The Adoption of Sloane (a pseudonym) - [2025] NSWSC 188

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Adoption of Sloane (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 188
Hearing dates: On the papers; written submissions 19 December 2024, 4 and 6 February 2025
Date of orders: 6 February 2025
Decision date: 11 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Pursuant to Adoption Act 2000, ss 67(1)(a) and 67(1)(c), the Court dispenses with the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth father

Catchwords:
CHILD WELFARE – adoption – consent – dispense order – where child is subject to Temporary Care Arrangement pursuant to Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW), s 151 – where birth mother consents to adoption – where two putative birth fathers identified – where first putative father cannot be found or identified – where DNA testing results for second putative father delayed – where paternity cannot be confirmed prior to expiry of Temporary Care Arrangement – where it is in child’s best interests to be placed in adoption placement as soon as possible – whether second putative father’s continued involvement would be serious cause for concern for child’s welfare – whether consent dispense order would override putative birth father’s wishes

Legislation Cited:
Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Adoption of A [2022] NSWSC 567
Application of DOCS re C [2004] NSWSC 702
Director-General, Department of Community Services (NSW) v D [2007] NSWSC 762
Director-General, Department of Human Services; re DAM [2011] NSWSC 634
Re Simon (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 1412
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services; Re C and the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) [2014] NSWSC 1007
The Adoption of Hannah (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 694

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (Plaintiff)
Representation: Solicitors:
New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2024/477517
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

JUDGMENT

These proceedings relate to the proposed adoption of a girl who I will call “Sloane” (not her real name), now aged 7 months.
By Summons and Notice of Motion filed on 19 December 2024, the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (“the Secretary”) sought an order, pursuant to s 67(1)(a) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), dispensing with the requirement for the consent of Sloane’s father to Sloane’s adoption.
On 6 February 2025, I made that order pursuant to ss 67(1)(a) and 67(1)(c) of the Adoption Act. These are my reasons.

The course of events

On the day after Sloane’s birth, Sloane’s mother, who I will call “Kim” (not her real name), signed a Temporary Care Arrangement in respect of Sloane pursuant to s 151 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW).
Kim has consistently expressed a wish for Sloane to be adopted. Kim is not able to parent Sloane due to her work and…

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 Sloane (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 188
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Adoption of Sloane, the court was asked to determine whether an adoption order should be granted in the absence of the consent of one of the child's putative fathers. Sloane is a child who has been in the care of the State under a Temporary Care Arrangement pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). Sloane's birth mother has consented to the adoption, and one putative father has been identified, but he cannot be located or identified. A second putative father has been identified, but paternity has not been confirmed due to delays in DNA testing. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to consider whether it was in Sloane's best interests to be placed in an adoptive home as soon as possible, given the imminent expiration of the Temporary Care Arrangement. The court also had to determine whether the continued involvement of the second putative father, whose paternity has not been confirmed, would be a serious cause for concern for Sloane's welfare. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether an order dispensing with the consent of the second putative father would override his wishes, and whether it would be in Sloane's best interests to do so.

The court found that it was in Sloane's best interests to be placed in an adoptive home as soon as possible, given the imminent expiration of the Temporary Care Arrangement. The court held that the continued involvement of the second putative father would be a serious cause for concern for Sloane's welfare, as his paternity had not been confirmed, and he had not made any effort to contact Sloane or participate in her life. The court also found that an order dispensing with the consent of the second putative father would override his wishes, but that it would be in Sloane's best interests to do so, given the circumstances.

Accordingly, the court made an order that the adoption of Sloane proceed without the consent of the second putative father. The court held that the best interests of Sloane were paramount, and that the adoption would provide her with a stable and loving home as soon as possible. The court also noted that the second putative father had not demonstrated any interest in Sloane's welfare, and that his continued involvement would be detrimental to her best interests.

Orders