The Adoption of Olivia (a pseudonym) and Beatrice (a pseudonym)

[2024] NSWSC 1473

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

The Adoption of Olivia (a pseudonym) and Beatrice (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 1473

Hearing dates:

29 October 2024

Date of orders:

29 October 2024

Decision date:

20 November 2024

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Adoptions List

Before:

Stevenson J

Decision:

Adoption orders made

Catchwords:

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – adoption plan – where birth parents oppose adoption but have disengaged from proceedings – where birth parents have indicated, if children not restored to their care, that they will not participate in post-adoption contact – whether proposed adoption plan is in children’s best interests and proper in the circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

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

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813

Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27

Director-General, NSW Department of Family and Community Services Re JS [2013] NSWSC 306

Re Adoption of JLK [2017] NSWSC 7

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice, by his delegate, Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia
(Plaintiff)
“Nicole” (not her real name) (First Defendant)
“Paul” (not his real name) (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
First Defendant (self-represented)
Second Defendant (self-represented)

File Number(s):

2024/153179

Publication restriction:

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

JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings concern the adoption of siblings who I will call “Olivia” (not her real name), now aged 5 years, and “Beatrice” (not her real name), now aged 4 years.

2. By Summons filed on 16 April 2024, the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice by his delegate, Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia, sought the following orders:

1. Pursuant to Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), s 67(1)(d), the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of Olivia and Beatrice’s birth mother, who I will call “Nicole” (not her real name), and of Olivia and Beatrice’s birth father, who I will call “Paul” (not his real name);

2. Pursuant to Adoption Act, s 23, orders for adoption of Olivia and Beatrice in favour of the proposed adoptive parents, who I will call “Sue” (not her real name) and “Richard” (not his real name);

3. Pursuant to Adoption Act, s 101(1), orders approving new surnames and given names for Olivia and Beatrice;

4. Pursuant to Adoption Act, ss 50(1) and 50(3), orders for the Adoption Plan to be registered.

3. Nicole and Paul filed Notices of Appearance opposing the adoption and were joined as defendants to these proceedings in June 2024.

4. On 29 October 2024, I made the adoption orders sought and indicated that I would give reasons later. These are my reasons.

The circumstances

5. Olivia and Beatrice have three siblings: a half-brother who I will call “Andrew” (not his real name), aged 11 years; another half-brother who I will call “James” (not his real name), aged 11 years; and a sister who I will call “Keisha” (not her real name), aged 10 months.

6. In October 2021, the Children’s Court of New South Wales made final orders allocating parental responsibility for the children to the Minister for Families and Communities until they each reached 18 years of age pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (“Care Act”). Those orders remain in effect.

7. Olivia and Beatrice were identified as needing a placement that could provide them with a safe, nurturing, and secure environment.

8. In December 2021, Olivia and Beatrice were placed in the care of Sue and Richard. At that time, Olivia was 2 years and 8 months of age, and Beatrice was 1 year and 5 months of age. They have resided with Sue and Richard continuously since that time.

9. In November 2022, Paul filed an application for rescission/variation of a care order pursuant s 90 of the Care Act, seeking restoration of the children to his and Nicole’s joint care. Paul withdrew the application in July 2023 following the Children’s Court Clinic Assessment and a dispute resolution conference between the parties.

10. On 16 April 2024, the Secretary commenced proceedings in this Court seeking adoption orders for the children in favour of Sue and Richard.

11. On 29 October 2024, the final hearing in these proceedings was before me. Nicole and Paul did not attend the final hearing. I made the orders sought by the Secretary.

Formal requirements for adoption

12. The formal requirements of the Adoption Act have been satisfied, namely:

1. notice of the application for adoption orders has been served on Nicole and Paul; ^[1]

   1. Adoption Act, s 88(1)(a).

2. Olivia and Beatrice were present in New South Wales when the proceedings were commenced; ^[2]

3. Sue and Richard were resident and domiciled in New South Wales when the proceedings were commenced; ^[3]

4. Sue and Richard are of good repute and are fit and proper persons to fulfil the responsibility of parents; ^[4]

5. Sue and Richard have been selected in accordance with the Adoption Act; ^[5]

6. Sue and Richard satisfy the age and length of relationship requirements. ^[6]

   2. Adoption Act, s 23(2)(a).

   3. Adoption Act, s 28(1)(a).

   4. Adoption Act, s 28(1)(b).

   5. Adoption Act, s 90(1)(c).

   6. Adoption Act, s 28(3)-(4).

Whether adoption was in the best interests of the child

13. Adoption is to be regarded as a service for the child,^[7] and not as a right of the adults with whom they are placed. ^[8]

    7. Adoption Act, s 8(1)(b).

    8. Adoption Act, s 8(1)(c).

14. The paramount consideration in an application for adoption is the best interests of the child, in this case the children, the subject of the application. I must not make an adoption order unless satisfied that the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice will be promoted by the adoption and that, as far as practicable and having regard to their ages and understanding, Olivia and Beatrice’s wishes and feelings have been ascertained and due consideration given to them. ^[9] I must have regard to the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice, both in childhood and later life. ^[10]

    9. Adoption Act, ss 8(1)(a), 90(1)(a).

    10. Adoption Act, s 8(1)(a).

15. When considering Olivia and Beatrice’s best interests, I had regard to the matters set forth in s 8(2) of the Adoption Act, relevantly:

1. Olivia and Beatrice’s respective ages, maturity, levels of understanding, gender, background and family relationships and any other characteristics of the children that I consider relevant; ^[11]

2. Olivia and Beatrice’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including their sense of personal, family and cultural identity; ^[12]

3. Sue and Richard’s attitudes to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood; ^[13]

4. the nature of the relationship that Olivia and Beatrice have with each of Sue and Richard; ^[14] and

5. the suitability and capacity of each of Sue and Richard to provide for Olivia and Beatrice’s needs, including their emotional and intellectual needs. ^[15]

   11. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(a).

   12. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(c).

   13. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(g).

   14. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(h).

   15. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(i).

16. I was comfortably satisfied that orders for adoption would be in Olivia and Beatrice’s best interests.

17. I was greatly assisted in hearing and ascertaining the voices of Olivia and Beatrice, that is their wishes and feelings about the adoption, through the court report prepared pursuant to s 91 of the Adoption Act by Ms Castro filed on 16 April 2024.

18. Olivia and Beatrice are too young to provide their consents to the adoption. Nevertheless, I was satisfied that each of them has an age-appropriate understanding of adoption at 5 and 4 years of age. It is clear that Olivia and Beatrice have developed a strong connection with Sue and Richard. Olivia and Beatrice refer to Richard as “dad” and “daddy” and refer to Sue as “mum” and “mummy”. They have been observed to be happy and content in the care of Sue and Richard. They clearly see themselves as part of Sue and Richard’s family. Sue and Richard have begun talking with Olivia and Beatrice about adoption meaning that they will “belong together forever”. I am confident that Sue and Richard will help Olivia and Beatrice to understand their birth family history and what open adoption means through Life Story work as they grow older.

19. Sue and Richard have demonstrated their ability to provide a high level of care to Olivia and Beatrice and meet their physical, emotional and educational needs. Sue and Richard have created a safe and loving home environment for the children, and are attentive to meeting each of their individual needs. Sue and Richard have demonstrated their commitment to meeting Olivia’s medical needs, including by working with professionals to manage her diagnoses of global development delay, language, speech and gross motor delay and childhood apraxia. The children attend day care a few days per week, with Sue and Richard taking steps for them to be supported to transition to primary school in 2025 and 2026. It is clear that Olivia and Beatrice are flourishing in the care of Sue and Richard.

20. Sue and Richard have also demonstrated their ability to assist Olivia and Beatrice to develop their sense of personal, family and cultural identity.

21. With Sue and Richard’s support and care, Olivia and Beatrice are continuing to develop a close sibling bond with each other. The children are also developing positive relationships with other children their age, and with Sue and Richard’s wider extended family. I will discuss Sue and Richard’s efforts to support Olivia and Beatrice to develop their relationship with their birth family, including Nicole and Paul, further below.

22. Nicole and Paul both follow the Christian faith. Sue was raised in the Catholic faith. Following a request from Nicole and Paul to have Olivia and Beatrice baptised in the Anglican faith, Sue and Richard took steps to have the children baptised. When this was not possible, Sue and Richard came to an agreement with Nicole and Paul for the children to have a naming ceremony in the Anglican church. This demonstrates Sue and Richard’s commitment to supporting Olivia and Beatrice’s development of their family and cultural identity.

23. Further, Sue and Richard are supporting Olivia and Beatrice’s connection to their Croatian cultural heritage. Sue and Richard have open, ongoing discussions with the children about their culture, and encourage Olivia and Beatrice to discuss this with Nicole and Paul. Indeed, Sue and Richard have encouraged the children to refer to Nicole and Paul as “Majka” and “Tata”, the Croatian terms for “mother” and “father”, as requested by Nicole and Paul. Specific Cultural Care Plans have been developed for the children, and, while Nicole and Paul declined to contribute to their development, the Plans will give Sue and Richard ongoing guidance on how Olivia and Beatrice’s culture can be supported.

24. Sue and Richard have demonstrated their positive attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood and commitment to Olivia and Beatrice. Sue and Richard quickly established a predicable routine for Olivia and Beatrice. They consistently adopt a gentle and nurturing approach to parenting Olivia and Beatrice.

25. Sue and Richard have expressed how they feel that the children have naturally fit into their lives and family. Sue said in evidence:

“[Olivia] and [Beatrice] only know their life with us, in our house with their ‘Mum and Dad’ and their extended family. They identify as a part of our family unit and the extended family and friends. Their life is full of love, joy, security, healthy routines and they are flourishing.”

26. As for the relationships between Olivia and Beatrice and Sue and Richard, it is clear that Olivia and Beatrice have a strong connection with Sue and Richard. Olivia and Beatrice have formed an affectionate bond with Sue and Richard. The children seek Sue and Richard for affection and reassurance. Richard said in evidence:

“[Olivia] and [Beatrice] mean the world to me, and I would literally do anything for them. The bond I have for them and their bond towards me is such a beautiful thing, it’s like we were always meant to be together.”

27. I am confident that this sentiment is shared by both Sue and Richard. I have no doubt as to the suitability and capacity of Sue and Richard to provide for Olivia and Beatrice’s needs.

The parents

28. When considering Olivia and Beatrice’s best interests, I had regard to the relationship that Nicole and Paul have with Olivia and Beatrice and any wishes they, as Olivia and Beatrice’s birth parents, have expressed about the adoption. ^[16]

    16. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(e)-(f).

29. Olivia and Beatrice have a good relationship with Nicole and Paul. As I have said, Olivia and Beatrice call Nicole and Paul “Majka” and “Tata”, the Croatian terms for “mother” and “father”.

30. The children have enjoyed family visits with Nicole and Paul, especially when held at the park, but the children do experience dysregulated behaviour following these family visits. I will return to this subject below.

31. Both Nicole and Paul opposed the adoption. They filed Notices of Appearance and were joined as defendants in these proceedings.

32. Since filing their appearance, neither Nicole nor Paul have engaged in these proceedings. I have not been able to directly hear from them about their wishes for Olivia and Beatrice.

33. As I have said above, in November 2022, Paul filed a s 90 application seeking restoration of the children to his and Nicole’s care; those proceedings were withdrawn in July 2023. In November 2023, Paul informed Barnardos that it was his intention to bring a second s 90 application before the Children’s Court seeking restoration of the children to his and Nicole’s joint care. Paul has not taken steps to bring this foreshadowed application.

34. Nicole and Paul have also informed representatives of the Department of Communities and Justice of their concerns that they do not have a bond or relationship with Olivia and Beatrice, and that Sue and Richard will not work to facilitate positive contact between them and Olivia and Beatrice if adoption orders made. I will discuss this subject below in reference to the proposed adoption plan.

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

35. When considering Olivia and Beatrice’s best interests, I also must be satisfied that the making of an order for adoption is “clearly preferable” in the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to their care. ^[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. Adoption Act, s 90(3).

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

36. I was not satisfied that restoration of the children to Nicole and Paul, or an order allocating parental responsibility to Nicole and Paul, is a realistic prospect, nor in the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice. ^[19] At the time of Paul’s s 90 application in 2023, the Children’s Court Clinic Assessor concluded that restoration to Nicole and Paul would not be in the children’s best interests. This position has not changed.

    19. 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).

37. If I were to make no order and maintain the status quo, Olivia and Beatrice would remain in the care of Sue and Richard, but parental responsibility would remain with the Minister. In those circumstances, Sue and Richard would be unable to make significant decisions regarding Olivia and Beatrice without approval of the Minister’s delegate, Barnardos. Sue put it this way in her evidence:

“If Parental Responsibility were to continue, I believe this would hinder the girls living a rich fulfilled childhood as all important decisions would need to be approved by Barnardos on behalf of the Minister. This could hinder a lot of activities and future travel the family will engage in. They will be limited in opportunities that an adoptive child could do; for example, leaving the state for holidays as a last-minute option. Sporting and extracurricular activities require a lot of paperwork that may need further explanation or further proof of identity etc. This will also include when choosing the schools the girls will attend and the details, extra communication that needs to be involved in this. For [Olivia], at this stage as she has an NDIS plan every decision that is made for her has to be approved by and signed by Barnardos.”

38. If I were to make orders for parental responsibility for Olivia and Beatrice to be allocated to Sue and Richard, that would alleviate some of these disadvantages, but this would be a temporary order that would expire when each of the children attain 18 years of age. As Sue stated in her evidence:

“Any other order does not give them the complete, secure identity of belonging to our family.”

39. The making of adoption orders is clearly preferable in the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice. Adoption will provide Olivia and Beatrice with certainty, stability, and security. It will enable Olivia and Beatrice to achieve a sense of belonging in their adoptive family, to a degree that no other lawful action could achieve.

40. While adoption by Sue and Richard will sever Olivia and Beatrice’s legal ties with their other siblings, Andrew, James, and Keisha, I am satisfied that this is unlikely to impact on their relationship in the future. In the context of an open adoption, the personal relationship between siblings can continue notwithstanding of the severance of the legal relationship, and can be underwritten by an adoption plan, so that the children can grow up with these personal relationships intact. ^[20] I am confident in Sue and Richard’s ability to ensure that Olivia and Beatrice continue to have opportunities to build on their relationship with their siblings, as the proposed Adoption Plan provides.

    20. See Re Adoption of JLK [2017] NSWSC 7 at [92] (Brereton J, as the Commissioner then was).

Consent to the adoption

41. Before making an adoption order, I must deal with the consent requirements under the Adoption Act. As the children’s birth parents, Nicole and Paul’s consents would be required to the proposed adoption of the children unless, relevantly, consent is dispensed with. ^[21] Nicole and Paul opposed the adoption. Accordingly, the Secretary seeks an order to dispense with the parents’ consent pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act.

    21. Adoption Act, ss 52, 54.

42. I may not make a consent dispense order unless satisfied that, relevantly, Olivia and Beatrice have established a stable relationship with Sue and Richard, and that the adoption by Sue and Richard will promote Olivia and Beatrice’s welfare. ^[22] I must also be satisfied that doing so will be in the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice. ^[23]

    22. Adoption Act, ss 67(1)(d)(i)-(ii).

    23. Adoption Act, s 67(2).

43. Dispensing with the consent of parents to the adoption of their child by proposed adoptive parents is a grave step, not to be taken lightly. ^[24]

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

44. I was comfortably satisfied that I should dispense with the requirements for Nicole and Paul’s consents. The children have established a stable relationship with Sue and Richard, and I am certain that the adoption will promote Olivia and Beatrice’s welfare. The making of the consent dispense orders is in the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice.

The Adoption Plan

45. The Secretary has prepared an adoption plan pursuant to s 46 of the Adoption Act that include provisions for the means and nature of contact between the children and their birth family. Despite Nicole and Paul not consenting to the adoption of Olivia and Beatrice, the Secretary has given them, as far as possible, the opportunity to participate in the development of, and agree to, an adoption plan. ^[25]

    25. Adoption Act, s 46(2).

46. The question for me is whether the proposed Adoption Plan is in Olivia’s and Beatrice’s best interests and proper in the circumstances, and, if so, whether the Adoption Plan should be approved and registered.

47. The Adoption Plan that the Secretary seeks to be registered relates to the children, Nicole, Paul, the children’s sibling, Keisha, and the children’s half-siblings, Andrew and James.

Contact with Nicole and Paul

48. The Adoption Plan provides for Olivia and Beatrice to have face-to-face family visits with Nicole, Paul and Keisha 12 times per year, for up to one hour. Sue and Richard have also agreed to provide Nicole and Paul with photographs, letters, or cards on significant occasions and at other times according to Olivia and Beatrice’s wishes, and to facilitate future telephone contact and contact via electronic means between the children and Nicole and Paul.

49. Sue and Richard’s position on contact between Olivia, Beatrice, Nicole and Paul is informed by their concerns about the dysregulation that Olivia and Beatrice experience, including disruptions to sleep, routines, and emotions, following visits with Nicole and Paul. Richard said in evidence:

“The contact visits play an important part in [Olivia] and [Beatrice]’s life story. Both girls do have fun at the visits however visits can be challenging due to the unsettled/dysregulated behaviour the girls experience following family visits with the birth parents and their associated trauma. We continue to reinforce positivity in the visits, to ensure that both [Olivia] and [Beatrice] are as settled as much as they can be.”

50. As I have said above, the Secretary’s evidence indicates that Nicole and Paul oppose the adoption due to concerns that they do not have a bond or relationship with Olivia and Beatrice, and that Sue and Richard will not work to facilitate positive contact between them and Olivia and Beatrice if adoption orders made. Nicole and Paul have told representatives of the Department of Communities and Justice that they view contact with Olivia and Beatrice as “pointless” in these circumstances. They have stated: “our daughters don’t know us”. They have stated that, if the children are not restored to them, then they will not participate in future post-adoption contact, perceiving it as a “waste of time”.

Contact with Keisha

51. Keisha is now 10 months of age, and resides in the care of Nicole and Paul. Since her birth, Keisha has attended visits with Olivia and Beatrice concurrently with Nicole and Paul. As I have said, the Adoption Plan continues to provide for visits to occur concurrently with Nicole and Paul.

52. The Secretary’s evidence in these proceedings indicates that Nicole and Paul are concerned that attending visits with Olivia and Beatrice causes distress to Keisha due to the siblings not having an affectionate bond with each other. Nicole and Paul have informed representatives of the Department of Communities and Justice that they have decided that Keisha will have “nothing to do with” Olivia and Beatrice.

Contact with Andrew

53. Andrew is now 11 years of age.

54. Prior to late 2021, Andrew attended visits with Olivia and Beatrice six times per year, for a duration of three hours per visit. In late 2021, Andrew moved to Queensland with his father and paternal family; visits were paused at this time. In September 2022, Olivia and Beatrice had their first video call with Andrew since his move to Queensland. Since then, Olivia and Beatrice have had six video calls per year with Andrew, and all three of the children have been encouraged to exchange letters and cards. These video calls have been a positive experience for each of the children.

55. Since 12 September 2024, Andrew has resided with Nicole, Paul, and Keisha. The Adoption Plan now provides for Olivia and Beatrice to have visits with Andrew six times per year, with those visits to occur concurrently with Nicole, Paul, and Keisha. It also provides for video calls six times per year for any time in which Andrew resides with his father.

Contact with James

56. James is now 11 years of age. It is understood that he resides in the care of his mother in Sydney, but there are no contact details available for him. Olivia and Beatrice have never met James.

57. The Adoption Plan provides for Olivia and Beatrice to have future contact with James, should he wish to engage with the children.

Contact with other family members

58. The Adoption Plan provides for Olivia and Beatrice to have contact with the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle concurrently four times per year. Olivia and Beatrice have had face-to-face visits with the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle in this manner since October 2021. Olivia and Beatrice enjoy these visits; as do the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. The children refer to the maternal grandmother as “Nana”. It is clear that this is an important connection for Olivia and Beatrice to their birth family.

Conclusion

59. Having regard to Olivia and Beatrice’s family relationships,^[26] and their emotional needs and sense of personal, family and cultural identity,^[27] I am satisfied that the Adoption Plan is in Olivia and Beatrice’s best interests and proper in the circumstances.

    26. Adoption Act, ss 8(2)(f)-(h).

    27. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(c).

60. The arrangements for contact can be varied to meet the changing needs of Olivia and Beatrice as they grow older.

61. If an 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. ^[28] Once it is registered, the parties to the adoption order can seek to enforce it as an order of the Court.

    28. Adoption Act, s 50(4).

62. Nicole and Paul did not sign the Adoption Plan. Accordingly, they cannot apply to the Court for a review of the Adoption Plan in the future. However, they may seek to enforce the Adoption Plan as “person[s] having the benefit of a deemed order”. ^[29]

    29. See Director-General, NSW Department of Family and Community Services Re JS [2013] NSWSC 306 at [12] (Brereton J, as the Commissioner then was); see also Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 39.49(1): “If, in any proceedings, a person who is not a party obtains an order, or an order is made in favour of a person who is not a party, that person may enforce the order as if that person were a party”.

63. In light of Nicole’s and Paul’s stated attitude for future contact with the children, it will now be up to Sue and Richard to do what they can independently to facilitate contact in accordance with the Adoption Plan.

64. I am confident in Sue and Richard’s ability to encourage positive contact and relationships with Olivia and Beatrice’s birth family. Sue said in evidence:

“… I see contact as essential to the girls’ wellbeing, sense of belonging and identity. I do want the birth family to share in the pure joy that these girls give us and eagerly try to share their achievements and milestones while being mindful of the situation.”

65. Nicole and Paul have stated that they do not intend to participate in family visits with Olivia and Beatrice in accordance with the Adoption Plan.

66. I encourage Nicole and Paul to reconsider that position. It is in Olivia and Beatrice’s best interests to have family visits and build relationships with their birth parents, and with Keisha.

67. In order for contact to be a positive experience for Olivia, Beatrice, and Keisha, it is essential that Sue, Richard, Nicole, and Paul, work together to find arrangements that work for the best interests of the three children.

Proposed name change

68. It is proposed that, on the making of the adoption orders, the children would have Sue and Richard’s surname, and have their birth surname, being Paul’s surname, added as a middle name.

69. Before changing the names of a child, I must consider any wishes expressed by the child and any factors relevant to the weight that should be given to those wishes. ^[30] The children have not expressed any clear wishes about their names, but often ask Sue and Richard if they will have Sue and Richard’s surname when they are adopted.

    30. Adoption Act, s 101(2).

70. I am satisfied that the proposed name changes are in the children’s best interests. The proposed surname will reflect Olivia and Beatrice’s membership of the adoptive family, and enhance their sense of belonging and stability with Sue and Richard, their “forever family”. The children will retain their birth given names, and add their birth surnames, being Paul’s surname, as a middle name. This will preserve and honour Olivia and Beatrice’s ongoing connection to their birth family.

Conclusion

71. I had no doubt that it was in the best interests of Olivia and Beatrice to make the adoption orders sought.

72. Integrated Birth Certificates will be created for Olivia and Beatrice which will include details of Nicole and Paul. The certificates will form an important part of Olivia and Beatrice’s life story.

**********

Endnotes

Amendments

20 November 2024 - 20 November 2024 - Amendments made to factual matters in [53]-[55].

Decision last updated: 20 November 2024