The Adoption of Bonnie (a pseudonym)

[2025] NSWSC 141

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

The Adoption of Bonnie (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 141

Hearing dates:

On the papers; written submissions 19 February 2025

Decision date:

04 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Adoptions List

Before:

Stevenson J

Decision:

Adoption orders made

Catchwords:

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – consent – dispense order – where birth mother initially opposed adoption application by the Secretary – where orders made for appointment of Guardian ad Litem for birth mother in the proceedings – where birth mother now indicates support for adoption and signed adoption plan – whether consent dispense order in best interests of the child

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – consent – dispense order – where child’s father not recorded on birth certificate – whether child’s father cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found or identified

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Adoption of BL [2018] NSWSC 391

Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813

Application of A - re D [2006] NSWSC 1056

In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793

Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71

Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia v MB and JW [2017] NSWSC 1087

Texts Cited:

Practice Note SC Eq 13

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia (Plaintiff)
“India” (a pseudonym) (Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Defendant (Self-Represented)

File Number(s):

2024/243879

Publication restriction:

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

JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings concern the adoption of a girl, who I will call “Bonnie” (not her real name), now aged three years.

2. By Amended Summons filed on 19 February 2025, the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice, by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia, seeks the following orders:

1. that pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (“the Act”), the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of Bonnie’s mother, who I will call “India” (not her real name);

2. that pursuant to s 67(1)(a) and/or s 67(1)(d) of the Act, the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of Bonnie’s father, whoever he may be;

3. that pursuant to s 88(4) of the Act, the Court dispense with the giving of notice of the application to Bonnie’s father;

4. pursuant to s 23 of the Act, orders for the adoption of Bonnie in favour of the proposed adoptive parent, who I will call “Caitlin” (not her real name);

5. pursuant to s 101(1) of the Act, orders approving new surnames and given names for Bonnie;

6. pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Act, orders for the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by the Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia, Caitlin, India, and Barbara Ramjan, Guardian ad Litem for India, to be registered.

3. India filed an appearance in these proceedings on 12 July 2024, and was joined as a defendant on 7 August 2025.

4. There is no father recorded on Bonnie’s birth certificate. Bonnie’s father remains unknown.

5. The parties have agreed that I may consider my decision on the papers. I am grateful to Ms Pearl, for the Secretary, for her submissions, and to Ms Ramjan, Guardian ad Litem for India, for her assistance.

The circumstances of this case

6. On 10 May 2022, the Children’s Court of New South Wales made final orders providing for Bonnie to be placed under the parental responsibility of the relevant Minister until she attains the age of 18 years, pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). These orders remain in effect.

7. On 21 July 2022, Bonnie was placed in the care of Caitlin. At that time, Bonnie was 13 months of age. Bonnie has resided with Caitlin continuously since then. Caitlin is single and has no other children or persons residing in her home.

8. On 3 July 2024, the Secretary commenced proceedings in this Court seeking adoption orders for Bonnie in favour of Caitlin.

9. On 6 November 2024, I made orders for a Guardian ad Litem to be appointed for India in these proceedings. ^[1] Ms Ramjan appeared as Guardian ad Litem for India.

   1. Pursuant to ss 124(1)-(2) of the Act; Practice Note SC Eq 13 at [25].

10. The parties did not seek a preliminary hearing before me, and agreed instead that I may consider my decision on the papers.

The formal requirements for adoption

11. I am satisfied that the formal requirements of the Act have been satisfied, namely:

1. notice of the application for adoption orders has been served on India; ^[2]

   2. The Act, s 88(1)(a).

2. Bonnie was present in New South Wales when the proceedings were commenced; ^[3]

3. Caitlin was resident and domiciled in New South Wales when the proceedings were commenced; ^[4]

4. Caitlin is of good repute and is a fit and proper person to fulfil the responsibility of a parent; ^[5]

5. Caitlin has been selected in accordance with the Act; ^[6]

6. Caitlin satisfies the age requirements. ^[7]

   3. The Act, s 23(2)(a).

   4. The Act, s 27(1)(a).

   5. The Act, s 27(1)(b).

   6. The Act, s 90(1)(c).

   7. The Act, s 27(2).

Whether adoption is in the best interests of the child

12. Applications for adoption constitute a vitally important component of the Court’s work. ^[8] An order for adoption is one of the most significant, and in human terms, far reaching of all orders the Court has power to make. ^[9]

    8. Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia v MB and JW [2017] NSWSC 1087 at [9] (Sackar J).

    9. Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71 at [157] (Hallen J).

13. The paramount consideration in an application for adoption is the best interests of the child the subject of the application. I must not make an adoption order in favour of Caitlin unless satisfied that the best interests of Bonnie will be promoted by the adoption and that, as far as practicable and having regard to her age and understanding, Bonnie’s wishes and feelings have been ascertained and due consideration given to them. ^[10] I must have regard to the best interests of Bonnie, both in childhood and later life. ^[11] Adoption is to be regarded as a service for the child, ^[12] and not as a right of the adults with whom they are placed. ^[13]

    10. The Act, ss 8(1)(a), 90(1)(a).

    11. The Act, s 8(1)(a).

    12. The Act, s 8(1)(b).

    13. The Act, s 8(1)(c).

14. When considering Bonnie’s best interests, I have had regard to the matters set forth in s 8(2) of the Act, relevantly:^[14]

    14. The Act, ss 8(2)(a)-(c), (g)-(i).

1. any wishes expressed by Bonnie;

2. Bonnie’s age, maturity and level of understanding, gender, background and family relationships;

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

4. any disability that Bonnie has;

5. Caitlin’s attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood;

6. the nature of the relationship that Bonnie has with Caitlin; and

7. Caitlin’s suitability and capacity to provide for Bonnie’s needs, including her emotional and intellectual needs.

15. I am comfortably satisfied that an order for adoption by Caitlin would be in Bonnie’s best interests.

16. I am greatly assisted in hearing and ascertaining the voice of Bonnie, that is her wishes and feelings about the adoption, through the court report prepared pursuant to s 91 of the Act by Ms Pratisha Gounder filed on 28 June 2024.

17. Bonnie is too young to give her consent to her adoption. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that Bonnie has an age-appropriate understanding of adoption. It is clear that Bonnie has developed a strong bond with Caitlin. Bonnie consistently refers to Caitlin as “Mummy” or “Mum” and refers to her placement with Caitlin as “home”.

18. Caitlin is supporting Bonnie to understand her birth family history, and will help her to understand what open adoption means through life story work as she grows older. Caitlin has said this:

“[A]lthough [Bonnie] is too young to fully understand the concept of adoption, it’s a conversation we weave in to our lives, with the view of helping her know her truth and set her up to be as whole as possible.

…

[Bonnie] is too young to truly understand her life story; however, we talk about it and she just clarifies that I am her Mum. It is my intention to be open and honest with her and have her entire family visible in her life.”

19. To help Bonnie in her current understanding, Caitlin has introduced Bonnie to the idea of “the family love rainbow”, where there are “many layers of love and family”. There is now a large rainbow on Bonnie’s bedroom wall to represent all the people that love Bonnie. The “family love rainbow” is a heart-warming, age-appropriate concept to help Bonnie understand the meaning of open adoption.

20. Caitlin has demonstrated a high capacity to provide for Bonnie’s physical, emotional and educational needs, and to support Bonnie with her disability. Bonnie has been diagnosed with global development delay and associated learning disabilities, and it is clear that Caitlin proactively responds to Bonnie’s health, social, emotional and developmental needs in this regard. Caitlin has a personal background of growing up with learning disabilities, and thus is well placed to compassionately support Bonnie with this. Caitlin has arranged for Bonnie to attend preschool two days per week, and weekly swimming lessons, occupational therapy, and speech therapy. Caitlin provides Bonnie with a warm, loving, and nurturing home environment, where Bonnie feels safe and secure. Bonnie seeks out Caitlin for emotional comfort, and positively responds to Caitlin’s calm and warm approach to parenting with her.

21. Caitlin is dedicated to supporting Bonnie’s sense of personal, family and cultural identity. Bonnie has been identified as Anglo-Australian through her maternal family; as Caitlin is also Anglo-Australian, no specific cultural support plan has been developed. Caitlin is committed to supporting Bonnie’s cultural heritage through her paternal family if further information comes to light about her paternity, and is being purposeful in exposing Bonnie to other cultures. As I will discuss below, Caitlin is deeply committed to supporting Bonnie’s sense of family identity by supporting her relationships with her birth family, most importantly with India.

22. Caitlin has demonstrated her positive attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood and her loving commitment to Bonnie. She is devoted to Bonnie, and has said this about the proposed adoption:

“[I] want to adopt [Bonnie] because she has been in my care for two years and we have developed a strong bond as mother and daughter. I believe I can offer her a positive life with structure, love, and opportunity. I know I can provide a safe family environment and support her with any challenges she encounters …”

23. As for the relationship between Bonnie and Caitlin, it is clear that Bonnie has a strong, positive connection with Caitlin. Bonnie is joyful and happy when with Caitlin, and the two enjoy playing together. Caitlin and Bonnie have also enjoyed going on holidays with Caitlin’s family.

24. Should Caitlin be unable to care for Bonnie, Caitlin has identified her sister and brother-in-law, who will be the adoptive aunt and uncle, as Bonnie’s guardians. Caitlin’s sister and brother-in-law have confirmed their willingness to care for and support Bonnie if something should happen to Caitlin. Bonnie sees Caitlin’s sister and brother-in-law and their children at least once per week. The children, who will be the adoptive cousins, love Bonnie, and Bonnie enjoys being with them.

25. With all this in mind, I have no doubt as to the suitability and capacity of Caitlin to parent Bonnie.

India’s wishes

26. When considering Bonnie’s best interests, I must have regard to the relationship that India has with Bonnie and any wishes she, as Bonnie’s mother, has expressed about the adoption. ^[15]

    15. The Act, ss 8(2)(e)-(f).

27. Bonnie has a good understanding of her relationship to her birth family. Bonnie calls India “Mumma [India]”. Bonnie knows that she “was in Mumma [India’s] tummy”, and that she is dearly loved by India.

28. Caitlin is dedicated to supporting Bonnie’s relationships with India and the maternal family, and with Bonnie’s father if he is identified. Caitlin has said:

“My attitude towards birth family contact is positive, I see it as an important part of [Bonnie’s] life story and important she has contact. I see them as part of our family and am actively building in my best ability a positive relationship with them.

I believe contact with the birth family is important, and while visits with Mumma [India] are more structured to support a successful visit, visits with her other birth family members are more organic and happen in a way that is like how I catch up with my cousins and extended family. This has allowed for a trusting relationship to be built with [Bonnie’s maternal great aunt], who appreciates this approach.”

29. India initially strongly opposed the adoption of Bonnie by Caitlin. India later indicated that she was happy with Caitlin caring for Bonnie but did not wish to “sign for” the adoption, that is, provide her formal consent to the proposed adoption. ^[16]

    16. Pursuant to the Act, s 53(1)(b).

30. Following enquiries made by the Secretary as to India’s capacity, I made orders for a Guardian ad Litem to be appointed for India in these proceedings.

31. India has now filed an affidavit of Ms Ramjan, Guardian ad Litem, of 30 January 2025, in which Ms Ramjan said:

“I have spoken to [India] by telephone several times in relation to this matter. From those discussions, it became clear she had little understanding of what the adoption of her daughter, [Bonnie], meant in terms of access or continuing contact and knowledge.

I met with [India] [on two occasions] to speak about the ramifications of adoption and any continuing involvement she would have with [Bonnie]. At the [first meeting]:

(a) [India] stated she is aware she cannot provide the care and security that [Bonnie] needs.

(b) [India] stated she did not understand what an open adoption meant nor what connection she may continue to have with her daughter.

(c) [India] said she had met [Caitlin] one year ago and she ‘seemed nice’, [Bonnie] ‘was happy, clean, fed’ and appeared healthy and well looked after.

(d) [India] said she loves her daughter but acknowledges she could not provide the essential care that [Bonnie] would need to stay healthy and safe.

(e) [India] expressed her desire to be part of [Bonnie’s] growth and development and requested six visits per year along with updates on her milestones, serious illnesses, and any other information that may be important to [Bonnie’s] life, such as school reports.

…

At the [second meeting]:

(a) [India] maintained her view toward agreeing to the adoption of [Bonnie] by [Caitlin]. She again said she could not provide day-to-day care for [Bonnie];

(b) She wished for [Bonnie] to be safe and well cared for;

(c) She wished to maintain contact with her and to continue to enjoy her current visits;

…

(f) She supports the adoption of [Bonnie by Caitlin].”

32. Annexed to Ms Ramjan’s affidavit is a written document which was dictated and signed by India, in these terms:

“I [India] asked for adoption to go through and have a visit 6 times a year and also make sure she is in a stable and comfortable home due to me not looking after her I give permission for adoption due to my personal circumstances.

[India]”

33. India has now signed, with Ms Ramjan as a co-signer, a Maternal Adoption Plan and a document headed “[Bonnie] and [India’s] Family Time Plan”. I will discuss the Maternal Adoption Plan further below.

34. Thus, India has now indicated her support for the adoption of Bonnie by Caitlin. I am grateful to Ms Ramjan for assisting India to understand the meaning of adoption and the provisions of the Maternal Adoption Plan. The Court has also been greatly assisted by Ms Ramjan as she has safeguarded and represented India’s interests.

Whether adoption is clearly preferable in the best interests of the child

35. I may not make an order for adoption unless satisfied that the making of such an order is “clearly preferable” in the best interests of Bonnie than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the care of Bonnie. ^[17] The making of an adoption order must be obviously, plainly or manifestly preferable to any other action that could be taken by law. ^[18]

    17. The Act, s 90(3).

    18. Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813 at [14] (Brereton J, as the Commissioner then was).

36. I must therefore be satisfied that there is more than a slight preponderance of considerations in favour of adoption over other alternatives. I must achieve the degree of conviction in favour of adoption commensurate with the gravity of the decision. ^[19]

    19. Application of A - re D [2006] NSWSC 1056 at [53] (Palmer J); Adoption of BL [2018] NSWSC 391 at [13] (Sackar J).

37. I am not satisfied that restoration of Bonnie to India, or an order allocating parental responsibility for Bonnie to India, is a realistic prospect, nor in the best interests of Bonnie. ^[20] India does not seek these orders, and has stated that she cannot provide ongoing care for Bonnie.

    20. I must consider restoration as an alternative to adoption: see Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27 at [66] (Brereton J, as the Commissioner then was); Adoption of RCC and RZA (supra) at [69]-[72] (Brereton J, as the Commissioner then was).

38. If I were to make no order and maintain the status quo, Bonnie would remain in the care of Caitlin, but parental responsibility would remain with the Minister. This would mean that Caitlin would be unable to make significant decisions concerning Bonnie, as those decisions would require the approval of the Minister by his delegate.

39. An order allocating parental responsibility for Bonnie to Caitlin would alleviate some of the disadvantages of taking no step, but this would be a temporary order that would expire when Bonnie attains 18 years of age. Thus, Caitlin and Bonnie’s legal relationship would cease when Bonnie becomes an adult. In the meantime, the Minister and relevant caseworkers would continue to be involved in decision making in relation to Bonnie.

40. I am satisfied that the making of an adoption order is clearly preferable in the best interests of Bonnie. Adoption will provide Bonnie with a secure, stable, reliable, permanent, and lifetime placement in her adoptive family with Caitlin. ^[21] The making of no order, or making an order for parental responsibility, would lack the certainty and permanency of an adoption order.

    21. In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793 at [64] (McFarlane LJ; Jackson and Lindblom LJJ agreeing).

41. Caitlin has said this about the permanency adoption will provide Bonnie:

“I believe that adoption is in [Bonnie’s] best interest and is the preferred order above any other … I believe [Bonnie] has some very specific needs given her birth issues that will need ongoing support to enable her to be her best self, and I have the ability and the means to support her with this. … I believe permanency will give [Bonnie] the confidence to thrive and find her best self. I have a very open mind and will proactively support [Bonnie] to know her full story and have ongoing interaction with her birth family.”

42. Indeed, adoption will bring Bonnie’s legal status into conformity with reality, and perfect her sense of permanent belonging with Caitlin and Caitlin’s family, which she identifies as her own. As Ms Gounder stated in the court report:

“…[Bonnie] needs a secur[e] and nurturing environment to assist her in meeting her health, emotional, social, educational and identity needs long-term. I believe that open adoption is the most appropriate plan for [Bonnie] as it will confirm her sense of being a full member of [Caitlin’s family], providing permanency, stability, and legal security.”

Dispensing with the consent of India

43. Before making an adoption order, I must deal with the consent requirements under the Act. India’s consent would be required to the proposed adoption of Bonnie unless, relevantly, consent is dispensed with, or Bonnie has provided sole consent to her own adoption. ^[22]

    22. The Act, ss 52, 54.

44. India did not provide her formal consent to the adoption, and Bonnie is not old enough to provide consent to her own adoption. Accordingly, the Secretary seeks an order to dispense with India’s consent pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Act.

45. I may not make a consent dispense order under s 67(1)(d) unless satisfied that, relevantly, Bonnie has established a stable relationship with her authorised carer, Caitlin, and that the adoption by Caitlin will promote Bonnie’s welfare. ^[23] Before making a consent dispense order, I must also be satisfied that to do so will be in the best interests of Bonnie. ^[24]

    23. The Act, ss 67(1)(d)(i)-(ii).

    24. The Act, s 67(2).

46. Dispensing with the consent of parents to the adoption of their child by proposed adoptive parents is a grave step, not lightly to be taken. ^[25]

    25. See for example, Adoption of RCC and RZA (supra) at [17] (Brereton J, as the Commissioner then was).

47. I am comfortably satisfied about these matters. Bonnie has established a stable relationship with Caitlin, and her adoption by Caitlin will promote her welfare. The making of a consent dispense order is in the best interests of Bonnie.

Dispensing with the consent of Bonnie’s father

48. The Secretary also seeks an order to dispense with the consent of Bonnie’s father pursuant to s 67(1)(a) or, in the alternative, s 67(1)(d) of the Act.

49. I may not make a consent dispense order under s 67(1)(a) unless satisfied that, relevantly, the person cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found or identified.

50. As I have said, Bonnie’s father is unknown. There is no father recorded on Bonnie’s birth certificate.

51. India has informed the Secretary of a possible four putative fathers. Only one of those putative fathers was identifiable, as he had previously resided with and was known to India and her family members. When contacted by the Department of Communities and Justice, that putative father denied being Bonnie’s father and refused to participate in DNA testing or any discussions about Bonnie’s paternity or, indeed, her future. India only provided limited information about the other putative fathers.

52. The Secretary submits that, in the circumstances, it has gone to great lengths to engage India in discussions regarding Bonnie's paternity, and made efforts to locate and engage the one putative father identified by India.

53. The Secretary has done this while sensitively navigating complex considerations, which are unnecessary for me to set out here.

54. In the circumstances, I accept that the Secretary has made reasonable efforts to locate and identify Bonnie’s father. For the same reasons, I am satisfied that the Secretary is not required to serve notice of the applications for an adoption order and consent dispense order on Bonnie’s father. ^[26]

    26. The Act, s 72(2)(a).

55. Most importantly, I am satisfied that it is in Bonnie’s best interests to make the consent dispense order, since it enables these adoption proceedings to progress, in circumstances where Bonnie is well-settled with Caitlin and India has indicated her support for the adoption by Caitlin.

56. If Bonnie’s father is located and identified in the future, I have no doubt that Caitlin will support Bonnie to develop a relationship with him.

The Maternal Adoption Plan

57. The Secretary has prepared a Maternal Adoption Plan pursuant to s 46 of the Act that includes provisions for the means and nature of contact between Bonnie and her birth family. Despite India not giving her formal consent to the adoption of Bonnie, the Secretary has given her, as far as possible, the opportunity to participate in the development of, and agree to, an adoption plan. ^[27]

    27. The Act, s 46(2).

58. The question before me is whether that proposed Maternal Adoption Plan is in Bonnie’s best interests and proper in the circumstances, and, if so, whether that plan should be approved and registered. ^[28]

    28. The Act, s 90(2).

59. The Maternal Adoption Plan that the Secretary seeks to be registered relates to India, Bonnie’s maternal great aunt, and Bonnie’s maternal cousins. It has been signed by Caitlin, India, Ms Ramjan, and a representative for the Secretary by his delegate, Barnardos.

Contact with India

60. Family contact between Bonnie and India has been a positive and pleasant experience for all parties. Caitlin supports Bonnie to attend family visits, and sends India or India’s support worker regular progress updates and photographs of Bonnie in between family visits.

61. The plan provides for Bonnie to continue to have face-to-face family visits with India a minimum of four times per year, for up to one and a half hours. India may also elect to have up to two additional face-to-face visits per year. India may nominate a support person to attend these visits with her.

62. In addition, the plan provides for a minimum of one video call between Bonnie and India each year, and for Caitlin to provide India with progress updates and photographs four time per year at minimum. Additional contact between Bonnie and India may be arranged subject to Bonnie’s needs and wishes and in consultation with Bonnie as she matures.

63. The contact arrangements contemplated in the Maternal Adoption Plan incorporate India’s wishes that I have set out above at [31]-[32]. India has indicated her support by signing the plan.

Contact with the maternal great aunt and maternal cousins

64. The plan provides for Bonnie to have face-to-face family visits with her maternal great aunt four times per year, with the maternal cousins being invited to attend these visits. Additional visits may be arranged subject to Bonnie’s needs and wishes.

65. Family contact between Bonnie and the maternal great aunt and maternal cousins has generally been a positive experience for all. Caitlin sends the maternal great aunt regular progress updates and photographs of Bonnie in between family visits. It is clear that this is an important connection for Bonnie to her birth family.

Conclusion as to the Maternal Adoption Plan

66. Having regard to Bonnie’s family relationships, ^[29] and her emotional needs and sense of personal, family and cultural identity, ^[30] I am satisfied that the Maternal Adoption Plan is in Bonnie’s best interests and proper in the circumstances. The arrangements for contact can be varied to meet Bonnie’s changing needs as she grows older.

    29. The Act, ss 8(2)(f)-(h).

    30. The Act, s 8(2)(c).

67. I am also satisfied that the Maternal Adoption Plan should be registered. ^[31] The plan does not contravene the adoption principles. The parties to the adoption, including India with Ms Ramjan’s assistance, understand the provisions of the plan and have freely entered it.

    31. The Act, s 50(3).

68. If the adoption plan is registered, it has the effect, on the making of an adoption order, as if the adoption plan were part of the order. ^[32] Thus, a party to an adoption plan, once registered, can seek to enforce it as an order of the Court. A party to an adoption plan, that is someone who has signed it, can also apply to the Court for a review of an adoption plan. ^[33] India may seek to enforce or review the registered Maternal Adoption Plan because she has signed it.

    32. The Act, s 50(4).

    33. The Act, ss 51(1), (3).

69. It is now up to Caitlin, in coordination with the maternal family, to independently facilitate contact in accordance with the registered Maternal Adoption Plan. In order for contact to be a positive experience for Bonnie, it is essential that Caitlin and India continue to work together to find arrangements that work for the best interests of Bonnie. I am confident that Caitlin and India will do this, so that Bonnie continues to enjoy close relationships with her birth family both now and into the future.

Proposed name change

70. It is proposed that, on the making of the adoption order, Bonnie would have Caitlin’s surname, her birth surname as a middle name, and an additional middle name. The additional middle name is Caitlin’s middle name, which has been passed down from mother to child in her family for several generations.

71. Before changing the names of the child, I must consider any wishes expressed by the child and any factors relevant to the weight that should be given to those wishes. ^[34] Bonnie has not expressed any wishes as to her name, but clearly feels a sense of belonging with Caitlin and Caitlin’s extended family.

    34. The Act, s 101(2).

72. I am satisfied that the proposed name changes are in Bonnie’s best interests. The proposed surname and middle name will reflect Bonnie’s membership of the adoptive family and enhance her sense of belonging and stability with Caitlin. Bonnie will retain her birth surname as a middle name; this will preserve and honour Bonnie’s ongoing connection to India and her birth family.

Conclusion

73. I propose to make the following orders:

1. That pursuant to the Adoption Act 2000, s 67(1)(d), the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of the child’s mother, [India].

2. That pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, s 67(1)(a) and/or s 67(1)(d), the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of the child's father.

3. That pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, s 88(4), the Court dispense with the giving of notice of the application to the child’s father.

4. That pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, ss 50(1) and (3), the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by [India] and Barbara Ramjan, Guardian ad Litem for [India], on 28 January 2025, by [Caitlin] on 17 February 2025 and by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia, on 18 February 2025 be registered.

5. An order for the adoption of the child [Bonnie], in favour of the adopting parent [Caitlin] and approves the name [anonymised] as the surname and [anonymised] as the given names of the child.

74. Once these orders are made, an Integrated Birth Certificate will be created which will include both India’s and Caitlin’s details. This Certificate will form an important part of Bonnie’s life story.

**********

Endnotes

Decision last updated: 04 March 2025