Woodbury and Anor and Fowler

In the matter of *Woodbury and Anor and Fowler*, Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for the release of a report prepared by Child and Youth Protection Services concerning the proposed adoption of a child. The applicants, Ms Woodbury and Mr Woodbury, sought access to this report, which had been provided to the Court. The Director opposed the release of the report, relying on the paramountcy principle enshrined in section 5 of the *Adoption Act 1983* (ACT).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the paramountcy principle, which mandates that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in decisions made under the *Adoption Act*, extended to procedural determinations such as the release of a report to prospective adoptive parents. The Director argued that this principle dictated that the report should not be released, as it was not demonstrably in the child's best interests.

Gill J reasoned that the paramountcy principle, as articulated in section 5 of the *Adoption Act*, is directed towards the ultimate decision-making process regarding a child or young person, rather than to procedural matters. His Honour referred to the High Court's decision in *GPAO*, which distinguished between the ultimate issue of a child's best interests and the anterior issues of document production and admissibility. Consequently, the Court found that the release of the report was a procedural matter, distinct from the substantive decision of whether to grant an adoption order.

The Court ordered that the report be made available to Ms Woodbury and Mr Woodbury, subject to strict conditions. These conditions included the report being provided in electronic form to their solicitor, with a single printed copy permitted. The electronic version was to be deleted by the solicitor within 48 hours of receipt, with no electronic copies to be retained. The printed copy was to remain in the solicitor's custody and be returned to the Court upon the expiration of the relevant appeal period following the resolution of the proceedings.