Re JRC [2015] NSWSC 1038

Re JRC [2015] NSWSC 1038

The father's purported consent was ineffective because he had not received the counselling required by the Act, but the adoption was clearly in JRC's best interests. The father's evidence showed informed support for the adoption and inability to obtain counselling due to financial circumstances, with no likely near-term change. Delay or thwarting of the adoption by absence of formal consent was a serious cause for concern for JRC's welfare, and it was in JRC's best interests to proceed regardless of the father's wishes. The requirement for the father's consent was therefore dispensed with under s 67(1)(c), and the adoption order was made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Adoption Act 2000 (nsw) for Adoption of a Child and a Consent Dispense Order / In Chambers; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Consent dispense order made. Order made for adoption of child.
Legal Topics
['requirement of Parental Consent' 'consent Dispense Order' 'best Interests of the Child' 'serious Cause for Concern for Welfare of Child' 'meaning of "override the Wishes"' 'adoption Act 2000 (nsw) S 67(1)(c)']
['family Law and Child Welfare' 'adoption'] ['requirement of Parental Consent' 'consent Dispense Order' 'best Interests of the Child' 'serious Cause for Concern for Welfare of Child' 'meaning of "override the Wishes"' 'adoption Act 2000 (nsw) S 67(1)(c)']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Adoption Act 2000 (nsw) for Adoption of a Child and a Consent Dispense Order / In Chambers; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the father's consent was effective when he had received mandatory written information but had not received counselling required by the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)." "Whether the requirement for the father's consent should be dispensed with under s 67(1)(c) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)." "Whether there was serious cause for concern for JRC's welfare and whether it was in JRC's best interests to override the father's wishes." 'Whether "override the wishes" in s 67(1)(c) is confined to proceeding in opposition to a parent\'s expressed wishes.']

Ratio Decidendi

The father's purported consent was ineffective because he had not received the counselling required by the Act, but the adoption was clearly in JRC's best interests. The father's evidence showed informed support for the adoption and inability to obtain counselling due to financial circumstances, with no likely near-term change. Delay or thwarting of the adoption by absence of formal consent was a serious cause for concern for JRC's welfare, and it was in JRC's best interests to proceed regardless of the father's wishes. The requirement for the father's consent was therefore dispensed with under s 67(1)(c), and the adoption order was made.

Court Disposition

Consent dispense order made. Order made for adoption of child.

Orders

  • ["Order under s 67(1)(c) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) dispensing with the requirement that JRC's father give consent to the adoption in accordance with the Act." 'Order for adoption as sought by the plaintiffs.' 'Order includes approval of the surname and given names of the child as sought by the plaintiffs.']