted themselves to building a loving and secure a relationship with Beth and Amy. My observations, in the times I spent with Daisy and Friedrich and Beth and Amy, is of a family with very strong bonds with each other. Beth and Amy both appear very comfortable and relaxed in the way that they approach both Daisy and Friedrich and appear fully confident that they will listen to them, value their inputs and give them the time they need.

160. Both Beth and Amy are happy, in good health, active and fit with no major health concerns. When Beth developed a foot problem and Amy had problems with her speech, Daisy and Friedrich addressed those issues with treatment from relevantly qualified medical professionals.

161. Beth and Amy are progressing well at school and are recognised as being intelligent and engaged in their education. They are both making good academic progress.

162. Beth wants to train to be a police officer (Second Haskins Report, at [50]). She has a strong and stable base with Daisy and Friedrich to progress towards that aspiration.

163. Daisy is of Chinese descent and has supported the children participating in Chinese cultural events and celebrations, with Beth having participated in Mandarin classes in 2022 and 2023, some of which were also attended by Friedrich.

164. Daisy has also sought to support the understanding and participation of Beth and Amy of their Kiribati culture derived from Marmee’s Kiribati heritage. Daisy has identified opportunities for Beth and Amy to participate in Kiribati cultural activities and they have attended Kiribati cultural events.

165. Ms Haskins also concluded that Daisy and Friedrich are able to meet the family connections and cultural needs of both Beth and Amy, saying (Second Haskins Report, at [126]):

Daisy and Friedrich also demonstrate a pleasing capacity to understand their responsibilities as prospective adoptive parents, particularly with regard to preserving and nurturing family connections and celebrating the girls’ Chinese and Kirabati [sic] cultural heritage. I have talked about these aspects of parenting with Daisy and Friedrich repeatedly through the time it is taken to complete two assessment documents and their responses is always centred on what Daisy and Friedrich told me when I first met them in 2023, “our main job is to teach the girls how to navigate a relationship with their family.”

166. Beth and Amy also have contact with their half sibling, Josephine, who gives them a further connection to their Kiribati culture.

Any wishes expressed by either or both of the parents of the child: s 8(2)(e)

167. Marmee does not consent to the adoption of Beth and Amy by Daisy and Friedrich. Marmee wants Beth and Amy to return to her care, with Daisy and Friedrich having contact with them for two to three hours every two weeks (T44–45). Marmee says that she does not understand the considerable trauma that would be caused by returning Beth and Amy to her care, as concluded by Ms Haskins, and she does not agree that returning Beth and Amy to her care would cause them trauma at all (T45). Marmee submitted that I should adjourn the adoption order application to a future time (T75).

168. Robert does not consent to the adoption of Beth and Amy by Daisy and Friedrich. It was submitted on behalf of Robert that he does not seek the removal of Beth and Amy from Daisy and Friedrich and that he accepts the conclusion reached by Ms Haskins that to do so would cause very significant trauma for Beth and Amy and would not be in their best long-term interests. Robert submits that an order should be made under s 92 of the Act allocating parental responsibility in respect of Beth and Amy to Daisy and Friedrich, which will provide security and reduce stress.

The relationship that the child has with his or her parents and any siblings (if any) and any significant other people (including relatives): s 8(2)(f)

169. Since Beth and Amy were taken from the care of Marmee in January 2020 and then placed with Daisy and Friedrich in December 2020, there have been regular contact visits with Marmee. Most of those contact visits were reported to have been a positive experience but since 2023 the relationship between Marmee and Daisy and Friedrich has become more strained as Marmee wished to have contact visits without Daisy and Friedrich being present. As outlined above, there have also been a number of incidents during those contact visits which have added to the tensions.

170. Beth has been wary of the contact visits with Marmee in more recent times because she considered that Marmee has been seeking to pressure and manipulate her, which has caused Beth not to want to provide her mobile phone number to Marmee (Second Haskins Report, at [74]–[75]).

171. Since February 2023, there has been no face-to-face contact between Beth and Amy and Robert as a result of inappropriate and aggressive conduct by Robert during contact visits. The aggressive conduct of Robert was observed by me whilst he gave evidence in these proceedings, and at one stage while he was giving evidence in an emotional and animated way in the witness box at the hearing, it was necessary for his interpreter to place her hands in front of her in an effort to protect herself and for me to warn Robert about the way he was behaving (T53). I have outlined above the unfortunate incidents that have occurred with the behaviour of Robert during contact visits. Attempts by Barnardos to re-establish contact between Robert and the children via video calls have been rebuffed by Robert.

169. The circumstances in which the names of Beth and Amy were placed on the Watchlist and then Daisy and Friedrich were forced to cancel their proposed family holiday with Beth and Amy to Italy will have only added to the strains with Marmee and Robert. Beth regarded that incident as involving Robert seeking to be manipulative and stop her travelling to Italy.

170. Beth and Amy had strong and positive relationships with their siblings, John, Laurie and Margaret. Those relationships have been supported by Daisy and Friedrich. Between 2021 and 2023, there was frequent contact between Beth, Amy and their siblings, including outside the formally scheduled contact visits such as sleepovers, ice-skating and musicals.

171. Unfortunately, during the conduct of these proceedings, as well as the proceedings in the Children’s Court and the District Court appeal, the relationship between Daisy and Friedrich and the siblings has become more strained. This is particularly so given the incidents which have occurred at, or arising from, contact visits where allegations are being made against Daisy and Friedrich, all of which have been investigated and found not to be substantiated.

172. Despite the obvious strains in the relationships with the siblings that have occurred, Daisy and Friedrich remain committed to facilitating and supporting the relationship between Beth, Amy and their siblings through both organised and informal contact.

173. The relationship between Beth, Amy and their siblings was at the heart of the reasons why Ms Haskins recommended that there be a vacation of the hearing dates set down in November 2024, to enable work to be undertaken on the connections between them. Ms Haskins considered that the advantages of the lifelong legal connection for Daisy, Friedrich, Beth and Amy had to be balanced against the risk that the connections with Marmee, John, Laurie and Margaret would be irreparably damaged and without the further work it would not be possible to weigh up with any certainty where the balance of risk lies (Second Haskins Report, at [69]–[70]).

174. The further work undertaken by Ms Haskins included a meeting with the siblings, John, Laurie and Margaret, and then a further meeting attended by John, Margaret, Beth and Amy. As Ms Haskins explained during cross-examination, despite the siblings not all living together and the trauma they have been through, “they just love each other” (speaking about Beth: T31) and “she loves her siblings” (speaking about Amy: T32). Ms Haskins further observed (T31):

And they’ve all - I think - they - they get that. I think they get it, and I think they like each other, and I think that they will gravitate back to each other. I really - I think they haven’t really parted, but of course they know the distress that their parents have, Daisy and Friedrich - and Daisy and Friedrich. I mean, it’s been a very, very difficult traumatic journey, but I - through it all, I just see them - I mean, I saw them together in, I think it was April this year, you know. Laurie wasn’t there, but the other four were, and they just - they just like each - they’re just - they’re just a great group of kids, and they like each other, and so I think that that - that needs to be nurtured.

178. Ms Haskins recognised that there was a very real risk that if there was an adoption order for Beth and Amy that John, Laurie and Margaret may become so angry and disillusioned that they disengage from Beth and Amy (Second Haskins Report, at [171]).

179. As I have mentioned above, Beth is conscious of the effect of an adoption order on her siblings. During their meetings in 2025, Beth told Ms Haskins (Second Haskins Report, at [123]):

Beth said “I’m really happy here Penny”. She then went on to say “I think you have to think about what my siblings want but also about what is right and wrong to do Penny.” When I asked Beth what she meant by ‘wrong” [sic], she looked up at me and replied “it would be wrong to send me back to my mum just because that’s what she wants, because she is begging and begging”.

180. One of the principal purposes of the recommendation made by Ms Haskins that a post-adoption support package be offered to the children should an adoption order be made is to enable work to continue to support the sibling relationships and to assist to repair the relationship between Marmee, Daisy and Friedrich. I have set out more detail below in relation to that post-adoption support package when dealing with the maternal adoption plan and the paternal adoption plan.

181. The maternal half sibling of Beth and Amy, Hannah, has a significant disability and lives under the care of the Public Guardian. Beth and Amy spend time with Hannah during contact visits with their siblings but the views of Hannah are unknown.

182. The paternal sibling of Beth and Amy, Josephine, lives independently as an adult and she is estranged from Robert. In June 2022, Josephine advised Barnardos that she supported the adoption of Beth and Amy. Daisy and Friedrich facilitate the contact between Beth, Amy and Josephine and she is provided with photographs and updates about Beth and Amy.

The attitude of each proposed adoptive parent to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood: s 8(2)(g)

183. Daisy and Friedrich are exemplary parents. They have demonstrated love support and care for Beth and Amy, and they fully understand the responsibilities of parenthood.

184. The attachment of each of Beth and Amy to Daisy and Friedrich is loving and strong. They both have displayed natural physical affection towards Daisy and Friedrich. Ms Haskins observed (Second Haskins Report, at [125]):

Daisy and Friedrich remain warm, caring and mature people who have devoted themselves to building a loving and secure a relationship with Beth and Amy. My observations, in the times I spent with Daisy and Friedrich and Beth and Amy, is of a family with very strong bonds with each other. Beth and Amy both appear very comfortable and relaxed in the way that they approach both Daisy and Friedrich and appear fully confident that they will listen to them, value their inputs and give them the time they need.

185. Despite the significant challenges that they have faced, Daisy and Friedrich have strongly supported the relationship between Beth, Amy and their birth family. There has been a proactive encouragement of Beth and Amy to develop their relationships with Marmee, Robert, John, Laurie, Margaret, Hannah and Josephine. Ms Haskins concluded on this strong commitment in these terms (Second Haskins Report, at [25]–[26]):

[25]   Daisy and Friedrich were very clear in stating to me that despite the above stresses, their commitment to parenting Beth and Amy remains firm and absolute.

[26]   They also remain resolute about their commitment to Beth and Amy having strong, warm and productive relationships with their siblings and their mother. Their father Robert is a more distant and uninvolved figure by his own choices.

186. Daisy was described by Ms Haskins as an “intuitive, thoughtful parent with a very clear and admirable capacity to put Beth and Amy’s needs at the forefront of her thinking” and that Friedrich remains “strongly committed to parenting Beth and Amy”, although his capacity to manage the challenges and uncertainties from what he has been faced with has not been as robust as the approach of Daisy (Second Haskins Report, at [59]).

187. The commitment displayed by Daisy (in particular) and Friedrich to their parenting was also the subject of Ms Haskins’ opinion expressed as follows (Second Haskins Report, at [141]):

It has always been Daisy (and Friedrich, but particularly Daisy) who has fiercely advocated for the primacy of the sibling relationship through, for example, her promotion of regular meetings; informal visits and activities based on everyday interests; celebrating birthdays and other important occasions; building relationships between the carers and agencies to support information exchange and activity planning; sharing information about adoption and seeking the views of John, Laurie and Margaret as and when appropriate.

188. Ms Haskins particularly recognised the strength and resolve of Daisy in her parenting again when she stated (Second Haskins Report, at [169]):

I am supported in this view by the steadfast, intentional and creative parenting of Daisy, in particular. Also by the way she and Friedrich have never not been interested in Marmee, Margaret, John and Laurie; how they have always made every effort to meet them informally and engage with them in fun and creative ways; and have not allowed their own distress about the allegations made against them to derail their commitment to ongoing family relationships.

189. In cross-examination, Daisy presented as having an obvious love for Beth and Amy, stating that even if the court did not make an adoption order she would still love, care and protect Beth and Amy as she does at present (T22) and that it was the responsibility of her and Friedrich to make sure that the relationship between Beth, Amy and their birth family is always there for them (T25).

The nature of the relationship of the child with each proposed adoptive parent: s 8(2)(h)

190. As evidenced by what is stated above, there is a strong, loving and secure relationship between Daisy and Friedrich as the proposed adoptive parents of Beth and Amy, as children in their care. Daisy and Friedrich have provided a safe, stable and secure basis upon which Beth and Amy are thriving.

191. I have no doubt that Daisy and Friedrich are the primary attachments for each of Beth and Amy. Beth and Amy are very comfortable with Daisy and Friedrich and feel valued.

The suitability and capacity of each proposed adoptive parent, or any other person, to provide for the needs of the child, including the emotional and intellectual needs of the child: s 8(2)(i)

192. As I have concluded above, Daisy and Friedrich are highly suitable to provide for the needs of Beth and Amy, including their emotional and intellectual needs, based on all the evidence of their parenting of Beth and Amy since 2020. Daisy and Friedrich have navigated the difficult circumstances and significant trauma that must have been involved in Beth and Amy being removed from the care of Marmee and Robert. There is no evidence that either Beth or Amy has any emotional, developmental, health or educational issues. I am satisfied that Daisy and Friedrich are fully meeting the needs of Beth and Amy.

193. In this regard, Ms Haskins made the following observations of Daisy and Friedrich (Second Haskins Report, at [72]):

I have always observed Daisy and Friedrich to be nurturing, energetic, creative and affectionate parents to Beth and Amy. They organise their daily lives and activities around the girls’ school and extra-curricular activities and they promote peer friendships as and when appropriate after school, at the weekends and in the holidays. My observations of Daisy and Friedrich’s capacities as parents is also reflected in all the case notes provided to me by Barnardos as part of the background material for this report.

194. I have mentioned above the allegations made against Daisy and Friedrich at various times in 2022 and 2023 have been investigated and found not to be substantiated. I am satisfied that nothing relating to those allegations reflect on the characters of Daisy and Friedrich, respectively.

195. I am not satisfied that Marmee has the capacity to provide for the needs of Beth and Amy, including their emotional and intellectual needs. I accept that Marmee loves Beth and Amy and wishes to care for them. I fully understand that it must be traumatic for Marmee to not have Beth and Amy in her care and to see them being parented by Daisy and Friedrich. But I consider that Marmee has limited insight into the impact upon Beth and Amy of her proposal that they be restored to her care. As I have mentioned above, Marmee simply does not understand the trauma that restoration would involve for Beth and Amy (T45).

196. Ms Haskins concluded that there were “very significant risks for Beth and Amy’s welfare and their long-term development” which would attend restoring Beth and Amy to Marmee’s care (Second Haskins Report, at [149]).

197. I also accept that Robert loves Beth and Amy but he has not demonstrated any capacity to provide for their needs. The historical use of violence by Robert towards Marmee and his children leads me to conclude that he is unsuitable to parent Beth and Amy. His behaviours remain a significant issue for both Beth and Amy in developing a healthy and functional relationship with him.

The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused, or that may be caused, by being subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour, or being present while a third person is subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour: s 8(2)(j)

198. In my assessment, Beth and Amy need to be protected from physical and psychological harm which has been caused, and may continue to be caused, by Robert. Laurie disclosed physical abuse by Robert towards him which led to the provisional ADVO being made in November 2019 (finalised in August 2020) in an effort to protect the children from Robert.

199. As I have outlined above, Robert has continued his aggressive and threatening conduct towards Daisy during contact visits. It is this conduct which has led to a restriction on further in-person contact visits for Beth and Amy with Robert. As I have mentioned above, I witnessed Robert’s aggressive conduct during the course of his cross-examination. It is appropriate for both Beth and Amy to be protected from Robert unless and until he can demonstrate that he is prepared to conduct himself in a manner which is acceptable to them.

The alternatives to the making of an adoption order and the likely effect on the child in both the short and longer term of changes in the child’s circumstances caused by an adoption, so that adoption is determined among all alternative forms of care to best meet the needs of the child: s 8(2)(k)

200. I have dealt with the alternatives to the making of an adoption order below in assessing whether adoption is clearly preferable in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy.

Is adoption clearly preferable in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy?

201. I may not make an adoption order in respect of each of Beth and Amy unless satisfied that such an order is “clearly preferable” in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy, compared with any other legal measure that could be taken in relation to the care of Beth and Amy respectively: s 90(3) of the Act.

202. I must therefore be satisfied that the balance weighs more than slightly in favour of the proposed adoption over other alternatives. The making of an adoption order must be obviously, plainly or manifestly preferable to any other action that could be taken by law. I must reach the degree of conviction in favour of the adoption commensurate with the gravity of the decision.

203. The notion of providing a child in care with a sense of security as soon as possible to aid their development in the future was well-described in Re the Adoption of AJH [2017] NSWSC 1751, by Hallen J at [297]–[299] as follows:

[297]   It is often referred to in the literature that a child placed with foster carers has an abiding need for a sense of security and identity and that she, or he, will feel most secure when she, or he, is assured that no one can take her, or him, away from the family of which she, or he, is a legal member. It is recognised that the sooner a child can feel this sense of security, the better for her, or his, development in the future: see Re Peter [2009] NSWSC 697, per Palmer J, at [35].

[298]   As was written in Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793, by McFarlane LJ, with agreement of the other two members of the Court of Appeal (Laurie and Lindblom LJJ), at [64]:

“One of the principal benefits of adoption is to achieve a secure, stable, reliable, permanent, lifetime placement for the child in the adoptive family as the adoptive son or daughter of the adopters.”

[299]   Also, if the carers who have developed a strong bond of family relationship with the child feels that they are under threat of an application to the Children’s Court, at any time, for vacation of a care order and the consequent removal of the child from them, then they could be subjected to a level of stress and anxiety that must affect the parental relationship with the child who is in their care: Re Peter at [36].

204. The alternatives to making an adoption order in respect of Beth and Amy in the present case are:

1. Make no order and maintain the status quo, which is that each of Beth and Amy remain under the parental responsibility of the Minister until each of them is 18 years old.

2. An order allocating parental responsibility to Daisy and Friedrich pursuant to s 92 of the Act (also known as a guardianship order).

3. An order allocating parental responsibility to either or both of Marmee and Robert pursuant to s 92 of the Act.

205. Making no order and maintaining the status quo of Beth and Amy remaining under the parental responsibility of the Minister until they are each 18 years old would be highly detrimental to Beth and Amy. It would cause the ongoing stress of instability, insecurity and uncertainty to remain with Beth and Amy. They have already had years of such stress from all of the litigation in this court, the Children’s Court and the District Court regarding the parental responsibility for them. The trial dates for the adoption orders have been set and then vacated on multiple occasions. It has taken over three years for the present application to be heard.

206. The prospect of ongoing litigation, including the potential for further applications being made to vary the orders made by the Children’s Court presents a risk of psychological harm to Beth and Amy. There is evidence that their sense of stability and security was impacted by the Children’s Court proceedings and the District Court appeal and further litigation would only serve to undermine their stability and security. Beth and Amy are deserving of a more certain outcome.

207. The same can be said for an order allocating parental responsibility to Daisy and Friedrich. This was the alternative urged upon me in the closing submissions of Robert, who contended that the reaction of Beth to the making of such an order is likely to be short-lived and that she would come to understand why that order was made (T79–80).

208. I note that if I were to maintain the status quo and make no order, each of Beth and Amy would remain, at law, the child of Marmee and Robert, and in the care of the Minister. Similarly, if I made an order allocating parental responsibility to Daisy and Friedrich, Beth and Amy would remain, at law, the child of Marmee and Robert. In either case, this would mean that, notwithstanding the assumption of the role of parents by Daisy and Friedrich and the provision of care in kind by each of them to Beth and Amy for the past four and a half years, and the perception of Daisy and Friedrich as their parents and their primary caregivers, they would not be legally recognised as the parents of Beth and Amy. It would also place additional pressures on the placement, owing to the need for Daisy and Friedrich to seek consents and approvals regarding decisions about Beth and Amy on an ongoing basis. An adoption order has the advantages of certainty and permanency. Making no order risks that Beth and Amy may experience insecurity, uncertainty and ongoing trauma, or at least internal disquiet, arising, for instance, from the fact that they would each continue to be the foster-daughters of Daisy and Friedrich, rather than their “daughters”, at least so far as the law is concerned.

209. I note also that another alternative – an order allocating long-term parental responsibility for Beth and Amy to Daisy and Friedrich (a guardianship order) – while achieving some of the functional aims served by an adoption order, lacks the symbolic and expressive value of a formal adoption order. A parental responsibility order, insofar as it would expire when each of Beth and Amy attains 18 years of age, lacks the permanence and sense of ongoing belonging afforded by an adoption order. Such shortcomings have been remarked upon by Slattery J in A Child Proposed for Adoption [2019] NSWSC 1653, at [165] as follows:

I can’t tell you that it will. I can’t tell you that. What I do know is that in the two and a half years I’ve known Beth, she has become more and more determined that she wants permanency, and she - I think she would - could be the person who gets really angry if that doesn’t happen.

Q.   It seems that Beth wanted permanency from quite an early stage, and she hasn’t really deviated from that position. Is that your assessment?

A.   She hasn’t deviated from wanting to live in - with Daisy and Friedrich. She absolutely has not. She’s been really clear about that. How that might be achieved has been something - I talked to her about guardianship, and she - I mean, she didn’t actually care. As long as it happened, she didn’t actually care what happened.

But because of some of the things that have happened more recently, she is now absolutely determined that it should be an order that can’t be changed. That it is for life. And that - that was - that was the thing that, in the end, made me decide that - made that recommendation - as you’ve read in my report - that recommendation that the permanency order be adoption. Before that, I was really in two minds. Really in two minds.

Q.   When Beth talked to you about being in favour of a permanent order, had she said anything that made you think she’d given consideration as to how this would effect [sic] her relationship with her siblings?

A.   Do you know what, I think Beth just - she just knows it’ll be fine because they just love each other. They’re just siblings. So I don’t think they think a lot. They - yeah, I don’t think they think a lot, and one of the opportunities I’ve had is to say to them all that the most important thing is their relationship and that it continues, and that actually lots of siblings don’t necessarily live in the same spot, and - and that’s just the reality of what’s happened for this sibling group.

And they’ve all - I think - they - they get that. I think they get it, and I think they like each other, and I think that they will gravitate back to each other. I really - I think they haven’t really parted, but of course they know the distress that their parents have, Daisy and Friedrich - and Daisy and Friedrich. I mean, it’s been a very, very difficult traumatic journey, but I - through it all, I just see them - I mean, I saw them together in, I think it was April this year, you know. Laurie wasn’t there, but the other four were, and they just - they just like each - they’re just - they’re just a great group of kids, and they like each other, and so I think that that - that needs to be nurtured.

Q.   What I’m understanding from your evidence is that there’s a very close relationship with Beth. Is Amy included in this relationship with the siblings?

A.   Amy’s [sic] younger. She - she’s now started, you know, just in the time I’ve known her this year, started to talk about it more. She certainly was very distressed, and she raised it with me. She said, “Did you know this strange woman came to take me away?” And that was to do with the - the - the, you know, Roche [sic] report that was put in, and she - she - she just loves her siblings. She loves to see her mum, absolutely.

Q.   It sounds like this relationship is important to the children. Fair to say?

A.   I - that is my view.

Q.   I think you described some trauma and distress in that relationship recently--

A.   Yep.

Q.   --is that correct?

A.   Yep.

Q.   I suppose it’s your view that the siblings will be able to overcome that?

A.   I think that they will. I’m hopeful that they will. I think - I - I am hopeful that they will. Will it be rocky? It might be rocky. But - but they - there’s just this bond between them, and it will stretch - and - and, of course, you know, they will - you know, they’re - three of them are teenagers and, you know, doing all kinds of teenage things. Amy’s [sic] just - I think she’s seven now, isn’t she? And - and Beth - so it - it will be different, but my judgment would be that - through it all, I can still see it clearly when they’re all together. So if they’ve survived this long through all this that’s happened, and you can - it’s palpable. I think it’s got longevity.

229. I also accept the following evidence given by Ms Haskins on the effect of an adoption order on the relationships between Beth, Amy and Marmee and the commitment Daisy has shown to ensure that those relationships can flourish (T33–34):

Q.   The mother’s case is also that her relationship - you’ve given evidence about this - her relationship with Daisy and Friedrich has been very strained, particularly recently.

A.   Yeah.

Q.   The mother’s concern is that, essentially, Daisy and Friedrich won’t try as hard to facilitate the relationship as Barnardos has been. If that is the case, then there’s a risk that the children may have less of a relationship with their mother than they might otherwise if an adoption order wasn’t made. Do you have any view on, I suppose, on the role of Daisy and Friedrich in ensuring that the children have a relationship with Ms March?

A.   I - I don’t agree with Marmee on that fact. I have seen, from the beginning, that Daisy has fought very hard actually with all kinds of caseworkers and agencies all through the mess - early on mess - to try and maintain that sibling relationship. I think she’s utterly committed to it, and I think she’s committed to it because actually she knows it’s important to those two girls, which she loves and which Marmee loves.

There’s no doubt about that, and I think - I think Daisy and Marmee will actually probably get on quite well, but there’s been a lot of stuff that’s happened in the meantime. There’s been a lot of trauma. There’s been a lot of reckonings coming. You know, things have happened, and - and all of those have messed, potentially, with the relationship between Daisy and with Marmee.

Marmee has said to me, on two occasions, that she knows that she needs to have a relationship with - with Daisy, and I think she feels quite powerless actually about that relationship right now, and I would like to see that we might be able to repair it, and I am completely confident that Daisy would be an active partner in that. Not - not a - and I mean a partnership. Not that Daisy would take over, which is Marmee’s fear. I know that. Marmee has said that to me. She worries that Daisy would take over, but I am - I am confident that she would not do that, and that she does recognise that Marmee’s got a really important role to play here.

Q.   I suppose one aspect is that we hope that the relationship gets better. The Court might have to consider what happens if the relationship doesn’t get better and if Beth and Amy do lose contact with their mum, what sort of impact would that have on Beth and Amy?

A.   I think that they would be sad, and I think it would be really sad, and there might come a time when things aren’t, you know, as convivial as they could be. Of course that might happen, but there’s just - I just think that there is a connection there certainly. There is a - there is a connection, and Beth cares about Marmee. She, I think, is distressed that - that - that it’s come through all this - this contested matter, and it’s gone on for two years.

I think there’s no doubt about that, and is she angry with people about that? Maybe she is, but even the last time I saw her when she was really clear to me that I had to listen to her voice, it was, you know, I - it was a very moving experience to have a girl say to you, “You have to listen to my voice” and “How do I know that the Court will hear my voice?” You know, it’s very moving.

So I just took her face in my - in my hands, and I said to her, “The Court will listen. They want to know about what children think,” and I think that that was not a reflection about Marmee. It was just a reflection that she just wants this order, and she wants to get on with life. So I am hopeful that after all this is over, that’s what will happen, and I am absolutely confident that Daisy - particularly, Daisy, but with Friedrich’s love and support, will - that will be what she will set herself to do.

230. I agree with this evidence. I have placed considerable weight on the views expressed by Ms Haskins on the effect that an adoption may have on the relationship between Beth, Amy and their birth family.

231. I do not think that it would be in the best interests of Beth or the best interests of Amy for the application for adoption orders to be adjourned for an indeterminate time as submitted by Marmee. As I have mentioned above, Beth will shortly commence her transition to high school, commencing Year 7 in early 2026. Allowing the uncertainty and stress about her future, which has permeated the past few years and would endure into the future, is simply an utterly unacceptable outcome. Any further delay in the making of an adoption order until after Beth turns 12 years old would require her to provide her formal consent to the adoption order in accordance with the requirements of ss 55 and 63 of the Act. I consider it is necessary for an adoption order to be made now before Beth turns 12 years old and starts high school so that she has the best chance of developing and fulfilling her potential. As I have mentioned above, any adoption order for Beth must also involve an adoption order for Amy.

232. To summarise, I consider that an adoption order is clearly preferable in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy because:

1. Beth was clear, firm and definite in her intelligent and nuanced views that she wants an adoption order for herself and for Amy, and I provide considerable weight to her views as one of the children who will be subject to the adoption orders.

2. If Beth’s views are not acted upon, it will likely have the long-term impact of causing her to withdraw from Marmee and her siblings.

3. It will provide legal security and “felt security” now for Beth and Amy within the settled, loving, supportive and caring family of Daisy and Friedrich.

4. Daisy (especially) and Friedrich are committed to the importance of the relationships between Beth, Amy, Marmee and their siblings so that they can overcome any of the adverse feeling which might arise as a result of the adoption orders being made.

5. It will provide long-term stability and the removal of the anxiety for both Beth and Amy from the considerable uncertainty and stress of further s 90 applications being brought and maintained.

6. There should be no further delays in the making of the adoption order for each of Beth and Amy.

233. For these reasons, I am persuaded that the interests of each of Beth and Amy are best served by an adoption order in favour of Daisy and Friedrich, and that this course is clearly preferable to the alternatives to adoption.

Dispensing with parental consent

234. If a child is 18 or more years of age, parental consent is not required for an adoption order: s 54(1)(d) of the Act. If a child is 12 or more years of age and of sufficient maturity to understand the effect of giving consent, he or she may give sole consent to his or her adoption by a proposed adoptive parent or parents if the child has been cared for by the proposed adoptive parent or parents for at least two years: s 54(2) of the Act. As Beth is currently 11 years old and Amy is currently 6 years old, each of them is not able to consent to their own adoption in accordance with s 54 of the Act.

235. As I have stated above, each of Marmee and Robert oppose the adoption of Beth and Amy by Daisy and Friedrich.

236. Pursuant to s 52, in conjunction with s 90(1)(d), of the Act, the consent to the proposed adoption of each of a child’s birth parents and any person who has parental responsibility for the child is generally required. However, parental consent may be dispensed with if the court so orders: s 66 of the Act. If consent is dispensed with by the court, consent is not required under s 52 of the Act: s 54(1)(a) of the Act.

237. Section 67 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a consent dispense order may be made, providing:

(1)   The Court may make a consent dispense order dispensing with the requirement for consent of a person to a child’s adoption (other than the child) if the Court is satisfied that-

(a)   the person cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found or identified, or

(b)   the person is in such a physical or mental condition as not to be capable of properly considering the question of whether he or she should give consent, or

(c)   if the person is a parent of, or person who has parental responsibility for, the child-there is serious cause for concern for the welfare of the child and it is in the best interests of the child to override the wishes of the parent or person who has parental responsibility, or

(d)   if an application has been made to the Court for the adoption of the child by one or more persons who are authorised carers or the guardians for the child-

(i)   the child has established a stable relationship with those carers or guardians, and

(ii)   the adoption of the child by those carers or guardians will promote the child’s welfare, and

(iii)   in the case of an Aboriginal child, alternatives to placement for adoption have been considered in accordance with section 36.

(2)   The Court must not make such a consent dispense order unless satisfied that to do so is in the best interests of the child.

238. Under s 72(1) of the Act, the court must not make a consent dispense order unless the person whose consent is sought to be dispensed with has received at least 14 days’ notice of that application. I am satisfied that both Marmee and Robert have been personally served with the requisite documents and are each on notice of the application to make a consent dispense order.

239. Dispensing with the consent of a parent is a serious step and not to be done lightly: Adoption of RCC and RZA, Brereton J at [17].

240. Sections 67(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act make clear that I may not make a consent dispense order unless satisfied that each of Beth and Amy has established a stable relationship with Daisy and Friedrich as their authorised carers, and that adoption by Daisy and Friedrich will promote the welfare of Beth and Amy.

241. For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied as to these matters. Beth and Amy have been living in the home of Daisy and Friedrich since December 2020, which is more than four and half years. At that time, Beth was nearly seven years old and Amy was two years old, so that period represents the vast majority of Amy’s life. Beth and Amy are both secure and comfortable in the home environment they have with Daisy and Friedrich and each of them has strong, positive and loving bonds, as well as good an open communication, with both Daisy and Friedrich. Beth and Amy view themselves as part of the family of Daisy and Friedrich.

242. In the First Haskins Report, at [122], based on her observations, Ms Haskins stated that in her opinion there is “security and increasing centrality” in the attachment of both Beth and Amy to Daisy and Friedrich.

243. In the Second Haskins Report, at [161], based on her observations, Ms Haskins stated that in her opinion Beth and Amy have a “warm, nurturing, loving and child focussed family environment” with Daisy and Friedrich, both of them are “very firmly attached” to Daisy and Friedrich and these are “the only foundational attachments” that either Beth and Amy has experienced.

244. For the same reasons as I have expressed above as to why an adoption order is in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy, it is quite plain to me that an adoption order will promote the welfare of each of Beth and Amy. They are both well-settled with Daisy and Friedrich, receiving all of the love, care and support they require to meet their needs. Daisy and Friedrich are completely supportive of the contact that will continue to nurture the relationships between Beth, Amy and their birth family, as detailed in the maternal adoption plan and the paternal adoption plan set out below.

245. I am comfortably satisfied that dispensing with the consent of each of Marmee and Robert to allow for the making of adoption orders in favour of Daisy and Friedrich is in the best interests of Beth and is in the best interests of Amy.

Names

246. Approval is sought for the name “Beth Tai Yang March” for Beth and the name “Amy Yue Liang” for Amy. Each of Beth and Amy are known by their respective names at school and by their respective friends and family.

247. Daisy and Friedrich do not wish to change the names of Beth and Amy in order to support their respective sense of identity.

248. By each of Beth and Amy retaining their names and having the same surname as John, Laurie and Margaret, there is further connection between the siblings and the birth family heritage.

Maternal adoption plan

249. The maternal adoption plan proposed by the Secretary for both Beth and Amy has been signed by Daisy, Friedrich, Beth on 4 August 2025 and Olivia Rennie (as the delegate for the Secretary) on 5 August 2025. It has not been signed by Marmee.

250. The maternal adoption plan was the subject of a mediation between the parties on 31 July 2025, although this did not result in agreement to the maternal adoption plan by Marmee.

251. The stated purpose of the maternal adoption plan is to support Beth and Amy with their development and assist them to be connected with and build on their knowledge of their birth family and their sense of identity.

252. In summary, the maternal adoption plan provides for the following contact between Beth, Amy, Marmee, John, Laurie, Margaret and Hannah:

1. The nature of the contact should be structured in a way to best meet the needs of Beth and Amy, with the contact arrangements to take into account the ages of Beth and Amy, their stages of development and their expressed wishes. From age 12 for each of them, the wishes of Beth and Amy will be a relevant consideration but not the final determination as to whether contact will take place.

2. Daisy and/or Friedrich to be present at all contact visits and responsible for transporting Beth and Amy to and from all contact visits.

3. Visits will be arranged between Daisy, Friedrich, Marmee and, where appropriate, John, Laurie, Margaret and Hannah’s Public Guardian, in consultation with Beth and Amy when they are old enough to participate. Any further children that Marmee may have in the future may also attend visits.

4. Visits will occur 12 times per year. Eight of those visits will occur during the school term, have a minimum duration of two hours and occur on dates and at venues agreed at the beginning of the year. Four of those visits will occur during school holidays and have a minimum duration of three hours. The visits may also be agreed to include existing activities or events that Beth, Amy, John, Laurie, Margaret or Hannah are involved with and/or special occasions. Each visit may be extended by mutual agreement depending on the needs of Beth and Amy.

5. Until Margaret reaches the age of 16, each visit will be attended by a support worker allocated and funded by the DCJ, to support John, Laurie and Margaret, with Marmee being responsible for arranging the attendance of that support worker at each visit.

6. Additional contact visits may be arranged between the parties subject to the needs and wishes of Beth and Amy.

7. If Marmee, John, Laurie or Margaret is unable to attend a contact visit, the visit will continue in their absence and the visit will still proceed with the remaining parties.

8. No other persons may attend the visits unless agreed in advance between the parties.

9. In the absence of agreement upon a date and venue for the contact visits, the contact will occur a time and venue nominated by Daisy and Friedrich. The first visit of the calendar year and the visit each alternative month will occur at a nominated venue within 10 km of the residence of Daisy and Friedrich. The second visit of the calendar year and the visit each alternate month will occur at a nominated venue within 10 km of Marmee’s residence, as long as she resides within the greater Sydney area.

1. There will continue to be an organic nature to sibling visits, with the arrangements of contact between the siblings changing and altering naturally over time, in accordance with their developing relationships and changing needs.

2. There will also be four additional visits per year to occur between Beth, Amy, John, Laurie and Margaret, to be arranged between Daisy, Friedrich, Marmee and, where appropriate, John, Laurie and Margaret, in consultation with Beth and Amy when they are old enough to participate. Each of these additional visits will occur in the school holidays and last for a minimum of one hour and may be extended by mutual agreement depending on the needs of Beth and Amy. The location of those visits is to be decided between the family on an equal basis, with half of the locations to be suggested by John, Laurie, Margaret and Marmee and the other half to be suggested by Daisy and Friedrich in consultation with Beth and Amy. Until Margaret reaches the age of 16, each additional visit will be attended by a support worker allocated and funded by the DCJ, to support John, Laurie and Margaret, with Marmee being responsible for arranging the attendance of that support worker at each visit.

3. If Beth and Amy have any siblings born following the making of the adoption order, Daisy and Friedrich will support and facilitate contact between them.

4. If any person at a visit presents as affected by substance or by alcohol or behaves in a violent or aggressive manner, the visit will be cancelled immediately.

5. All persons are to confirm their attendance by giving no less than 24 hours’ notice to Daisy and/or Friedrich.

6. Beth and Amy may telephone, video call or use other forms of electronic communication to contact Marmee, John, Laurie, Margaret and Hannah on birthdays or other important occasions such as Easter, Christmas, Mother’s Day, all of which is to be based on the needs and wishes of Beth and Amy.

7. Daisy and/or Friedrich agreed to contact Marmee in the event of Beth and Amy sustaining a serious illness, injury or in the event of death. Daisy and/or Friedrich agreed to provide Marmee with news, information and photographs of Beth and Amy prior to contact visits by email or text. Daisy and/or Friedrich agreed to provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts to Marmee on significant occasions or at any other time according to the wishes of Beth and Amy. These items may be provided at contact visits or sent by post.

8. Marmee and other maternal family members may provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts for Beth and Amy which may be given at contact visits or sent by post.

9. A cultural plan has been devised to assist Daisy and Friedrich to attend to the identity and cultural heritage of Beth and Amy.

10. Daisy and Friedrich are open to providing Beth and Amy the opportunity to develop their understanding and knowledge of various faiths so that they can make informed decisions in the future about their own belief systems.

253. An especially important part of the maternal adoption plan is that it contains a therapeutic support package to be made available to the parties for a period of 24 months after the making of adoption orders for Beth and Amy. This support package was recommended by Ms Haskins. The funding for the support package is to be provided as between Barnardos and the DCJ.

254. The purpose of the support package is to support and guide the parties, support the implementation of the maternal adoption plan, to strengthen and maintain the sibling relationships between Beth, Amy, John, Laurie and Margaret, and support the rebuilding of the relationship between Daisy, Friedrich and Marmee.

255. The maternal adoption plan acknowledges that Ms Haskins may be engaged to advise further on the structure and nature of the support within the support package and that Ms Haskins or another suitably experienced adoption specialist may be engaged to provide supports under the support package, including:

1. supporting family visits for the first six months or until the parties agree this is no longer required;

2. supporting and rebuilding the relationship between Daisy, Friedrich and Marmee;

3. conducting evaluations of the implementation of the adoption plan and the level of support at approximately 6 months, 12 months and 24 months after the making of adoption orders to take note of changing relationships, the needs of all parties and the wishes of each of Beth and Amy; and

4. any other support they consider necessary that will benefit the long-term relationships between Beth, Amy, John, Laurie, Margaret, Marmee, Daisy and Friedrich.

256. Ms Haskins has reviewed the maternal adoption plan and is generally supportive of it. In cross-examination, Ms Haskins expressed the view that, despite the trauma and distress in the relationship between the siblings, she considers that they will overcome this because when they are together, she can see the bond between them is palpable and has longevity (T32). Ms Haskins also said that the recommended support package would nurture their relationships, such a support package does happen in matters of this complexity and that she considers that Beth, Amy, John, Laurie and Margaret deserve it (T32–33).

257. The maternal adoption plan supports the relationships on the maternal family side that are essential to the best interests of Beth and Amy: being the relationships between Daisy, Friedrich and Marmee; the relationships between Beth, Amy and Marmee; and the relationships between Beth, Amy, John, Laurie, Margaret and Hannah. The maternal adoption plan is particularly suitable in relation to the number of contact visits, the nature of the contact visits, the flexibility of the contact visits and the manner in which the contact visits will take place. The implementation of the funded support package as part of the maternal adoption plan will underpin the fundamentals of what is sought to be achieved, which is the repair and strengthening of the principal relationships with the maternal family. The review of the maternal adoption plan to take place at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months should enhance the suitability of the maternal adoption plan.

258. In accordance with s 90(2) of the Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in the maternal adoption plan are in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy and are proper in the circumstances. As a result, the requirement in s 50(3)(c) of the Act as one of the prerequisites for the registration of the maternal adoption plan has been met.

259. In accordance with ss 50(3)(a) and (b) of the Act, I am also satisfied that the maternal adoption plan does not contravene the adoption principles and the parties to the adoption understand the provisions of the maternal adoption plan and have freely entered into it.

260. As a result, I consider that the maternal adoption plan should be registered.

Paternal adoption plan

261. The paternal adoption plan proposed by the Secretary for both Beth and Amy has been signed by Daisy, Friedrich, Beth on 4 August 2025 and Olivia Rennie (Delegate for the Secretary) on 5 August 2025. It has not been signed by Robert.

262. The paternal adoption plan was the subject of a mediation between the parties on 31 July 2025, although this did not result in agreement to the paternal adoption plan by Robert.

263. The stated purpose of the paternal adoption plan is to support Beth and Amy with their development and assist them to be connected with, and build on their knowledge of, their birth family and their sense of identity.

264. In summary, the paternal adoption plan provides for the following contact between Beth, Amy and Robert:

1. The nature of the contact should be structured in a way to best meet the needs of Beth and Amy, with the contact arrangements to take into account the ages of Beth and Amy, their stages of development and their expressed wishes. From age 12 for each of them, the wishes of Beth and Amy will be a relevant consideration but not the final determination as to whether contact will take place.

2. Daisy and/or Friedrich to be present at all contact visits and responsible for transporting Beth and Amy to and from all contact visits.

3. Daisy and Friedrich are supportive of contact with Robert being re-established in a way that accords with the views and wishes of Beth and Amy.

4. Prior to any contact with Robert being re-established, Robert will reintroduce himself to Beth and Amy through letter, cards and photographs of himself. Daisy and Friedrich will use these to assist Beth and Amy to build familiarity with Robert.

5. Should Robert wish to re-engage, a telephone or video call will be arranged between Beth, Amy and Robert to reintroduce them and rebuild their relationship. Beth will have the opportunity to participate in the call, subject to her wishes. Daisy and Friedrich will ensure that any call occur in accordance with the wishes and views of Beth and Amy.

6. After a minimum of three successful video or phone calls have taken place, consideration will be given by Daisy and Friedrich to arranging face-to-face visits. A successful call will be one in which the best interests of Amy and Beth (if she participates) are not compromised by any threatening or intimidating behaviour or communication.

7. Face-to-face visits may then occur up to six times per year on dates agreed by Daisy, Friedrich and Robert at the beginning of each year at a venue agreed between Daisy, Friedrich and Robert in consultation with Beth and Amy. While Beth will have the opportunity to attend the visits, it will be subject to her wishes.

8. Each visit will last for a minimum of one hour, which may be extended by mutual agreement depending on Amy’s needs and Beth’s needs if she chooses to attend.

9. Additional contact visits may be arranged between the parties subject to the needs and wishes of Beth and Amy.

10. If Robert fails to attend a contact visit, Robert will forfeit that contact visit.

11. John, Laurie, Margaret, Josephine, any further children Robert may have in the future and members of the extended paternal family (if notice of their attendance is provided to Daisy and Friedrich 24 hours in advance) may also attend Robert’s visits if they choose to do so. No other persons may attend these visits unless agreed in advance.

12. Daisy and Friedrich may arrange visits between Beth, Amy and Josephine.

13. If any person at a visit presents as affected by substance or by alcohol or behaves in a violent or aggressive manner, then the visit will be cancelled immediately.

14. All persons are to confirm their attendance by giving no less than 24 hours’ notice to Daisy and/or Friedrich. If any person fails to attend a contact visit after confirming their attendance that person’s visit will be forfeited and not rescheduled.

15. Beth and Amy may telephone, video call or use other forms of electronic communication to contact Robert and Josephine on birthdays or other important occasions such as Chinese New Year and Father’s Day, all of which is to be based on the needs and wishes of Beth and Amy.

16. Daisy and/or Friedrich agreed to contact Robert in the event of Beth and Amy sustaining a serious illness, injury or in the event of death. Daisy and/or Friedrich agreed to provide Robert with news, information and photographs of Beth and Amy at least six times per year via email at Robert’s request. Beth and Amy will have input into what information and photographs are provided to Robert. Daisy and/or Friedrich agreed to provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts to Robert on significant occasions or at any other time according to the wishes of Beth and Amy. These items may be provided at contact visits or sent by post.

17. Robert and other paternal family members may provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts for Beth and Amy which may be given at contact visits or sent by post.

18. John, Laurie and Margaret may provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts for Beth and Amy which may be given to Beth and Amy at contact visits or sent by post.

19. A cultural plan has been devised to assist Daisy and Friedrich to attend to the identity and cultural heritage of Beth and Amy.

20. Daisy and Friedrich are open to providing Beth and Amy the opportunity to develop their understanding and knowledge of various faiths so that they can make informed decisions in the future about their own belief systems.

265. A particularly important part of the paternal adoption plan is that it contains the same therapeutic support package to be made available to the parties for a period of 24 months after the making of adoption orders for Beth and Amy, being the support package recommended by Ms Haskins and funded as between Barnardos and the DCJ. The support package is also to be used for Ms Haskins or another suitably experienced adoption specialist to be engaged to assist with re-introducing contact between Robert, Beth and Amy, including by facilitating, supporting and attending video calls and face-to-face visits.

266. There has been minimal contact between Robert, Beth and Amy. Beth and Amy have not seen or had contact with Robert since February 2023. Robert has frequently presented at previous contact visits in an aggressive and threatening way, cut contact visits short or failed to attend contact visits. It is entirely proper for the paternal adoption plan to require Robert to demonstrate that he can behave in an appropriate way by written means before introducing video and telephone calls, followed by face-to-face visits. It is also a matter in which the needs and wishes and Beth and Amy should play a significant role. The services of the support person from the support package will also play an important part in the overall arrangements.

267. Ms Haskins has reviewed the paternal adoption plan and is generally supportive of it.

268. In accordance with s 90(2) of the Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in the paternal adoption plan are in the best interests of each of Beth and Amy and are proper in the circumstances.

ORDERS AND NOTATIONS

269. For the reasons given above, I propose to make the following orders and notations in relation to Beth:

1. Pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth mother, Marmee Hoffman, is dispensed with.

2. Pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth father, Robert March, is dispensed with.

3. Pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), order for the adoption of the child, Beth Tai Yang March, in favour of the adopting parents, Daisy Brooke and Friedrich Vaughn.

4. Pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), order the approval of the name “March” as the surname and “Beth Tai Yang” as the given names of the child.

5. Pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Daisy Brooke, Friedrich Vaughn and Beth March on 4 August 2025 and by Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 5 August 2025, be registered.

6. It is noted that the court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan, signed by Daisy Brooke, Friedrich Vaughn and Beth March on 4 August 2025 and by Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 5 August 2025, are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

7. It is noted that the court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Paternal Adoption Plan, signed by Daisy Brooke, Friedrich Vaughn and Beth March on 4 August 2025 and by Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 5 August 2025, are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

270. For the reasons given above, I propose to make the following orders and notations in relation to Amy:

1. Pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth mother, Marmee Hoffman, is dispensed with.

2. Pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth father, Robert March, is dispensed with.

3. Pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), order for the adoption of the child, Amy Yue Liang March, in favour of the adopting parents, Daisy Brooke and Friedrich Vaughn.

4. Pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), order the approval of the name “March” and the surname and “Amy Yue Liang” as the given names of the child.

5. Pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Daisy Brooke, Friedrich Vaughn and Beth March on 4 August 2025 and by Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 5 August 2025, be registered.

6. It is noted that the court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan, signed by Daisy Brooke, Friedrich Vaughn and Beth March on 4 August 2025 and by Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 5 August 2025, are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

7. It is noted that the court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Paternal Adoption Plan, signed by Daisy Brooke, Friedrich Vaughn and Beth March on 4 August 2025 and by Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 5 August 2025, are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 August 2025