Jordan & Roche (Deceased) [2025] FedCFamC1F 475 (15 July 2025)

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jordan & Roche (deceased) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. Mr Roche is the biological father of the child in this case, X.
2. Mr Roche died in 2013.
3. Luckily for X, another man, the Applicant, Mr Jordan, soon to turn 55 years of age, and like the biological father - (who was his friend) is a mixed-heritage including from Country B - commenced a relationship with the mother, Ms C, which resulted in them cohabiting in 2016 when little X was about six years of age.
4. Since that time, X has been a member of that household, a household which has included siblings, in a sense, from other relationships; although Mr Jordan's child lives in Country D; he has regular contact with that child.
5. The mother, Ms C, has children of an earlier relationship.
6. The Application before me today is an Application by Mr Jordan for leave to adopt under Section 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
7. Supporting that Application, Mr Jordan files an affidavit sworn on 12 June 2025, which sets out clearly how X has been a member of the household comprised by himself and X's mother, Ms C, since 2016.
8. Mr Jordan and Ms C were married in 2024. It is hardly surprising in these circumstances that X has indicated (Mr Jordan says and I accept) that he would support being adopted.
9. Adoption is a significant status changer for children, in circumstances, of course, where the biological father has passed, his consent obviously is not necessary, although I draw comfort from two aspects of the matter as set out in Mr Jordan's affidavit, a man who is involved in working with youth and therefore has, I assume, a firm understanding of developmental issues, particularly for children at or approaching X's age.
10. As Mr Jordan says and I accept, the family have continued to support X having contact with his biological paternal grandmother, Ms E, who is also of Country B descent, and that, in every way, X is part of a much broader extended family than just Mr Jordan and Ms C.
11. It is clearly in the best interests of X that leave be given for Mr Jordan to proceed under State legislation to adopt X.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.