The Adoption of Sarah (a pseudonym)

[2025] NSWSC 242

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

The Adoption of Sarah (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 242

Hearing dates:

12 March 2025

Date of orders:

21 March 2025

Decision date:

21 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Adoptions List

Before:

Brereton J

Decision:

Adoption orders made.

Catchwords:

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – adoption plan – where birth mother opposes the adoption but has disengaged from proceedings – where birth mother has not signed the adoption plan – whether the proposed adoption plan is in the child’s best interests and proper in the circumstances.

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – adoption plan – sibling adoption plan – where the parties have not sought for sibling adoption plan to be registered – whether the sibling adoption plan should be registered.

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – whether the making of an adoption order is in the best interests of the child – whether an adoption order is the clearly preferable option.

CHILD WELFARE – adoption – order – where the birth parents do not consent – whether the consent of the birth parents should be dispensed with to make an adoption order – where the birth mother seeks restoration.

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

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

Cases Cited:

Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680

Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813

Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27

Application of A - re D (2006) 36 Fam LR 142; [2006] NSWSC 1056

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

Re Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7

Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 641

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:

n/a

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (Plaintiff)
“Mary” (not her real name) (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
N Hailstone, C Gillan (Plaintiff – Solicitor)
C Bennett (Child’s legal representative)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Child’s legal representative)
No other appearances

File Number(s):

2024/00235208

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 a child who I will call “Sarah”, aged ten years old. [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.

2. By Summons filed on 25 June 2024, the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (‘Secretary’) seeks the following orders:

1. that pursuant to section 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (‘Adoption Act’), the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of Sarah’s birth mother, who I will call “Mary”;

2. that pursuant to section 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act, the Court dispense with the requirement for the consent of Sarah’s birth father, who I will call “Roger”;

3. an order for the adoption of Sarah in favour of the adopting parents, who I will call “Rosie” and “Kaye” and approving Sarah’s name remains unchanged.

3. On 9 July 2024, Sarah’s birth father, Roger, was personally served with a notice of the adoption application on behalf of the Secretary.

4. On 24 July 2024, Sarah’s birth mother, Mary, was personally served with a notice of the adoption application on behalf of the Secretary.

5. On 7 August 2024, the Secretary sought orders joining Mary to these proceedings as a Defendant. She was joined to the proceedings by the Court. On this date, orders were also made for the service of evidence by the Secretary upon Legal Aid New South Wales (‘Legal Aid’) for the purposes of an assessment as to whether Mary should be appointed a Guardian Ad Litem in these proceedings.

6. Mary has not engaged sufficiently with Legal Aid to assess whether a Guardian Ad Litem should be appointed in these proceedings. The Secretary made efforts to put Mary into contact with the Early Intervention Unit of Legal Aid by attending her home and arranging phone calls with a solicitor. Mary did not engage with these attempts.

7. Mary has consistently opposed Sarah’s adoption and she seeks restoration of Sarah to her care once her mental health issues have been accurately diagnosed and treated.

8. Roger is not a defendant to these proceedings, and he has not filed a Notice of Appearance to be joined in these proceedings. Roger has informally consented to Sarah’s adoption; however, he has not provided formal consent.

9. On 4 December 2024, orders were made appointing a legal representative for Sarah and listing the matter for final hearing. A Notice of Appearance was filed by Sarah’s legal representative, Ms Bennett, on her behalf on 5 December 2024.

10. I have been greatly assisted in this case by the careful written and oral submissions from Ms Hailstone, the Principal Solicitor for the Crown Solicitor, and Ms Bennett.

The circumstances of this case

11. Sarah was born on 15 October 2014.

12. Sarah has one maternal full-sibling, Carl, one maternal half-sibling, Zoe, and one paternal half-sibling, George. Neither Carl nor Zoe reside with Mary. Carl was removed out of Mary’s care in December 2017.

13. On 18 October 2018, Sarah was placed under the supervision of the Secretary for a 12-month period (‘Supervision Order’).

14. On 7 November 2019, Sarah’s birth father was registered on her birth certificate.

15. During the period of Supervision Order, the Department of Communities and Justice (‘the Department’) assisted Mary by undertaking extensive casework, making referrals to a range of support services and conducted home visits. The Department and Mary implemented a ‘Family Action Plan’ to enable Mary to identify clear goals and achievable outcomes to reduce the risk of harm to Sarah.

16. On 14 April 2020, a Risk of Serious Harm (‘ROSH’) report was received in relation to Sarah’s care. This report identified that Sarah was at risk of significant neglect, with parental risk factors of serious mental health issues and serious prior neglect. Around this time, Mary had contacted her supporting caseworker and expressed suicidal intentions.

17. Sarah was taken into care on 1 May 2020.

18. On 6 May 2020, an application to initiate care proceedings was commenced in the Children’s Court to seek an interim order allocating parental responsibility of Sarah to the Minister (‘Interim Care Proceedings’).

19. On 7 May 2020, the Children’s Court granted an interim order in the Interim Care Proceedings which allocated all aspects of parental responsibility for Sarah to the Minister until further orders were made.

20. On 30 November 2020, Sarah was placed in the care of Rosie and Kaye. Sarah was six years old at the time of her placement and she has resided with Rosie and Kaye on a consistent basis since. Rosie and Kaye do not have any other foster care or biological children.

21. On 21 December 2020, the Children’s Court made final orders in relation to Sarah’s care (‘Final Order Care Proceedings’). The Children’s Court made a finding that there was no realistic possibility of restoration of Sarah to either of her birth parents within a reasonable period, and that permanency planning had been adequately addressed and resultantly approved. All aspects of parental responsibility for Sarah were allocated to the Minister until she turns 18 years old pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). These orders remain in effect in these proceedings.

22. A Care Plan was approved in relation to the Final Order Care Proceedings with arrangements in place for Sarah’s contact with Mary, Carl, Zoe and her maternal grandmother who I will call “Shirley”.

The formal requirements for adoption

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

1. Roger and Mary were each independently served with sufficient notice of the application for adoption orders; ^[2]

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

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

   3. Adoption Act, ss 23(2)(a).

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

4. For the purposes of section 91(1) of the Adoption Act, a report regarding Rosie and Kaye has been provided to the Court;

5. Rosie and Kaye are of good repute and are fit and proper persons to fulfil the responsibility of parents; ^[5]

6. Rosie and Kaye have been selected in accordance with the Adoption Act; ^[6] and

7. Rosie and Kaye satisfy the age and length of relationship requirements. ^[7]

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

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

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

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

Whether adoption is in the best interests of the child

24. Applications for adoption constitute a very 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).

25. In reaching a decision about the adoption of Sarah, I must have regard, as far as is practicable or appropriate, to the principles that adoption must be regarded as a service for the child, ^[10] and not as a right of the adults with whom they are placed. ^[11]

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

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

26. The paramount consideration in any decision concerning the adoption of a child must be what is in the best interests of the child, both during childhood and later in life. [12] I cannot make an adoption order in relation to Sarah unless I am satisfied that her best interests will be promoted by her adoption by Rosie and Kaye, and that, as far as practicable and having regard to Sarah’s age and understanding, her wishes and feelings have been ascertained and due consideration has been given to them. ^[13]

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

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

27. In considering what is in Sarah’s best interests, I have had regard to the matters outlined in s 8(2) of the Adoption Act, relevantly:

1. any wishes expressed by Sarah in relation to the proposed adoption; [14]

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

2. Sarah’s age, maturity, level of understanding, gender, background, family relationships and any other characteristics that I considered relevant; [15]

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

3. Sarah’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including her sense of personal, familial and cultural identity; [16]

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

4. any wishes expressed by Roger or Mary in relation to Sarah; [17]

   17. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(e).

5. the relationship that Sarah has with Roger and Mary, and her siblings, Carl, Zoe and George, alongside any other significant other people; [18]

6. Rosie and Kaye’s attitude towards Sarah and the responsibilities that are associated with parenthood; [19]

7. the nature of the relationship that Sarah has developed with Rosie and Kaye; [20]

8. the suitability and capacity of Rosie and Kaye to provide for Sarah’s needs, including her emotional and intellectual needs; [21] and

9. the need to protect Sarah from physical or psychological harm caused, or that may be caused, by being subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour, or being present while a third person is subjected or exposed to, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour. [22]

   18. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(f).

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

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

   21. Adoptions Act, s 8(2)(i).

   22. Adoption Act, s 8(2)(j).

28. The assessment regarding what is in a Sarah’s best interests involves the making of a judicial evaluation and the balancing of a variety of factors from which an overall conclusion must be reached. This is an inherently imprecise exercise. [23]

    23. Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 641 at [16] (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead), cited with approval in Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS (supra) at [164] (Hallen J).

29. The submissions made by Sarah’s legal representative, Ms Bennett, were of great assistance in hearing and ascertaining the voice of Sarah regarding the adoption. The court report prepared by Ms Armstrong and filed on 25 June 2024 was also very helpful in understanding Sarah’s views on the adoption.

30. Sarah is too young to provide her consent to her own adoption. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that she has an age-appropriate understanding of the adoption at ten years of age.

31. It is evident that Sarah has developed a strong connection with Rosie and Kaye independently.

32. Sarah has clearly expressed a desire to be adopted, stating that she wishes for her home with Rosie and Kaye to be her “forever home”. Sarah has also expressed concerns regarding the progress of her adoption. The Secretary submitted in evidence that it appears Sarah feels that she needs to perform when case workers attend the home.

33. I am confident that Rosie and Kaye will assist Sarah in further understanding her birth family history and what open adoption means through Life Story work. Rosie and Kaye have a Life Story book for Sarah which details the events of her life and how she began to be cared for by them.

34. Rosie and Kaye have consistently facilitated family time visits between Sarah and her birth family since she was placed in their care. Rosie and Kaye have independently facilitated regular face-to-face visits between Sarah and Mary since August 2021. Additionally, Rosie and Kaye have consistently facilitated exclusive family time visits with Carl and Zoe. Although Sarah has not had contact with Roger, Rosie and Kaye have provided him with updates on Sarah’s wellbeing and achievements. Sarah also has phone contact and occasional family time visits with Shirley. It is clear that Rosie and Kaye appreciate the importance of maintaining and fostering positive relationships between Sarah and her birth family.

35. It is clear on the evidence that Rosie and Kaye have demonstrated their ability to provide a high level of care to Sarah, satisfying her physical, emotional and educational needs in a thoughtful and consistent manner. Sarah has made significant progress since being placed in Rosie and Kaye’s care. The court report noted that Sarah is “experiencing the benefits of stability and consistency, as well as the playfulness of her home environment”. Further, Sarah’s 2024 school report indicates that she is doing well at school and is consistently applying herself to her studies.

36. Rosie and Kaye have shown a strong ability to meet Sarah’s health and developmental needs. Sarah was diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay, Developmental Language Disorder and Mild Social Communication Disorder. Rosie and Kaye have arranged for Sarah to engage with a creative arts therapist, occupational therapist, a psychotherapist and a speech therapist to assist with her health, developmental and intellectual needs. Sarah was on a NDIS plan until recently and she is actively supported by Rosie and Kaye in relation to engaging and attending various services to assist with her needs.

37. In relation to cultural heritage, Sarah’s paternal and maternal family are Anglo-Australian. Rosie and Kaye have expressed their willingness to maintain Sarah’s connection to her cultural background by supporting her in seeking information about her cultural heritage during family time visits. Rosie and Kaye have also sought to support Sarah’s cultural connections by celebrating birthdays, Christmas and organising other social events which allow her to navigate her cultural connections.

38. Rosie and Kaye have demonstrated a positive attitude regarding the responsibilities associated with parenthood and their commitment to Sarah. They have developed a consistent routine with Sarah, adopting a nurturing approach to parenting that is trauma-informed. They have set clear boundaries with Sarah whilst also minimising any pressures in her environment.

39. Sarah has fostered a warm and loving relationship with Rosie and Kaye, becoming more comfortable calling them “mum” and “mummy” names. The court report acknowledged that Sarah has shown an ability to open up about previous traumatic events in her life, demonstrating trust towards Rosie and Kaye. Sarah and Kaye regularly engage in physical activity as a form of bonding, including bike-riding or playing soccer.

40. I have no doubt in relation to Rosie and Kaye’s suitability and capacity to provide for Sarah’s needs, both in childhood and later in life. Rosie and Kaye have expressed a deep affection for Sarah and a desire to parent Sarah as part of their permanent family.

The birth parents

41. When considering Sarah’s best interests, I must have regard to the relationship that Roger and Mary have with Sarah and any wishes they, as Sarah’s birth parents, have expressed about the adoption. ^[24]

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

42. Neither Roger nor Mary has signed any instrument of consent for Sarah’s adoption in these proceedings.

43. The relationship between Sarah and Mary is complex. Rosie and Kaye have stated that Sarah often displays dysregulated behaviour after family time visits with Mary. The section 91 court report also indicated that Sarah could react emotionally after family time visits due to the contact being impacted by Mary’s mental health and instability in her life. Mary has expressed firm opposition to Sarah’s adoption, and she has stated concerns regarding the reduced family time visits in the Maternal Adoption Plan. Mary has acknowledged that Sarah is being well cared for by Rosie and Kaye but that she is determined to have Sarah restored to her care once she receives the appropriate mental health treatment required.

44. To date, Roger has not had any face-to-face contact with Sarah, at his own request. He has stated that he is open to contact occurring, but Sarah has indicated that she is not ready for this to occur. Roger has maintained communication with Rosie and Kaye however, receiving periodic updates in relation to Roger’s wellbeing and achievements.

45. On 3 May 2024, Roger informally indicated that he wished to consent to Sarah’s adoption as he did not wish to go through the formal consent process.

The siblings

46. Sarah has fostered positive relationships with Carl, her maternal full sibling, and Zoe, her maternal half-sibling.

47. In accordance with Sarah’s wishes and best interests, Rosie and Kaye have demonstrated their commitment to assisting Sarah in fostering positive relationships with Carl and Zoe.

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

48. An order for adoption may not be made unless I am satisfied that the making of such an order is “clearly preferable” in the best interests of Sarah than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the care of Sarah. [25]

    25. Adoption Act, s 90(3).

49. I need to be satisfied that there is more than a “slight preponderance” of considerations in favour of Sarah’s adoption over other alternatives available. [26] I must achieve the degree of conviction in favour of adoption commensurate with the gravity of the decision that is being made. [27]

    26. Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813 at [14] (Brereton J).

    27. Application of A - re D (2006) 36 Fam LR 142; [2006] NSWSC 1056 at [53] (Palmer J).

50. In assessing whether adoption would promote Sarah’s best interests and whether it is clearly preferable to any other order, I must identify the likely effects of adoption and examine the benefits and detriments of each alternative. [28]

    28. Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680 at [74] (Brereton J).

48. The Secretary identified the following alternatives to making an adoption order:

1. no order and maintain the status quo, which is that Sarah remains under the parental responsibility of the Minister until she is 18 years of age;

2. an order allocating parental responsibility to Rosie and Kaye under section 92 of the Adoption Act; or

3. an order allocating parental responsibility to one or both of the birth parents under section 92 of the Adoption Act.

52. Alternative (c) is not realistic in these circumstances. The evidence falls well short of supporting such an order.

53. Mary has a history of complex mental health needs, including diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and anxiety. Mary also has a history of suicidal ideation and threats of self-harm. Mary has struggled to connect with mental health support, and at periods she has acknowledged the impact that her poor mental health has on her parenting abilities.

54. Roger has informally consented to the adoption and does not, at least presently, have a relationship with Sarah.

55. An adoption order is clearly preferable and in the best interests of Sarah compared with alternatives (a) and (b).

56. If I were to make no order, Sarah would remain as a ward of the State until she reaches 18 years of age. Rosie and Kaye would be unable to make significant decisions concerning Sarah without the approval of the Minister’s delegate.

57. An order allocating parental responsibility for Sarah to Rosie and Kaye would alleviate some of the disadvantages associated with taking no step but would remain a temporary order that would expire when Sarah reaches 18 years of age. In the meantime, the Minister and relevant caseworkers would continue to be involved in decision-making in relation to Sarah. If no adoption order was made, Sarah would lose her legal connection to her psychological family when she reaches 18 years of age.

58. Hence, making no order, or making an order for parental responsibility, would lack the certainty and permanency of an adoption order and would also give rise to a risk that Sarah may experience stigma arising from the fact that she would continue to be a “foster child”, rather than living in a family that is recognised at law as her own.

59. The benefit of making an adoption order, over the alternatives, is that it will achieve a secure, stable, reliable permanent and lifetime placement for Sarah with Rosie and Kaye. [29] Adoption serves the identity needs of Sarah, in circumstances where she is emotionally, psychologically and residentially already a member of the proposed adoptive family, bringing her legal status into conformity with reality, and by perfecting her sense of permanent belonging in the family with which she identifies as her own, not only during childhood but for life. [30] The evidence has clearly indicated that Sarah is anxious to have an adoption order made, allowing her to be recognised as a permanent part of Rosie and Kaye’s family.

    29. 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).

    30. Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27 at [58] (Brereton J).

60. Although an adoption order will have the legal effect of severing Sarah’s legal ties to her siblings, Carl, Zoe and George, I am satisfied that this is unlikely to impact on their relationship in the future. In the context of open adoption, the personal relationships between siblings can be fostered in the absence of a legal relationship, and the adoption plans can play an important role in maximising the opportunity for such relationships to remain intact. [31] Contact with Carl, Zoe and George has been factored into the adoption plans which will be discussed further below.

    31. Re Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7 at [92] (Brereton J).

61. I am satisfied that, upon considering the available alternatives, an adoption order is firmly in Sarah’s best interests and is the clearly preferable option.

Dispensing with the consent of the birth parents

62. Before making an adoption order, I must deal with the consent requirements outlined in the Adoption Act.

63. Roger is supportive of Sarah’s adoption by Rosie and Kaye however he has not provided formal consent.

64. Mary has consistently opposed the making of an adoption order in relation to Sarah.

65. Sarah is not old enough to provide consent to her own adoption. Accordingly, the Secretary seeks orders to dispense with Mary and Roger’s consent pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act.

66. I may not make a consent dispense order under section 67(1) of the Adoption Act unless I am satisfied that, relevantly, Sarah has established a stable relationship with her authorised carers, Rosie and Kaye, and that the adoption by Rosie and Kaye will promote Sarah’s welfare. [32] I must also be satisfied that to do so will be in the best interests of Sarah. [33]

    32. Adoption Act, ss 67(1)(d).

    33. Adoption Act, s 67(2).

67. Dispensing with the consent of parents to the adoption of their child by the proposed adoptive parents is a grave step and it is not to be taken lightly. [34]

    34. See for example, Adoption of RCC and RZA (supra) at [17] (Brereton J).

68. I am satisfied that I should dispense with the requirement for both Roger and Mary’s consent in relation to Sarah’s adoption in these proceedings. Sarah has established a stable relationship with Rosie and Kaye and her adoption will promote her welfare in the short-term and the long-term. The making of consent dispense orders is in the best interests of Sarah in these circumstances.

The Adoption Plans

69. The Secretary has prepared three adoption plans pursuant to section 46 of the Adoption Act that include provisions for the means and nature of contact between Sarah and her birth family.

70. The question before me is whether these proposed adoption plans are in Sarah’s best interests and proper in the circumstances. [35] The Secretary has not sought any order in relation to registering the adoption plans.

    35. Adoption Act, s 90(2).

71. The adoption plans that the Secretary seeks to be registered relate to Sarah’s contact arrangements with Mary, Carl, Shirley, Roger, George and Zoe.

Maternal Adoption Plan

72. The Maternal Adoption Plan contemplates contact arrangements for Sarah with Mary, Carl and Shirley.

73. Despite Mary not consenting to the adoption of Sarah, the Secretary has given her, as far as possible, the opportunity to participate in the development of, and agree to, an adoption plan. ^[36] Nevertheless, Mary has expressed concerns regarding the alteration of family time in the Maternal Adoption Plan as visits were reduced from twelve to six times per year to minimise Mary’s impact on Sarah. Mary has not signed the Maternal Adoption Plan.

    36. Adoption Act, s 46(2A).

74. The Secretary submits that the Maternal Adoption Plan is consistent with Sarah’s best interests. It is contended that the six annual visits strike a balance between acknowledging the importance that Mary plays in Sarah’s life whilst also reducing the dysregulation that family time visits impose on Sarah.

75. In relation to contact with Mary, the Maternal Adoption Plan allows for face-to-face visits every six to eight weeks for a period of two hours. The dates, times and locations of these visits will be negotiated between Rosie, Kaye and Mary. The plan provides that visits will include events such as birthdays, Mother’s Day and Christmas. It is envisaged that visits will occur with Sarah and Carl simultaneously. These visits will at times be attended by Carl and his permanent carer and/or an agency case worker. There is also the option for phone or video calls to occur in between face-to-face visits. Rosie and Kaye will communicate Sarah’s health, wellbeing and progress at least every six months. Mary will be notified of Sarah’s achievements and if she develops any significant health issues.

76. In addition to the family time visits with Mary, additional sibling contact between Sarah and Carl is provided for. This will be expanded upon further below.

77. The Maternal Adoption Plan also provides for contact between Shirley and Sarah up to two times per year if requested by Shirley or Sarah. These visits will occur for a maximum duration of two hours. The date, time and location of these visits will be negotiated between Rosie, Kaye and Shirley. There is provision for Sarah and Shirley to communicate via phone or email on an occasional basis, depending on Sarah’s wishes. Shirley is to be updated by Rosie and Kaye annually on Sarah’s health, wellbeing and progress. Shirley will be advised if Sarah develops any significant health issues. Shirley has signed the Maternal Adoption Plan.

78. No party to the Maternal Adoption Plan has sought for it to be registered.

Paternal Adoption Plan

79. The Paternal Adoption Plan contemplates Sarah’s contact arrangements with Roger and George.

80. Although Roger has not had any contact with Sarah to date, he has met Rosie and Kaye. The possibility of Sarah meeting Roger has been explored but Sarah has declined any contact for the time being. Rosie and Kaye have indicated that they will facilitate future contact between Roger and Sarah if she wishes for this to occur.

81. Sarah has expressed interest in meeting George, her paternal half-sibling. The plan makes provision for the fact that he may attend family time visits with Roger if requested. If George wishes to attend these visits, Rosie and Kaye will endeavour to have some form of independent communication with him in advance of him being introduced to Sarah.

82. Rosie and Kaye will communicate with Roger regarding Sarah’s health, wellbeing and progress at least every six months. They will provide Roger with information regarding Sarah’s achievements and send occasional photographs celebrating such achievements. Roger is also to be informed if there are any significant health issues relating to Sarah.

83. The Secretary submits that the Paternal Adoption Plan is proper in the circumstances and promotes Sarah’s best interests. It is also submitted that the Paternal Adoption Plan provides for the relationship between Roger and Sarah to be fostered in the future in a manner driven by Sarah. I accept these submissions.

84. All the relevant parties have signed the Paternal Adoption Plan.

85. No party to the Paternal Adoption Plan has sought for it to be registered.

Sibling Adoption Plan

86. The Sibling Adoption Plan provides for contact with Carl and Zoe, Sarah’s maternal siblings.

87. In relation to contact arrangements with Carl, these visits will occur at a minimum of six times a year jointly with Mary. These visits will also be attended by Carl’s carer. The visits will be for a duration of two to three hours, and they will take place in the community and various locations according to Sarah and Carl’s interests. Additional sibling contact between Sarah and Carl will occur at a minimum of six times per year, with the aim of sibling contact occurring monthly.

88. Contact arrangements between Sarah and Zoe are also provided for in the Sibling Adoption Plan. These visits will occur at a minimum of four times per year. Arrangements for family time will be made directly between Zoe, Rosie and Kaye. Visits will vary in duration and venue. It is anticipated that these visits will also include Carl, however if he cannot attend, they will still proceed. There is provision for financial reimbursement of fuel for Zoe to travel to these visits on four occasions per year until Sarah attains the age of 18 years old.

89. All the relevant parties have signed the Sibling Adoption Plan.

90. No party to the Sibling Adoption Plan has sought for it to be registered. Sarah’s legal representative submits that given the plan concerns the three children, and the importance of the sibling relationships, it is appropriate for consideration to be given to registering the plan. An adoption plan that is registered has the effect as if it was part of the order. [37] I am confident that the parties to the Sibling Adoption Plan are cognisant of the importance of the plan and will be faithful to it. I do not consider registration is required at this time.

    37. Adoption Act, s 50(4).

Conclusion as to adoption plans

91. Having regard to Sarah’s relationship with her birth family, [38] in conjunction with her emotional needs and sense of personal, familial and cultural identity, [39] I am satisfied that the proposed Maternal Adoption Plan, Paternal Adoption Plan and Sibling Adoption Plan are in Sarah’s best interests and proper in the circumstances. Each of the adoption plans place Sarah’s needs as paramount and facilitate continued contact with Sarah’s birth family.

    38. Adoption Act, ss 8(2)(f).

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

92. I am confident that Rosie and Kaye will encourage and facilitate positive contact between Sarah and her birth family as they have demonstrated a strong understanding of the importance that these relationships have on Sarah’s identity and wellbeing.

93. The Court can review an adoption plan on the application of one or more parties to the plan and make such changes, if any, to the provisions of the adoption plan as it considers appropriate. [40]

    40. Adoption Act, ss 51(1), (3).

94. As the adoption plans will not be registered, and therefore not being enforceable as an order of the Court, it will be dependent on the parties to facilitate the arrangements stipulated in the plans. It will be important to Sarah’s wellbeing and sense of self that she maintains her connection with her birth family. This will require cooperation from all parties to the adoption plans to ensure this is a positive experience for Sarah.

Proposed name change

95. The Secretary seeks the Court to approve that Sarah’s given names and surname will remain unchanged.

96. There has been no evidence before me that indicates Sarah wishes to change her name. It is the name Sarah is known by by her family, friends and at school.

97. I am satisfied that approval of Sarah’s name is in her best interests. In keeping Sarah’s name unchanged, her sense of self is maintained and an ongoing link to her birth family is preserved.

Conclusion

98. The adoption orders sought by the Secretary are in Sarah’s best interests.

99. Once the orders are made, an Integrated Birth Certificate will be created which will include details of Sarah’s birth parents, Roger and Mary. It will form an important part of Sarah’s life story.

**********

Endnotes

Amendments

25 March 2025 - Child's legal representative -

Not Child's independent legal representative

Decision last updated: 25 March 2025