The Adoption of Daisy (a pseudonym) - [2025] NSWSC 1013

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	The Adoption of Daisy (a pseudonym)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWSC 1013
Hearing Date(s):	On the papers
Date of Orders:	To be made
Decision Date:	5 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Adoptions List
Before:	Brereton J
Decision:	Adoption orders to be made
Catchwords:	CHILD WELFARE – adoption – whether adoption order is clearly preferable in best interests of the child – whether change of name should be approved – whether consent dispensation orders should be made against the birth parents – where birth mother seeks restoration of the child to her care – where birth father cannot be identified after reasonable inquiry – where child has consented to their own adoption but resided with the proposed adoptive parents for a period of less than two years – where it is appropriate to dispense with the requirement for the birth parents’ consent – change of name to be approved – adoption orders to be made
Legislation Cited:	Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Adoption Regulation 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7 Adoption of NG [2014] NSWSC 680 Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813 Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27 Application of A - re D [2006] NSWSC 1056; 36 Fam LR 142 In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793 Re DYK and the Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 1045 Re K and the Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 858
Texts Cited:	N.A.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice by his delegate, Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia (plaintiff)
Representation:	Barnados Australia (plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2025/142735
Publication Restriction:	This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW).

JUDGMENT

These reasons concern an application for the adoption of a child who I will call “Daisy”, aged 13 years old, in favour of “Lola” and “Max”.[1]
[1] In this judgment, all names are pseudonyms so that the persons affected by the adoption application are not identified – see s 180 of the Adoption Act. This version of the judgment may be published.
By amended summons filed on 14 August 2025, the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (‘Secretary’) by his delegate, the Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia (‘Barnardos’) seeks the following orders:
(1)that pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the Court dispense with the consent of Daisy’s birth mother, “Georgia”;
(2)that pursuant to s 67(1)(a) of the Adoption Act, the Court dispense with the consent of Daisy’s birth father;
(3)that pursuant to s 88(4) of the Adoption Act, the Court dispense with the requirement for the giving of notice of this application to Daisy’s birth father;
(4)that pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act, an order be made for the adoption…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

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

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 1013
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Daisy, a pseudonym for a child involved in adoption proceedings, has become the subject of a dispute between the Department of Communities and Justice and the child's birth mother. The child had consented to her adoption but had resided with the proposed adoptive parents for less than two years. The birth mother sought the restoration of Daisy to her care. The Department applied to the Family Court for an adoption order and for dispensation from the requirement for the consent of the birth parents. The court was required to determine whether the adoption order was in Daisy's best interests, whether the change of name should be approved, and whether consent dispensation orders should be made against the birth parents.

The court considered the statutory framework governing adoption in New South Wales, particularly the need to determine what is in the child's best interests. The court examined the evidence regarding Daisy's living arrangements, her relationship with the proposed adoptive parents, and the circumstances surrounding her birth parents. The court also considered the statutory requirement for the approval of a change of name and the appropriate circumstances for dispensing with the need for the consent of the birth parents.

In making its decision, the court found that the adoption order was in Daisy's best interests, given the stability and care provided by the proposed adoptive parents. The court approved the change of name, finding it appropriate for Daisy's new life. The court also made consent dispensation orders against the birth parents, noting that the birth father could not be identified after reasonable inquiry and that the birth mother's application to restore Daisy to her care was not in the child's best interests. The court determined that the statutory requirements for dispensing with the need for consent were met due to the circumstances of the case.

The court made orders approving the adoption, the change of name, and dispensing with the requirement for the consent of the birth parents. Daisy's adoption by the proposed adoptive parents was finalised, and the orders were made in the best interests of the child.

Orders