Background
Hazel, aged four, had been in out-of-home care since shortly after her birth in July 2022. Following several temporary foster placements, she had lived continuously since January 2024 with Harper and Harry, who sought to adopt her. Hazel had developmental needs, including a diagnosis of global developmental delay, but was receiving therapy and support while thriving in their care.
Hazel’s birth parents, Chloe and Lucas, had significant support needs and a child-protection history. Chloe supported adoption but did not sign a formal consent. Lucas initially opposed adoption because he hoped to seek Hazel’s return, but later told the Court he did not formally contest the application and accepted that the proposed adoptive parents provided excellent care. The Secretary also sought a declaration that Lucas was Hazel’s father, amendment of her birth records, dispensation of parental consents, approval of a surname change, and registration of maternal and paternal adoption plans.
The Court’s Holding
McGrath J ordered Hazel’s adoption by Harper and Harry. The Court found that adoption would promote Hazel’s best interests and was clearly preferable to restoration to either birth parent, continued ministerial parental responsibility, or a guardianship order. Adoption would provide lifelong legal security, stability and belonging, while the proposed carers had demonstrated the capacity to meet Hazel’s physical, emotional, educational, cultural and developmental needs.
The Court declared Lucas to be Hazel’s birth father on the basis of DNA evidence and ordered that his name be included in the birth register. It dispensed with both birth parents’ consent, approved Hazel retaining her given names and taking the surname “Day-Adams,” and approved and registered the maternal and paternal adoption plans providing for continuing contact and information exchange with her birth family.
Key Takeaways
- An adoption order may be clearly preferable to long-term foster care or guardianship where it gives a child enduring legal security and family belonging.
- A birth parent’s lack of formal consent did not prevent adoption where the statutory grounds for dispensing with consent were met and adoption served the child’s best interests.
- The Court may make a parentage declaration and direct amendment of birth records where reliable evidence, including DNA testing, establishes paternity.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the NSW Adoption Act’s child-focused approach: adoption is not granted because adults seek to adopt, but because it is plainly preferable for the child when compared with all available legal care arrangements.
It also shows how open-adoption arrangements can preserve a child’s connections to birth parents, siblings, family history and cultural heritage while establishing a permanent adoptive family.