The Director General Department of Human Services by her delegate, the Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia

[2011] NSWSC 1438

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	The Director General Department of Human Services by her delegate, the Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia [2011] NSWSC 1438
Hearing dates:	14, 15, and 16 November 2011
Decision date:	25 November 2011
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division - Adoption List
Before:	Acting Justice Windeyer
Decision:	Adoption orders made in two cases. One case adjourned for 12 months with parental responsibility orders in favour of proposed adopting parents in meantime.
Catchwords:	ADOPTION - 3 applications for adoption of 5 children of one mother but with one father of 3 and another of 2 - applications opposed by mother and the father of 2 - whether orders should be made. Circumstances where the only alternatives put forward were continuing foster care until 18 or adoption.
Legislation Cited:	Adoption Act 2000 Interpretation Act 1987
Cases Cited:	Director General Department of Community Services (NSW) v D (2007) NSWLR 762 Re William and Jane [2010] NSWSC 1435
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	The Director General Department of Human Services by her delegate, the Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia Mother CH, children C, B, R, D and A Father K, children C and B Father M, children R, D and A
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Ward (Director General Ms Neville (Mother of all 5 children) Mr Gardiner (Father to 2 children C and B) M the Father of 3 children (R, D and A) appeared in person Solicitors: IV Knight (Crown Solicitor) Jane Costigan Solicitor (Mother CH) Kathryn Renshall Solicitor (Father K)
File Number(s):	SC A17, A18, A19/2011

Judgment

1. These three cases were heard together, the evidence in the one to be the evidence in the other so far as relevant.

1. Each case is an application for adoption of children of the same mother. There are five children. CH is the mother of all five children. K is the father of the two older children. M is the father of the other 3.

Facts

1. Action 17 seeks an Adoption Order in respect of C and B. C was born on 30 October 2000 is now aged 11. B was born on 16 October 2003 and is now aged 8. CH is the mother of the children and K is the father.

1. Action 18 seeks an Adoption Order in respect of A. A was born on 16 February 2008. CH is his mother and M is his father.

1. Action 19 of 2011 seeks an Adoption Order in respect of R and D. R was born on 7 January 2005 and D on 17 January 2006. CH is the mother of those two children and M the father.

1. K has a long criminal record namely due to due to drug and sexual offences. He is presently in prison but due to be released on parole in January 2012. He was in prison when C was born but out again when B was born and had some contact with his children in 2002 and 2003.

1. CH formed a relationship with M in 2003 but by the time R was born this had become tempestuous and sometimes violent. CH and M separated in 2006 but there were continuing problems, an Apprehended Violence Order against M, breach of that order and reports to the Department of Community Services containing claims of sexual abuse of some of C, B, D and R when CH was in hospital for A's birth. The result of this was that R and D were placed with approved carers and C and B were placed in care of CH's mother.

1. Late in 2006 there were further episodes of violence between CH and M as a result of which M received a six month jail sentence. There was then violence between K and CH resulting in K being charged with break and enter and aggravated sexual assault. Prior to this CH spent some time in hospital being treated for depression but in August 2006 after a short time with her mother, she moved to Ettalong with all four children.

1. At the end of 2006, CH consented to temporary care arrangements for R and D and the two older children remained with her. In November 2006 DOCS took over the care of the four children. R and D were by this time in temporary foster care; C and B were to remain with their maternal grandmother.

1. On 29 January 2007 orders were made in the Children's Court placing the four children in the parental responsibility of the Minister until they reached the age of 18. Barnados as delegate of the Minister became responsible for placement of the children. C and B were placed with S and T in June 2007. R and D were placed with K and L in May 2007. Those children have remained in foster care with those carers since the middle of 2007 and those carers in each case seek to adopt the children in their care.

1. M was released from jail in April 2007, He and CH resumed a relationship and she became pregnant again. CH and M separated again in November 2007 before A was born. It seems that CH thought that she would not be able to care for her baby and discussed this with DOCS and later Barnados. A care order was made in February 2008 and A placed in the care of A's prospective adoptive parents in May 2008. It was thought at least at this stage that CH wished to have A placed for adoption.

1. This is a sad and sorry story. I have not set out all the details. It is perfectly clear that K would not be able or allowed to care for these children. They were placed into care because they needed care. CH is not able to care for them and she accepts that. M does not want to care for them and in fact attended Court to say that he consented to the adoption of this three children.

1. What follows from this is that it is accepted that the choices for these five children are that they remain in the present foster care, provided the carers continue to be happy to act as foster carers until 18, or that the adoption orders sought are made. It was not suggested that any other arrangement would be satisfactory.

1. K opposes the adoption of his two children. He wishes them to remain his children. CH does not consent to the adoption of A. She originally opposed it because she considered Barnados had not fulfilled an obligation that she claimed was due to her in the selection of proposed adoptive parents. Through her counsel she expressed concern to the Court about this. She still does not consent but on the other hand does not now oppose. She leaves it to the Court. She opposes the adoption of R and D although her strongest opposition is to the adoption of C and B. In a written statement I allowed into evidence she said she loved them unconditionally, had tried her hardest to do her best for them, that she only wanted the best for them and did not think adoption by S and T was the best for her children.

1. As far as M is concerned, as I have said he came to Court and said that he consented to the adoption of his three children. It seemed to me that he had given proper consideration to this but as the necessary procedure for obtaining consent under the Adoption Act 2000 (the Act) had not been followed, and it was not possible for that to happen while the action was in progress, if an order for adoption is made, it would be necessary to make an order dispensing with the father's consent as no consent in accordance with the Act has been obtained.

Facts specific to the particular children

A17/2011

Children C and B

Proposed adopting parents S and T

Mother CH Father K

1. C on entry into care had many behavioural, physical and mental problems. He suffers Global Development Delay and Reactive Attachment Disorder He suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. This makes him susceptible to tantrums and other disruptive behaviour which has been difficult to manage. His intellectual development is delayed and his mental age is about 2 or 3 years younger than his actual age. On entering into care he also had sight problems, postural problems and what was described as a "toe walker". These problems have required attention through obtaining special assistance at school, paediatric assistance, specialist care to cure the toe walking and other therapies. In addition to the special help at school, the proposed adopting parents have paid for some private tutoring.

1. There is no doubt that the proposed adoptive parents have worked very hard to deal with the behavioural and physical problems C has and to settle him into a routine. As a result what were called "meltdowns" have decreased in number and lessened in time and the physical problems such as toe walking largely overcome. Medication to help with ADHD has been of assistance. There is no doubt, however that C will remain to some extent intellectually impaired and this will become more obvious as he gets older. At the present time he likes school, is happy to go, but finds the work getting harder as he gets older.

1. So far as B is concerned there are no problems. She appears to be performing at school above her average age level and she appears able to cope with her brother's problems probably because his aggression towards her by way of hitting and biting has largely ceased.

1. These two children do not see K as he is in prison. In fact B really does not know him. C does and has some memory of living together albeit it seems not happy memories.

1. C and B have regular contact with their maternal grandparents and with their mother. In 2009 expert report of Theresa Lindfield suggested that the question of contact with K be revisited at the end of 2012. She suggested that two years non-offending would be required. It seems to be intended that that review will still take place although K has been imprisoned for further sexual offences since the 2009 report.

1. There are three particular matters which were addressed by counsel regarding this application. These can be addressed under the headings of school names, reluctance about contact with CH, and the wooden spoon.

1. So far as the school names are concerned C and B are both enrolled at school under the surname of the proposed adopting father. This is something that should not have occurred as it unfairly presupposes that foster care will result in adoption. S & T both said the action had been suggested by Barnados. T said that there was a letter to that effect although the letter was not produced. That is not surprising as it was not originally expected that the proposed adopting parents would give evidence. The inappropriate naming only came out unexpectedly during cross-examination. I am inclined to think the evidence about the suggestion coming from Barnados was true as I think it quite unlikely the applicants for adoption would have taken this action without advice. Representatives of Barnados were in Court throughout the hearing and if the evidence was not true they ought have said so although this does not carry the day.

1. The contact question arose as a result of the report which stated that S and T did not seem to be keen to ensure that CH had appropriate contact with the children after any adoption. They had questioned how they could deal with the problem if C did not want to go. It was pointed out to them that this was an obligation like going to school and that contact was important. S & T said that they supported contact and that although C did seem reluctant nevertheless he had attended all arranged contact visits and they had ways of encouraging him about this. Miss Taylor from Barnados who was the case manager at an earlier period and is now the case manager stated that in her opinion the attitude of S and T had altered and that they were amenable to contact visits. Evidence of proposed adopting parents must be viewed in the light of the fact that they knew why they were called to give evidence on the third day and knew the matters of concern other than the naming. Nevertheless I formed the impression from their evidence that they accepted their responsibilities and are prepared to enter into an adoption plan to give binding effect to this so far as contacts are concerned and that they will give proper support to contact occasions.

1. The wooden spoon question arose in the following way. In March 2011 Dianne Starkey, a clinical psychologist, visited the home to interview the children. In some discussion with C about family matters the following appears on page 8 of her report:

"C was asked about various family members. He said his Dad (S) likes playing golf. Dad is a really good cook and he is taking C to the driving range. When asked if there is anything he does not like about Dad, C said "no". He told me that he ( C) shouts at Dad sometimes and then C goes to sleep. C said he had shouted at Mum that morning and was sent to his room. He said this happened because he got into trouble for something he did not do and it was actually his sister who hit C. C said his Mum always wins arguments. He said Dad wins the most because he gets the wooden spoon and smacks C with it. C said this hurts."

1. Dianne Starkey was concerned about this and that the incident should be investigated. Ms Taylor the case manager from Barnados questioned C about this. On paragraph 25 of her affidavit of 10 June 2011 states the following:

25 "On 12 April 2011 I raised the issue of the use of the wooden spoon with S. We had a conversation, words to the following effect:

I said: In her report, Dianne Starkey included a comment by C that you had hit him with a wooden spoon.

S said: There was one occasion where I was frustrated and banged the wooden spoon on the bench. I have never hit C with a wooden spoon. I regret the action and am worried that this may be a reason why T and I may not be able to adopt the children.

I said: This will be explored more, and a plan put in place to assist you with managing C's behaviour in a more appropriate way. I would also like to talk to C about this.

S said: I understand. It was just a once off, and I do not smack the children or use any other form of inappropriate physical or punitive behaviour management.

I said: We are just waiting for confirmation from our solicitors about whether we can provide you with a copy of the assessment report. The report is very positive about your relationship with the children, but there is also another concern I want to address which involved your understanding of birth family contact. I think it is more appropriate to discuss this after you have had the opportunity of reading the report."

1. On 1 June 2011 Miss Taylor visited C and B at home again and discussed this matter again with C. Her report included the following. Michelle is Ms Taylor and Dianne is Dianne Starkey.

"Michelle told C that he had spoken to a friend of hers called Dianne, C did not appear to understand this therefore Michelle asked if he remembered when the lady came to his house to talk to him and B a little while ago about being adopted. C said he did. Michelle told C that Dianne said C had told her that Dad wins arguments because he hits C with a wooden spoon. C became excited at this point that said "yeah, whack". Michelle asked if C could tell her about this. C said Dad hits him on the bottom of his feet, the back of his lower leg and his bottom, C also held out his hands palm up and said that Dad hits his hands too. Michelle said to C that she bet that hurts a lot when he gets hit on his bottom and his feet, C said "yeah, makes it really hard to go to the toilet". Michelle said she bet it did and that it also really hurt his feet C said that he screams because it hurts lots."

Michelle asked C if B gets hit by Dad too, C said no. Michelle asked if B had seen C been hit Dad, C was not sure.

Michelle asked if Dad hurts him a lot with the spoon, C said he did not know. Michelle then asked if C could remember the last time Dad hit him with the spoon, C said it was outside when he (C) was fixing his bikes tyre again after Dad had fixed it. C said he had broken it.

Michelle asked if C could tell her more about that, C said he did not know. C then wanted to show Michelle a key ring that he had and Michelle was unable to engage him in further discussion. Michelle told C she was going to talk to his mum and dad now and that she was very worried about him being hit and hurt. She asked if he was OK if she talked to his mum and dad about what he had told her and told them it was not OK to hit him. C did not present as being anxious about this, he happily agreed for Michelle to talk to his carers and ran off out of his bedroom.

During Michelle's discussion with S and T, C (who had been in the family room completing homework) came to ask S for help. S told C to go into his room to get his timetable chart to help him finish his homework. Michelle offered to help C find his chart and went into his bedroom with him. After C had completed his homework sheet Michelle asked him if he could tell her anymore about when Dad had hit him when he was fixing his bike. Michelle asked if C was talking about his Dad who lived here with him now, C said 'yeah Dad'. Michelle asked where he was fixing his bike when dad hit him, C pointed out of his window and indicated to the work-shed situated in T's fathers backyard (T's parents live behind them, the two properties are separated with a fence which has a gate for access between the properties).

Michelle asked why C was fixing his bike tyre; C said it was flat so he had to take it to the work shed to fix it and that Dad had already fixed it. Michelle asked who was there when he was fixing it, C said he did not know. Michelle asked if this was where Dad hit him with a wooden spoon, C said yes. C asked if Michelle could play a game with him. Michelle said that she still needed to talk to mum and dad about dad hitting him because she was really worried about it. Michelle said that it must really hurt him being hit on his hands with a spoon. C said been he had not been hit on his hands with a spoon. Michelle said she thought he had said that he had, C said "no, not there", Michelle asked if C could show her where he had been hit, C pulled up his trouser leg and indicated to the back of his calf and then pulled off his sock and tapped the middle of his sole of his foot. Michelle asked if C had bruises after he was hit with the spoon, C then started looking for bruises on his body and pointed to one on his arm. C told Michelle he had scraped his arm on a wall, C told Michelle that he had another bruise that had just gone on his chest. Michelle asked if that bruise was because of being hit by the spoon, C said he did not know. Michelle said his feet must really hurt after he is hit there and that it must be really painful to walk. C picked up his shoe and told Michelle that both ends inside were hard but it was soft in the middle and that made it ok.

Michelle thanked C to telling her what he had and said that she had to finish talking to mum and dad.

1. Both S and T gave oral evidence on the topic. S said that once when he was cooking C was helping to cut up the vegetables or something similar C had started waving a knife around and in a manner dangerous to B. He was told to stop three or four times without result. In frustration S said that he banged the wooden spoon he was holding on a board which made a loud noise. He said that C was upset but that the conduct stopped. S said that he had never hit C with a wooden spoon or any other implement but that early in the placement he had smacked him on two occasions. The first was in what it was described as a massive meltdown when C had attacked him and grabbed his testicles and he gave him "a sort of tap" on the bottom to get him to let go. The second occasion was when C had kicked a hole in a door. S said he had to placate him being what I took to mean calm him down and C lashed out at him and was hitting him in the ribs. He gave him a "small smack": C then stepped away. S said he regretted these actions now. There was some suggestion from Ms Starkey that S should have some professional help in anger control. Without wishing to seem cynical it seems impossible in a situation where someone is in danger of injury to go out for a walk in the garden to calm down. After all the three actions did get a result and no-one was harmed. T said she had never seen C hit.

1. The position then is either the punishment took place or that C was making it up. The latter could happen quite easily once the idea was put into C's head but on the other hand I would have thought what was said about the bottom hurting on going to the toilet was an unusual thing to make up on the spur of the moment. Ms Taylor does not think the spoon punishment happened. So far as proof is concerned it is certainly not established on the balance of probabilities. It could have happened although I doubt it. The risk that it did is however something to take into account.

1. It is proper to say that both adopting parents impressed as being devoted to the children. They have worked extraordinarily hard particularly with C to give him a happy and purposeful life. Caring for an ADHD child with the problems of C is not for the fainthearted. S was asked in chief "why he put his hands up to be a foster carer and want him in your house". He said, "Because I think C is a very special kid and I think he deserves the best home he can have." There is no doubt that was genuine. These people have clearly put enormous effort into the children fostered to their care. The evidence is clear both C and B regard the applicants for adoption as their parents and as their family. They refer to them as mum and dad. They know that they have birth parents but it is unlikely that B has any real memory of them as she was just four when she went in to the care of the applicants.

Consideration

1. Subject to anything arising from the wooden spoon allegation there is no doubt S and T are very suitable people to adopt children. There is no doubt C and B have bonded with them. There is no doubt that in behaviour, ordered life, physically and medically, C has benefited greatly from the foster care he has received. There is no doubt S and T love the two children. There is no doubt the two children really regard S and T as their parents. There is no doubt the birth mother is not able to care for them. Neither is the birth father. Neither are the maternal grandparents.

1. Evidence was given in this and I add the other 2 cases that research has shown that adoption rather than foster care is in the best interests of children. But as was pointed out in Director General Department of Community Services (NSW) v D (2007) NSWLR 762 the question has to be determined on particular facts not average results.

1. If there were any chance of the children returning to their parents or one of them the position would be different. Here there is no chance but the birth parents, particularly the mother, still want their children to be their children. So if the primary consideration is the best interests of the children what are those best interests. I have I think dealt with the matters in section 8(2) of the Act other than the wishes of the child. B is really to young to know or to express her wishes. Her position is that she regards S and T as her parents and the birth parents are people in her life although K at present is really not in her life at all. C is said to want the adoption to proceed. He again regards S and T as his parents. I considered interviewing him but all parties were against that in view of his mental age. All the relevant matters in section 8(2) tend to favour adoption.

1. So far as Section 67 is concerned there is no doubt the children have established a very stable relationship with their carers. The relationship has promoted the children's' welfare. Adoption will I consider go further in promoting that welfare. As the children grow older it will give them a sense of continuing belonging to a home and a family and a sense of security.

1. I now return to the question of physical punishment. In modern times such methods of discipline are not regarded as acceptable at least if administered with implements. If the foster carers were administering such punishment at least on a more than a rare occasion, it would not be in the interests of the children to be adopted by them. As I have said I was quite impressed by S and T even taking into account they were prepared for examination on this question. However I am left with the feeling that there is a risk or at least I am not at present prepared to find there is no risk although in the words of MVM (1988) 166 CLR 69 and 78 I have some difficulty in finding the risk unacceptable. The rather strange thing about this case is that none of the parties is suggesting the children be removed from their carers though the birth mother has expressed concern about the allegation. However although they were they will stay there the fact is that if it was established that the punishments were occurring then the children could be removed from those foster carers and placed into other care. The position would be somewhat different if an adoption order were made.

1. In all these circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the best interests of the children would be served by acting under Section 84(1) of the Act and making an order for parental responsibility in favour of S and T until 31 October 2012 and standing the present application over to some convenient date in November 2012. By this time C will be aged 12 and his consent to the adoption will be required. I think it fair to indicate that in the absence of any continuing concern about physical punishment or any other matter that might then be relevant, I would propose to make consent dispense orders and adoption orders. Though my current commission will have expired the Act provides I can finish any matter which is part heard before me and that will be the position with this application. It is fair for everybody to keep it on foot.

A18/2011

Child A

Proposed adopting parents J and D

Mother CH and Father M

Additional Facts

1. A was born on 16 February 2008. J was born on 17 December 1962 and D on 24 April 1967. They were married in 1997 in New Zealand. D is employed as a manager, strategic and international accounts by an Australian Company. He earns $1,640 net per week. J does not work but looks after the A. The couple are purchasing a home said to be worth $532,000 which is mortgaged. The mortgage repayment is $2,150.00 per month. For some reason in all of these matters the amount due under the mortgage is not shown. The couple have other assets including two motor cars, two boats and horse float.

1. J and D have a son named L who is aged 8.

1. As I have said A was taken into care shortly after his birth. Interim care orders were made on 20 February 2008 and on 28 February 2008 A was placed with temporary Barnados foster carers and after a short time with J and D, first as a temporary arrangement, and after a short time on the basis that there would be a move towards adoption.

1. A has known no other home; he gets on well with L; he is developing as expected and is a happy little boy.

1. Contact with CH was spasmodic for a time but present Children's Court orders provide for supervised contact with CH four times a year and at the same is contact visits by R and D. Those orders also provide for contact with M four times a year. M has told the Court that he wishes that to continue. It is expected that an adoption plan will provide for this. Contact visits with CH up to the present time have gone well.

1. The evidence is that J and D are in every way suitable to be adopting parents. They have a stable marriage of 13 years; they have a close relationship with each other and their son L and with A. And L has been very accepting of A. A has known no real knowledge of his birth parents.

1. All facts point to an order for an adoption being clearly preferable to any other order. As I have explained the only alternative suggestion is that the existing care would remain in place up to the age of 18 years and J and D remain as foster carers. The facts that A has been with J and D for most of his short life; that so far as he is concerned they and L are his family; that his birth parents do not suggest he could live with them; that M has told the Court that he consents to the adoption; that CH, while not consenting does not oppose it; all point to an adoption being made as sought. Security, certainly of continuation of the present position and acceptance into a loving suitable family show I think that an adoption order is clearly preferable to any other order proposed or possible. In fact there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

1. I will make the order sought in the summons and which will include a consent dispense order in respect of both parents noting that this is necessary for M because while he has informed the Court of his consent when he attended the hearing on the first day, that itself does not comply with the requirements of the Act as to consent.

A19/2011

Children R born 7 January 2005 and D born 17 January 2006

Proposed adopting parents K and L

Mother Ch Father M

Additional facts

1. The applicants are both women. They are eligible persons so far as jurisdiction to make an adoption order in their favour is concerned because the evidence establishes they are defacto partners of each other being in a defacto relationship with each other. Adoption Act section 23(1) (defacto; dictionary; in Interpretation Act 1987 ).

1. Nobody has raised any objection to this adoption proposal on the basis that the proposed adoption parents are of the same sex. In fact CH was pleased about that. The way in which these matters should be treated is discussed by Palmer J in Re William and Jane [2010] NSWSC 1435 at paragraphs 100 to 106. I will not repeat what he said there.

1. K and L have been in a defacto relationship since 2003. If same sex marriages become allowed by law they intend to get married. K is 39 years of age and L is 46. They are of relatively modest means only owning about $27,000 between them and a house said to be worth about $335,000 on which there are mortgage payments of $1,918 per month. K does not work at the present time. L is an administration manager at a bowling club earning about $60,000 per year plus superannuation. The home was selected for its proximity to good state schools. It is quite suitable for children.

1. K was married in 1991 and divorced in 1995. There is one child of that marriage J now about 18 years of age. L has never married and has no children. She has changed her surname so that she has the same surname as K. In a same sex adoption that does avoid one possible problem.

1. R is now 6 and D is 5. They have been with K and L since May 2007. On entering into care R had some problems not dissimilar to those of C. She was a toe walker and had speech problems and some postural problems. She also had some behavioural problems not unlike those of her older half brother but not so severe. Speech therapy and physiotherapy and other activities have assisted greatly and her speech is now only a slight problem and the toe walking has ceased and delays in gross motor development have disappeared. In other words she has caught up with most things. D has no such problems.

1. K has a good relationship with her own family but they are in Adelaide. L's parents have divorced and remarried and she gets on well with her mother and stepfather but has not much contact with her father.

1. The five children the subject of these applications all see each other on visits together and get on well with each other and J gets on well with them as well. His presence round the others seems to be beneficial. R and D have good contact visits with P although R had trouble with P at first. K and L are fully supportive of these visits as they are of visits to CH. They are quite happy to embrace all the various members of the families, being the natural parents, the carers and all children.

1. These children are too young to understand adoption. On psychological testing suitable to their ages, they identified K and L as their main objects of love. R named the other three children together with Luke, J, D, T, S, CH and P as being included in her family. As I have said CH is happy with K and L and likes them. She has no problems with their both being women. As I have said M does not oppose the adoption. Contact visits require considerable effort on his part as they require travel for considerable distances but he makes the efforts. His real concern is that visits continue and are not reduced.

1. Again here the Court has to consider the mother and whether her consent be dispensed with and whether the children have established a stable relationship with carers. There is no doubt that they have. The Court also has to consider whether adoption by those carers promotes the welfare of the children. This is of course something that needs to be considered again so far as making an adoption order is concerned where section 8 and section 90 matters are considered: All these in many ways overlap. The end result is that the Court must be satisfied that in deciding what is in the best interests of the children, adoption is clearly preferable to any other action.

1. In the case of a same sex adoption the affidavits in support of referees can be particularly important as it is important the children do not enter a closed community. The three affidavits filed are particularly supportive, are more informative than is often the case in these matters and there is clear evidence of a stable relationship between the proposed adopting parents and a close relationship with the children and an outgoing nature with others. There have been considerable benefits for the children particularly for R since they were placed into care.

1. No action other than continuation of the present foster care arrangements has been suggested. Although these children know CH and are pleased to see her, and in general are now quite accepting of M, the fact is that they really have not known their mother and father as such people. They know K and L as K mum and L mum, others being rather like an extended family.

1. I accept that for a while the children will not really know the difference of their position as foster children or adopted children. I also accept that later on they will and that security and stability which come from an adoption order is something which the children will understand whereas if foster care is continued then particularly as the children move towards the age of 18, there is a risk that that sense of security will be undermined perhaps by a sense that the fosters carers will no longer care for them. In this case I consider it clearly preferable that an adoption order should be made. I will make a consent dispense order and that order. I note again that M has informed the Court that he consents to the adoption, that not being sufficient and a consent dispense order is still required.

**********

Amendments

05 December 2011 - Coversheet - Solicitors: Replaced Ms Renshall (correct spelling) for the Father K and Ms Costigan for the Mother CH.Paragraph 10 - "C and B" replaced "C and D"Paragraph 32 - correct legislation s.8(2) replaced s.7(2)

Decision last updated: 05 December 2011