Application of LAD; re SRB [2010] NSWSC 1280

Application of LAD; re SRB [2010] NSWSC 1280

Because SRB was more than eighteen years of age, the natural father's consent was not required by operation of (NSW) Adoption Act 2000, s 54(1)(d), and the notice requirement in s 54(3) did not apply. Since the natural father's consent was not required and the child did not reside with him, notice was not required under s 88(1). Accordingly, neither an order dispensing with the natural father's consent nor an order dispensing with notice to him was necessary, and the evidence plainly established that the adoption order was in the child's interests.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Adoption Application / In Chambers; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Orders 1 and 2 in the Summons made.
Legal Topics
['adoption of a Child Over Eighteen Years of Age' 'consent to Adoption' 'notice of Adoption Application' 'natural Father']
['family Law and Child Welfare' 'adoption'] ['adoption of a Child Over Eighteen Years of Age' 'consent to Adoption' 'notice of Adoption Application' 'natural Father']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Adoption Application / In Chambers; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an order dispensing with the natural father's consent was required where the child was more than eighteen years of age." 'Whether notice to the natural father, or an order dispensing with such notice, was required under (NSW) Adoption Act 2000, s 88.' 'Whether it was in the interests of the child to make the adoption order sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because SRB was more than eighteen years of age, the natural father's consent was not required by operation of (NSW) Adoption Act 2000, s 54(1)(d), and the notice requirement in s 54(3) did not apply. Since the natural father's consent was not required and the child did not reside with him, notice was not required under s 88(1). Accordingly, neither an order dispensing with the natural father's consent nor an order dispensing with notice to him was necessary, and the evidence plainly established that the adoption order was in the child's interests.

Court Disposition

Orders 1 and 2 in the Summons made.

Orders

  • ['Make orders 1 and 2 in the Summons.']