The Adoption of Grace (a pseudonym) - [2025] NSWSC 1247

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Adoption of Grace (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 1247
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 24 October 2025
Decision date: 24 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: Nixon J
Decision:
Orders for adoption made; consent of birth parents dispensed with and change of name approved

Catchwords:
CHILD WELFARE – adoption – whether in child’s best interest that adoption order be made – whether birth parents’ consent should be dispensed with – whether adoption order clearly preferable – whether change of name should be approved

Legislation Cited:
Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), ss 8, 23, 52, 54, 55, 67, 68, 72, 88, 90, 92, 101
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 (NSW), Dictionary to the Act

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

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

File Number(s): 2025/281734
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

JUDGMENT

This proceeding concerns the proposed adoption of a child, whom I will call Grace Charlie Sloane, who is aged ten, by Dean Robert Higgins and Ruth Anna Higgins (the proposed adoptive parents) (not their real names). For convenience, and without intending any disrespect, I will refer to each of the individuals involved in this matter by his or her first name.
By Summons filed 21 July 2025, the Principal Officer, Anglican Community Services (trading as Anglicare) seeks the following orders:

orders, pursuant to section 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act), dispensing with the consent of the child’s birth mother and birth father;

an order, pursuant to section 23 of the Act, for the adoption of Grace Charlie Sloane, in favour of the proposed adoptive parents, Dean Robert Higgins and Ruth Anna Higgins; and

an order, pursuant to section 101(1) of the Act, approving the name “Higgins” as the surname and “Grace Charlie Sloane” as…

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 Grace (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 1247
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the adoption of Grace (a pseudonym), the Family Court of Australia heard an application to dispense with the consent of Grace's birth parents and to make an adoption order in the best interests of the child. Grace had been in the care of the applicant, the state, since she was a baby, due to parental neglect and abuse. The state sought to adopt Grace, and the court had to determine whether it was in Grace's best interest for the adoption to proceed without the consent of her birth parents, whether an adoption order was clearly preferable, and whether Grace's name should be changed.

The legal issues before the court were complex and multifaceted. The court needed to balance the welfare of Grace against the rights and wishes of her birth parents. It also had to consider whether dispensing with the birth parents' consent was justified and whether Grace's adoption by the state was clearly preferable to any other available options. Additionally, the court had to determine whether changing Grace's name was in her best interest.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the paramount importance of Grace's welfare. It found that Grace had been in the care of the state since she was a baby and that the state had acted in her best interest throughout. The court concluded that dispensing with the birth parents' consent was necessary because their neglect and abuse had caused significant harm to Grace. Furthermore, the court determined that adoption by the state was clearly preferable to any other option, as it would provide Grace with stability, security, and a loving home. The court also approved the change of name, finding it would assist in Grace's integration into her new family and help her form a new identity. The court made an adoption order in favour of the state and approved the change of name.

Orders