The Adoption of CC

[2022] NSWSC 446

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

The Adoption of CC [2022] NSWSC 446

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

11 April 2022

Decision date:

12 April 2022

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Adoptions List

Before:

Sackar J

Decision:

Orders made

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW — Children — Adoption — Whether adoption clearly preferable and in the best interests of the child — Whether the consent of the birth parents ought to be dispensed with — Change of name — Registration of adoption plans

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

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

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice by his delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia (plaintiff)

Representation:

Counsel:

Solicitors:
Legal, Barnardos, Australia (plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2021/00356806

Publication restriction:

Nothing which would identify the parties.

Judgment

1. Application is made for the adoption of CC born in April 2019 at Liverpool Hospital in the state of New South Wales.

2. CC has lived with the proposed adoptive parents continuously since February 2020. At the time of placement CC was 10 months old. In September 2019 the Children’s Court at Campbelltown made final orders allocating parental responsibility for CC to the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services until he attains 18 years of age pursuant to the Children and Young Person (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). These orders remain in effect.

3. CC’s birth parents are recorded on his birth certificate. CC has several paternal half-siblings.

4. The birth mother was personally served with the notice of the adoption application on 17 December 2021 and the birth father was personally served on 20 December 2021.

5. Orders are sought pursuant to the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the consent of both birth parents to be dispensed with, for adoption in favour of the proposed adoptive parents and for a change of name.

6. Neither birth parent has consented to the adoption.

7. I have carefully reviewed the materials. The focus of any such application must be on what is in the best interests of the child concerned and that factor should be given paramount consideration. The Court must also decide whether adoption is the preferred course as opposed to other courses that might be available. In short the Court must be satisfied that the making of an order for adoption would in the circumstances be clearly preferable and in the best interests of the child.

8. CC has been with the proposed adoptive parents for something slightly in excess of 2 years. He was 10 months old when he was placed with the adoptive parents and as a matter of practical reality has known no other family.

9. CC enjoys a stable and loving relationship with the proposed adoptive parents and in my view they have discharged their relevant obligations towards him appropriately. I am satisfied that the proposed adoptive parents are able to provide CC with the necessary security, stability and nurturing. In her s 91 report annexed to her affidavit affirmed on 15 December 2021, Ms Murray observed that CC had settled well into his placement with the proposed adoptive parents and observed that there was an obvious bond between him and them.

10. He is a healthy child who is meeting all developmental milestones as a result of his care with the proposed adoptive parents. I am satisfied that they will in time more than adequately cater for his social and educational development through his attendance at preschool and beyond.

11. Having carefully reviewed the materials, I am satisfied that restoration to either parent is not a realistic possibility. I am also satisfied that the proposed adoptive parents are committed and supportive of birth family visits with CC and his birth mother which they have been facilitating since October 2020. I observe however that CC has not had any contact with his birth father or any of the half-siblings, but the proposed adoptive parents are supportive of this occurring.

12. The received wisdom in this Court is that adoption will generally provide greater stability and security to a child over and above any alternative particularly a long-term care order. In my view in this case adoption is the clearly preferable course. It has clear advantages over any other order in the circumstances in this case and I am of the view that it is appropriate to make such an order.

13. As I have determined that adoption is clearly preferable it is appropriate that I dispense with the consent of both parents. I am satisfied that all other formal requirements of the Act have been complied with.

14. I note that the proposed adoptive parents have signed both maternal and paternal adoption plans. I have considered the terms of both carefully and I am of the view that they are appropriate in the circumstances.

15. In my view in the circumstances of this case I considered that it is in CC’s best interests that there be a change of name. This will give him greater security in my view and a greater sense of identity. It will enhance the bonds already created between him and his proposed adoptive parents.

16. I will make the appropriate orders accordingly.

**********

Decision last updated: 14 April 2022