B, Re [2010] NSWSC 1155

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : B, Re [2010] NSWSC 1155

HEARING DATE(S) : 6 October 2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 6 October 2010

JURISDICTION : Equity Division Adoption List

JUDGMENT OF : Palmer J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 6 October 2010

DECISION : Consent of father dispensed with; adoption order made.

CATCHWORDS : ADOPTION – whether in child's best interest to dispense with consent of natural father and make adoption order – no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED : Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) – s 67(1)(d), s 90(1), s 180(1)

CATEGORY : Principal judgment

PARTIES : Mrs and Mrs C (Applicants) Mr D (Natural Father)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC A32/2010

COUNSEL : W.J. Hunt (Applicants) Ms M. Daniels (Natural Father)

SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitor (Applicants) Hal Ginges & Co Pty Ltd (Natural Father)

A32/2010 Re B

JUDGMENT – Ex tempore 6 October, 2010

Introduction

1 The persons to whom I refer in this judgment will not be identified by name, in accordance with the requirements of s 180(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW). 2 The Director-General, by her delegate, applies for the adoption of a child ("B") in favour of a married couple ("Mr and Mrs C"). 3 B's birth mother does not oppose the adoption, although she has not formally consented. Her birth father ("Mr D") opposes the adoption. 4 The Director-General, therefore, applies for an order under s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act, dispensing with the consent of Mr D. If a consent dispense order is made, it will be necessary to determine the substantive application for adoption. The same factual circumstances are directly relevant to both applications. 5 B was born in May 2000, so that she is now a little more than ten years old. In circumstances to which I will come in a moment, B was temporarily taken into the parental responsibility of the Minister in August 2004 and a final order for parental responsibility was made by the Children's Court in July 2005. 6 In January 2006, B was placed in the foster care of Mr and Mrs C and she has remained in their care ever since then. 7 Mr D does not dispute that B has thrived in the care of Mr and Mrs C and that she is now happy and secure in their family. However, he opposes an adoption order because he wishes to preserve the possibility that, at some time in the near future, his circumstances will be such that he can resume full time parental responsibility for the care of B. 8 Accordingly, there are two broad issues to be decided in these applications: