//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 1015
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-08-24
McGrath J
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: The Adoption of Haley Janine Marshall, Luke Jacob Marshall, Manny Gregory Marshall and Alex Ava Marshall [2026] NSWSC 1015
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 24 August 2026
Decision date: 24 August 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: McGrath J
Decision: Orders for adoption made, declaration of birth father’s parentage, orders for amending the children’s birth certificates to include the birth father’s name, requirement to serve notice on the birth father dispensed with, consent of the birth parents dispensed with, children’s change of name approved, maternal and paternal adoption plans in the best interests of the children and registered
CHILD WELFARE — Adoption — where the proposed adoptive parents are the children’s current foster parents — whether adoption order is in the children’s best interests — whether a declaration of parentage should be made for the birth father — whether the children’s birth certificates should be amended to include the birth father’s name — whether the requirement to serve notice on the birth father should be dispensed with — whether birth parents’ consent should be dispensed with — whether the children’s change of name should be approved — whether paternal and maternal adoption plans are in the best interests of the children and proper in the circumstances — HELD — adoption order is clearly preferable in the children’s best interests — declaration of parentage should be made for the birth father — the children’s birth certificates should be amended to include the birth father’s name — requirement to serve notice on the birth father dispensed with — order dispensing with consent is in the best interests of the children — change of name approved — maternal and paternal adoption plans are in the best interests of the children and proper in the circumstances — maternal and paternal adoption plans should be registered
Original judgment source is linked above.
Legislation Cited: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), ss 8, 23, 24, 28, 45F, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 59, 66, 67, 72, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 101, 118, 122, 124, 180
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), s 19
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), Ch 16A, ss 71, 78, 82, 83, 90
Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW), ss 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21
Adoption Regulation 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited: A Child Proposed for Adoption [2019] NSWSC 1653
Adoption of Angelo (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 32
Adoption of BS (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 2033
Adoption of LJK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7
Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680
Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813
Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369
DM v TH [2023] NSWSC 1421
Farnell v Penhalluriack (No 2) [2008] VSC 214
L & Ors v L [2013] NSWSC 916
“M” [2002] NSWSC 158
Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 641
Re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239
Re Dyk & The Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 1045
Re K & The Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 858
Re KN and the Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 896
Re the Adoption of AJH [2017] NSWSC 1751
Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71
Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services v MB [2017] NSWSC 1087
The Adoption of Ava (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 1448
The Adoption of Chloe Hayes-King [2026] NSWSC 742
The Adoption of Eliza (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWSC 547
The Adoption of Katharine Clifton [2025] NSWSC 1535
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia (Plaintiff)
Susie Smith (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Susie Erika Smith (Defendant) (Self-represented)
File Number(s): 2025/40351
2025/334695
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW).
This case concerns two applications commenced by summons filed on 31 January 2025 and 29 August 2025 by the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) through his Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia, seeking that Haley Janine Marshall and Luke Jacob Marshall (now nine and six years of ages respectively) be adopted by the proposed adoptive parents, Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett, and that Manny Gregory Marshall and Alex Ava Marshall (now seven and four years of ages respectively) be adopted by the proposed adoptive parents, Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy, by order of this court pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW).
For Haley and Luke, the Secretary further seeks:
an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the consent of Haley and Luke’s birth mother, Susie Erika Smith, to the adoption of the children is dispensed with;
an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the consent of Haley and Luke’s birth father, Dylan Marshall, to the adoption of the children is dispensed with;
a declaration pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that Dylan is the birth father of Luke;
an order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) that Dylan be included as the birth father of Luke in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages;
an order pursuant to s 88(4) of the Adoption Act that the requirements for the giving of notice of Haley and Luke’s adoption applications to Dylan is dispensed with;
an order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act for the approval of the name “Pritchett” as the surname and “Haley Janine Marshall” as the given names of the child;
an order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act for the approval of the name “Pritchett” as the surname and “Luke Jacob Marshall” as the given names of the child;
an order pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act that the maternal adoption plan signed by the proposed adoptive parents, Gloria and Jay, on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be approved and registered; and
an order pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act that the paternal adoption plan signed by the proposed adoptive parents, Gloria and Jay, on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be approved and registered.
For Manny and Alex, the Secretary further seeks:
an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the consent of Manny and Alex’s birth mother, Susie, to the adoption of the children is dispensed with;
an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the consent of Manny and Alex’s birth father, Dylan, to the adoption of the children is dispensed with;
a declaration pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act that Dylan is the birth father of Manny and Alex;
an order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act that Dylan be included as the birth father of Manny and Alex in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages;
an order pursuant to s 88(4) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the giving of notice of Manny and Alex’s adoption applications to Dylan is dispensed with;
an order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act for the approval of the name “Dunphy” as the surname and “Alex Ava Marshall” as the given names of the child;
an order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act for the approval of the name “Dunphy” as the surname and “Manny Gregory Marshall” as the given names of the child;
an order pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act that the maternal adoption plan signed by the proposed adoptive parents, Claire and Phil, on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be approved and registered; and
an order pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act that the paternal adoption plan signed by the proposed adoptive parents, Claire and Marshall, on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be approved and registered.
Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex are full siblings. Haley and Luke are the subject of one of the proceedings and Manny and Alex are the subject of the second of the proceedings. I am determining both sets of the proceedings concurrently and have decided to deliver a joint judgment for all four children.
In this judgment, I will refer to each of the family members and other individuals involved by their first names for convenience and without intending any disrespect. In the published version of this judgment, all persons referred to have been assigned pseudonyms in keeping with s 180 of the Adoption Act.
The central issue I am required to decide is whether an adoption order is in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex.
The adoption order sought in respect of Haley and Luke are in favour of Gloria and Jay, the long-term foster carers of Haley and Luke, with whom Haley and Luke have been living since 8 December 2022, when Haley was five and a half years old and Luke was two and a half years old. The adoption order in respect of Manny and Alex are in favour of Claire and Phil, the long-term foster carers of Manny and Alex, with whom Manny and Alex have been living since 5 January 2023, when Manny was three years and nine months old and Alex was one year and four months old.
For the reasons set out below, I have determined to order that Haley and Luke be adopted by Gloria and Jay, and that Manny and Alex be adopted by Claire and Phil. I have also determined to make all the other orders sought by the Secretary.
Haley was born on 21 May 2017 at Hawkesbury District Health Service, Windsor, New South Wales and is presently nine years old. She is an Australian citizen and has Irish and English heritage. She is not of Aboriginal descent.
Haley is a social, extroverted, active and determined child who loves all things animal related, with a particular interest in snakes, lizards and insects. She enjoys playing outside and time at the playground with Gloria and Jay and her siblings. She also enjoys science (including conducting experiments and growing crystals) and art (including painting and drawing).
When Haley was first placed with Gloria and Jay, she had difficulty managing her emotions and experienced disrupted sleep. However, Gloria and Jay provided Haley with a regular and predictable routine and utilised self-calming strategies such as teaching Haley breathing techniques and providing one-on-one time and physical affection when Haley was anxious or upset. These strategies led to a significant improvement in Haley’s behaviours and resulted in her presenting as a happy and settled child.
Haley is able to interact easily with familiar adults and children and has developed a positive bond with Gloria and Jay, whom she refers to as “Mum” and “Dad”. Haley is noted to appear relaxed in her home environment, and she enjoys seeking out interactions and attention from Gloria and Jay and her brother, Luke.
Haley has been diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay and is working on improving her speech and emotional regulation skills through attending ancillary therapies through which she has made notable progress. In December 2024, Haley was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder of moderate severity and Oppositional Defiant Disorder of moderate severity. She is currently undergoing an assessment for Autism Spectrum Disorder. From 30 January 2025, Haley also commenced fortnightly music therapy to assist with her emotional regulation.
Haley attends a local school and is currently in Year 3. At school, she is noted to be a kind and friendly student who actively participates in class discussions. She consistently seeks teacher support when unsure but is developing independence in her learning. She enjoys creative arts, reading a variety of fiction and non-fiction texts, producing high-quality work and is using restorative practices to build and maintain friendships with her peers.
Luke was born on 27 May 2020 at Hawkesbury District Health Service, Windsor, New South Wales and is presently six years old. He is an Australian citizen and has Irish and English heritage. He is not of Aboriginal descent.
Luke is a happy and engaging child who is often seen smiling and giggling. He is a clever, curious and articulate child with excellent conversational skills and a funny and engaging character.
Luke loves watching Bluey, which is his favourite television program, and attends swimming lessons. He also loves animals (his favourite being a guinea pig), superheros (his favourite being Spider-Man) and reading (especially if the book is animal related). Luke’s favourite book is about fast and slow animals which he received as a Christmas present.
He enjoys spending time and playing with his sister, Haley, but also loves his own company and playing with his doll house and farm set.
He has a close bond with Gloria and Jay, and he enjoys playing simple games, laughing and cuddling with them.
Luke was noted to have developmental delays across several domains, including speech, hearing and breathing. He is attending speech and occupational therapy and has previously undergone certain medical procedures. He is making considerable progress and improvement.
Luke attends the same local school as Haley and is currently in kindergarten. Luke behaves well in the classroom, demonstrates active listening, follows instructions and asks insightful questions when he is unsure about something.
Manny was born on 6 April 2019 at Hawkesbury District Health Service, Windsor, New South Wales and is presently seven years old. He is an Australian citizen and has Irish and English heritage. He is not of Aboriginal decent.
Manny is an energetic, curious and caring boy who loves to learn more about the world. He enjoys playing in the outdoors, especially with his siblings and nephews and nieces of his proposed adoptive parents, Claire and Phil. Manny also loves gardening and helping Phil with handyman tasks.
Manny has been described as someone who loves making people laugh, spending time with his family and friends, watching the Panthers NRL team with his family and going to the movies. Manny’s current interests include, among other things, science, space and understanding how things work by conducting science experiments and researching topics, heavy metal music (his favourite metal band being ‘Skillet’), Star Wars and Sonic cartoons and playing soccer on the weekends with his cousins.
Manny has developed a warm, caring and affectionate relationship with Claire and Phil and responds well to their predictable and nurturing parenting approach. They have provided Manny with reassurance, predictable routines and age-appropriate boundaries that support him to feel safe in their care. Manny calls Claire and Phil “Mum” and “Dad” regularly.
Manny is generally in good health. He is undergoing occupational and speech therapy for some issues with his speech and development, and he is making notable improvements.
Manny attends a local public school. His teachers describe him as a “curious and enthusiastic student”. Manny listens to instructions and is becoming increasingly independent in his work. He actively engages in discussions and likes sharing. He demonstrates a strong understanding across all learning areas and is making pleasing progress. Manny interacts well with his peers, having formed positive friendships in the classroom. Manny has stated to his teachers that his favourite part of school is to play in the “top playground”, learning how things are made and that he looks forward to being in the classroom and seeing his friends.
Alex was born on 4 September 2021 at Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, New South Wales and is presently four years old. She is an Australian citizen and has Irish and English heritage. She is not of Aboriginal decent.
Alex is a warm and friendly child who loves to laugh with others. She enjoys playing outdoors with her siblings and Claire and Phil, especially when she can help with gardening. She also loves books, colouring, drawing, painting and playing with her baby doll, Saddie, and putting Saddie to bed and bathing her. Alex enjoys going out for “babycinos”, going to the hairdressers and getting her nails painted a sparkly pink colour. Her current interests include, among other things, unicorns, the colour pink, makeup, jewellery and arts and crafts.
Alex has formed a warm, loving and affectionate connection with Claire and Phil and she responds well to their predictable and nurturing parenting approach. Alex refers to Claire and Phil as “Mum” and “Dad” and will reach out to them for affection and reassurance.
Alex is generally in good health, and no major medical concerns have been noted for her to date.
Alex currently attends daycare three days a week. Alex is adjusting to the daily routine of the daycare’s pre-prep room, and she listens well to her educator’s instructions. She enjoys playing alongside her peers, making collages, painting and playing with playdough and doll houses. She is able to recognise her name in print and is learning to count from 1 to 10. Alex is due to commence kindergarten in 2027.
Gloria and Jay are the proposed adoptive parents of Haley and Luke.
Gloria was born on 21 July 1987 at St Margaret’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales and is presently 39 years old. She is an Australian citizen and has Australian, Greek and French heritage. She is not of Aboriginal descent. Gloria identifies with the Christian faith but is currently not practising.
Jay was born on 27 April 1983 at Western Suburbs Hospital, Waratah, New South Wales and is presently 43 years old. He is an Australian citizen and has Australian and Scottish heritage. He is not of Aboriginal descent. Jay does not identify with any religion.
Gloria and Jay married on 2 September 2017. They share a relationship of love, affection, respect and shared values. They do not have any biological children together. Jay has been previously married and that marriage ended on 16 May 2017. Jay does not have biological children from his previous marriage.
Gloria and Jay reside together in the Hills Shire of Sydney, New South Wales. They live in a rented two-storey home that consists of four bedrooms, an open plan kitchen, living area, dining area, laundry and bathrooms. Gloria and Jay have provided Haley and Luke with their own rooms, which are furnished and decorated to meet their needs, with photographs of their birth family and toys on display. Their home has a fully enclosed small yard with courtyard seating. This area provides Haley and Luke with a safe and appropriate outdoor area to play and is filled with their outdoor toys. Their home is in a quiet and leafy neighbourhood with easy access to services, shops and educational facilities. Their suburb is also a 17-minute drive away from a major general hospital and a 26-minute drive away from a major children’s hospital.
Gloria completed high school in 2005 and subsequently graduated with an undergraduate degree in health sciences (speech pathology) in 2010. After graduating, she commenced full-time employment as a speech pathologist, focusing on working with individuals diagnosed with autism and others diagnosed with a disability. After Haley and Luke came into the care of Gloria and Jay care, Gloria ceased her full-time employment to provide care for the two children. In August 2023, she resumed working part-time as a speech pathologist at a clinic close to the school that Haley and Luke attend.
Jay completed high school in 2001 and subsequently graduated with an undergraduate degree in information technology in 2006 and a postgraduate degree in business administration in 2019. He currently works full-time as an information technology specialist.
Both Gloria and Jay are in stable and permanent employment. Their combined monthly income and assets make them financially sound.
Both Gloria and Jay enjoy overall positive physical health and wellbeing and have completed the necessary medical assessments required under the Adoption Act. Gloria has been diagnosed with a long-term genetic medical condition related to muscles, which she is managing well with appropriate treatment.
Both Gloria and Jay maintain good repute and have cleared the required background checks.
Claire and Phil are the proposed adoptive parents of Manny and Alex.
Claire was born on 23 September 1981 in Altnagelvin, Derry/Londonderry, Northern Ireland and is presently 44 years old. She became an Australian citizen on 19 August 2004 and has Northern Irish heritage. She is not of Aboriginal descent. Claire identifies with the Christian faith and attends weekly church services.
Phil was born on 9 June 1982 at Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, New South Wales and is presently 44 years old. He is an Australian citizen and has English heritage. He is not of Aboriginal descent. Phil identifies with the Christian faith and attends weekly church services.
Claire and Phil met in 2008 and married on 31 March 2012. Their relationship is built on love, friendship, good communication and shared values. Phil describes Claire as intelligent, empathetic and having strong family-oriented values. Claire describes Phil as caring, resilient, adaptable and possessing excellent communication skills. They do not have any biological children together.
Claire and Phil reside together in a suburb in Hawkesbury, New South Wales. They rent a single-storey house consisting of three bedrooms, a living room, renovated kitchen, dining area and a family bathroom. Claire and Phil have provided Manny and Alex with their own bedrooms, with each bedroom being decorated in a child-friendly way with soft toys and the children’s possessions on display. Their home has a secured backyard that provides a safe and appropriate outdoor play area for Manny and Alex. Their home is on a quiet street, and their suburb is in an area with several local parks and recreation places for picnics that Manny and Alex enjoy attending regularly with Claire and Phil. There are local shops within walking distance of their home as well as a large shopping precinct a 10-minute drive away. In addition, there are a range of educational and recreational facilities in their area, and the local hospital is also a 10-minute drive away.
Claire completed an undergraduate degree in law and communications in 2004. She has worked full-time at a regulatory authority for the past 13 years. She subsequently took parental leave from work to care for Manny and Alex when they entered into the care of Phil and her. She resumed her employment in September 2024 and is currently working part-time.
Phil has completed an advanced diploma of ministry in 2022 and a TAFE certificate IV in human relations in 2011. He currently works full-time as a learning support officer at a co-educational primary and secondary school.
Both Claire and Phil are in stable and permanent employment. Their combined monthly income and assets make them financially stable.
Both Claire and Phil enjoy overall positive physical health and wellbeing and have completed the necessary medical assessments required under the Adoption Act.
Both Claire and Phil maintain good repute and have cleared the required background checks.
The birth mother of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex is Susie. She was born on 16 August 1996 and is presently 30 years old.
Susie was arrested in May 2024 and incarcerated at Dillwynia Correctional Centre until December 2024 in relation to theft, after which she commenced the Drug Court Program at the Drug Court of New South Wales on 29 April 2025. On 11 June 2025, Susie entered into a residential alcohol and other drug rehabilitation program. After finishing this program on 4 September 2025, Susie moved into her own home in Baulkham Hills, New South Wales. She was again incarcerated from 9 October 2025 to 30 October 2025, then in December 2025 and again in February 2026, and she presently remains in custody at the Silverwater Correctional Centre awaiting a sentence hearing.
The birth father of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex is Dylan. He was born on 17 January 1996 and is presently 30 years old. Dylan initially resided in Cranebrook, New South Wales, and is currently reported to be living in Melbourne, Victoria. More information about Dylan is not available as he has not engaged with these proceedings in any way.
Dylan was in custody for a period in 2021 and was released on parole on 21 October 2021.
Susie and Dylan ended their relationship in or around October 2021 and are presently not together. Susie is reported to be in a relationship with another individual and Dylan’s relationship status is unknown.
Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex are full siblings and the biological children of Susie and Dylan.
Between 2011 and 2013, three Risk of Significant Harm (ROSH) reports were received by the DCJ in relation to Susie, alleging concerns regarding parental drug use, physical abuse perpetrated by Susie’s mother, parental mental health and suicide risk for Susie.
Between 2005 and 2008, two ROSH reports were also received in relation to Dylan, however no harm issues were identified.
Between 4 January 2017 and 8 April 2021, the DCJ received 17 ROSH reports in relation to Haley, Manny and Luke. These reports related to concerns regarding the drug use of Susie and Dylan, neglect, domestic violence and homelessness. There were also reports about violence between Susie and her mother in the presence of the three children.
Between 2 March 2021 and 8 April 2021, the DCJ caseworkers sought to work with Susie and Dylan in an attempt to secure stable accommodation, provide mental health assistance and increase their parenting capacity; however, they were unable to establish the changes necessary to ensure the children’s safety.
On 8 December 2021, a ROSH report was received in relation to Alex, advising of poor sanitary conditions and sightings of drug paraphernalia in Susie’s unit at the San Miguel Family Centre, where Susie resided with Alex at the time. San Miguel is a residential service that provides individualised support to young parents and their children.
Until 8 April 2021, Haley, Luke and Manny resided with Susie and Dylan. On 8 April 2021, Dylan attended Windsor Police Station in Windsor, New South Wales with Haley and Manny in his care. He stated to the police that he could not make contact with Susie and that he had no money or provisions for the children. Haley, Manny, and Luke were taken into care that evening due to significant neglect, homelessness and parental drug use by Dylan.
Upon their assumption into care, Haley, Manny and Luke were initially placed on an emergency basis with their aunt, but she was unable to continue the placement. They were then placed together through Barnardos’ Temporary Family Care (TFC) program from 12 April 2021 until 5 December 2022.
Haley and Luke were then moved to their permanent placement, while Manny remained with his TFC carer until 5 January 2023.
Susie was pregnant with Alex at the time Haley, Luke and Manny came into care. Following Alex’s birth, Susie and Alex moved to San Miguel on 10 September 2021. After the ROSH report on 8 December 2021 in relation to Alex at Susie’s unit at San Miguel, Alex was subsequently taken into care on 15 December 2021. She was placed in a separate TFC placement to her siblings, where she resided until 5 January 2023.
Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex were identified as needing carers who had a sound understanding of child development and were able to provide them with a safe, nurturing and secure environment as well as meeting all their developmental, medical, physical and emotional needs. The children also required carers who could commit to facilitating regular informal contact with their siblings as well as supporting contact with other members of their birth family.
Barnardos put forward authorised carers, Gloria and Jay, as a potential match for Haley and Luke. They were identified as being able to make a lifelong commitment to the children and had the capacity to meet the needs of Haley and Luke. Following a formal internal matching panel meeting on 16 November 2022 and a subsequent transition period, Haley and Luke were placed with Gloria and Jay on 8 December 2022.
Similarly, Barnardos put forward authorised carers, Claire and Phil, as a potential match for Manny and Alex. They were identified as being able to make a lifelong commitment to Manny and Alex and had the capacity to meet the needs of Manny and Alex. Following a formal internal matching panel meeting on 24 November 2022 and a subsequent transition period, Manny and Alex were placed with Claire and Phil on 5 January 2023.
Susie has been inconsistent in her behaviour and attendance at family time visits with Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex since the beginning. Family time visits between Susie and the four children have mostly occurred collectively, with Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil.
Initially, Susie presented as enthusiastic and warm towards the proposed adoptive parents and children at each visit. At times, she made an effort to engage all four children in play and conversation around topics that were of interest to the children. She also engaged in conversation with the proposed adoptive parents regarding the children and readily sharing information about the children’s history.
Susie’s mother has also attended some visits with Susie. When Susie’s mother has attended, a difference was observed in Susie’s demeanour insofar as she did not engage as well with the proposed adoptive parents. At these visits, both Susie and her mother were observed to be making attempts to isolate the children and have conversations with them, which included assertions that the children be returned to Susie’s care.
Both the DCJ and Barnardos have had difficulty in maintaining consistent communication with Dylan since Haley, Luke and Manny were assumed into care. A variety of communication methods have been employed, including telephone calls, letters, emails, home visits and Facebook private messages. Unfortunately, Dylan has been largely unresponsive or has responded very inconsistently to all communications sent to him by the DCJ and Barnardos.
To date, Dylan has not attended any family time visits with the children since they were assumed into care.
On 14 April 2021, the DCJ filed an application initiating care proceedings in the Children**’**s Court of New South Wales in relation to Haley, Luke and Manny.
On 15 April 2021, the Children’s Court at Parramatta made an interim order allocating parental responsibility for Haley, Luke and Manny to the Minister until further order.
On 28 June 2021, the Secretary filed care plans in relation to Haley, Luke and Manny in the Children’s Court.
The care plans noted that Barnardos and the DCJ struggled to engage both Susie and Dylan throughout the Children’s Court process. It was noted that Susie had not been consistently transparent with the DCJ, lacked insight into the concerns that led to the children coming into care and that she had failed to demonstrate her parenting capacity, provide safety for the children or attend family visits on time.
On 20 December 2021, the DCJ filed an application initiating care proceedings in the Children’s Court in relation to Alex.
On 20 December 2021, the Children’s Court at Parramatta made an interim order allocating parental responsibility for Alex to the Minister until further order.
On 6 June 2022, a Children’s Court assessment was conducted, which noted that restoration of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex to Susie and Dylan was not a realistic possibility.
On 22 July 2022, the Secretary filed amended care plans in relation to Haley, Luke and Manny in the Children’s Court.
On 16 August 2022, the Children’s Court at Parramatta made final orders allocating parental responsibility for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex to the Minister until each of them attains 18 years of age.
On 13 January 2023, Barnardos prepared reports pursuant to s 82 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (Care Act), which the Secretary filed in the Children’s Court. The report provided an update in relation to the children’s placement and contact with Susie and Dylan.
On 17 July 2023, Barnardos prepared further reports pursuant to s 82 of the Care Act, which the Secretary filed in the Children’s Court.
Barnardos’ records do not indicate whether Susie and Dylan participated in, attended or were legally represented in relation to the Children’s Court proceedings for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex.
On 31 January 2025, the Secretary filed summons seeking adoption orders for Haley and Luke.
On 29 August 2025, the Secretary filed summons seeking adoption orders for Manny and Alex.
On 4 December 2025, Susie was personally served with notice of the adoption application for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex.
On 17 December 2025, Susie filed a notice of appearance and was joined as the second defendant in these proceedings.
Since being joined as the second defendant, Susie has not engaged with Barnardos caseworkers or the New South Wales Crown Solicitor’s Office (CSO).
Barnardos has been unable to personally serve Dylan with notice of the application for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex due to his precise whereabouts being unknown. Nonetheless, the Secretary submits that Dylan is aware of these proceedings through his mother, who accepted documents on his behalf.
Dylan has not filed a notice of appearance in these proceedings and has consistently not engaged with Barnardos caseworkers and the CSO.
On 4 February 2026, a directions hearing was held before me in which I made orders about case management, appointing a separate legal representative for Haley and Luke and appointing a separate legal representative for Manny and Alex. I also ordered that Susie be joined as a second defendant in the other proceedings.
On 2 March 2026, the separate legal representative, Cherie Pittman of Legal Aid NSW, filed a notice of appearance for each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex.
On 4 March 2026, these proceedings were listed before me for return of subpoena.
On 7 May 2026, a preliminary hearing was held before me in which it was agreed that once all the materials were filed by the Secretary, these proceedings could be determined on the papers in chambers.
On 28 May 2026, I made orders in chambers about case management and further notations that Susie has not engaged in these proceedings to date and that the proceedings would be formally determined on the papers in chambers.
On 14 July 2026, I made order in chambers granting leave to provide a copy of the Family History Report prepared by the CSO’s Family History Researcher, Maxwell Turner, on 27 May 2026 to Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil.
23 Jurisdiction
(1) Subject to this Act, the Court may make an order for the adoption of a child (an adoption order) solely in favour of one person or jointly in favour of a couple.
(2) The Court must not make an adoption order unless, when the application for the order is filed—
(a) the child is present in the State, and
(b) the applicant, or if the application is a joint application, each of the applicants, resides, or is domiciled, in the State.
…
Section 24(1) of the Adoption Act provides that an adoption order may be made in relation to a child who is less than 18 years of age as at the date of the application, or who is more than 18 years of age on that date but was cared for by the applicant(s) prior to attaining that age.
In respect of an application for adoption by a couple, s 28 of the Adoption Act requires the following:
28 Adoption by couple
(1) Basic requirements Two persons who are a couple may, subject to this Act, adopt a child only if—
(a) both of them are resident or domiciled in the State, and
(b) both of them are of good repute and are fit and proper persons to fulfil the responsibilities of parents.
(2) Requirements for step parent The Court must not make an order in favour of a couple if one of them is a step parent unless section 30 is complied with.
(3) Age requirements The Court must not make an adoption order in favour of a couple if neither of them is a birth parent or relative of the child unless—
(a) each of them is 21 or more years of age and 18 or more years older than the child, or
(b) the Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the case it is desirable to make the order even though one or both of them do not fulfil the age requirements.
(4) Length of relationship requirement The Court must not make an adoption order in favour of a couple unless the couple have been living together for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately before the application for the adoption order.
(5) The Court may make an adoption order in favour of a couple jointly even if one of them is a birth parent, or they are the birth parents, of the child.
A “couple” is defined in the Dictionary of the Adoption Act to mean two people who are either married to each other or are de facto partners of each other.
Section 90(1)(c) of the Adoption Act requires that proposed adoptive parents must also be selected in accordance with the Adoption Act. Section 45F of the Adoption Act requires the proposed adoptive parent(s) to be assessed and determined to be suitable to adopt.
Section 59 of the Adoption Act requires the Secretary to ensure that a person whose consent to an adoption is needed is given the “mandatory written information” before that person consents or refuses to consent to the adoption.
Section 87 of the Adoption Act provides:
87 Application to be consented to by Secretary
(1) The Court may make an adoption order only on application made by—
(a) the prospective adoptive parent or parents with the consent of the Secretary, or
(b) the Secretary or by a principal officer on behalf of the prospective adoptive parent or parents, or
…
(d) a child who is 18 or more years of age for his or her adoption.
(2) Despite subsection (1) (a), the consent of the Secretary to an application for an adoption order is not required—
(a) if the applicant is a step parent or relative of the child, or
(b) if the application relates to an intercountry adoption.
Section 88 of the Adoption Act states that this court cannot make an adoption order unless 14 days’ notice of the adoption application has been given to any person whose consent to the adoption is required under the Adoption Act.
Section 91 of the Adoption Act requires the applicant to provide a written report prepared by the Secretary or an authorised person.
In the present case, all of the formal requirements under the Adoption Act have been satisfied. Specifically:
The adoption application is made by the Secretary on behalf of the proposed adoptive parents (s 87 of the Adoption Act).
When the adoption application was filed, Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex were each present in New South Wales and less than 18 years of age (ss 23(2)(a) and 24(1)(a) of the Adoption Act).
When the adoption application was filed for Haley and Luke, Gloria and Jay were 37 and 41 years of age respectively, had been married for seven years, were residents in New South Wales and were more than 18 years older than Haley and Luke (ss 28(1)(a), 28(3)(a), 28(4) and Dictionary of the Adoption Act).
When the adoption application was filed for Manny and Alex, Claire and Phil were 43 and 42 years of age respectively, had been married for 13 years, were residents in New South Wales and were more than 18 years older than Manny and Alex (ss 28(1)(a), 28(3)(a), 28(4) and Dictionary of the Adoption Act).
For reasons more fully explained below, each of Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil are of good repute and fit and proper people to fulfil the responsibilities of parents (s 28(1)(b) of the Adoption Act).
Each of Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil have been assessed and determined to be suitable to adopt and were selected to adopt (ss 45F and 90(1)(c) of the Adoption Act).
The s 91 Reports prepared by Danitza Castro in accordance with s 91 of the Adoption Act have been received and read. Ms Castro provided the s 91 Report in her capacity as an “approved assessor” within the meaning of s 91(2A)(a) of the Adoption Act. The s 91 Report for Haley and Luke was filed on 31 January 2025. The supplementary s 91 Report for Haley and Luke was filed on 26 February 2026. The s 91 Report for Manny and Alex was filed on 29 October 2025.
The mandatory written information was provided to Susie personally on 3 January 2023 and by post on 23 October 2023 (s 59 of the Adoption Act). The mandatory written information was provided to Dylan by email on 4 October 2023 and by post on 12 November 2024 (s 59 of the Adoption Act).
Susie was personally served with notice of the adoption applications for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex on 4 December 2025, and therefore, she has been provided with at least 14 days’ notice of the adoption applications (s 88(1) of the Adoption Act). As indicated earlier, Barnardos has been unable to personally serve Dylan with notice of the adoption applications due to his precise whereabouts being unknown. I have dealt with the application dispensing with the requirement to serve notice on Dylan below.
I am satisfied that all the formal requirements of an adoption application have been met.
The Secretary seeks a declaration of parentage pursuant to ss 21(1) and 21(2) of the Status of Children Act that Dylan is the birth father of each of Luke, Manny and Alex. Dylan is the birth father of Haley, as noted in her birth certificate, and this is not in issue.
Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Status of Children Act provide as follows:
21 Applications for declarations in the Supreme Court
(1) Any of the following persons may make an application to the Supreme Court for a declaration of parentage under this section—
(a) a person who alleges that the relationship of parent and child exists between the person’s child and any named person, or
(b) a person who alleges that the relationship of parent and child exists between the person and another named or identified person, or
(c) the Registrar when seeking a determination that the relationship of parent and child exists between a named person and another named or identified person, or
(d) the Director-General when seeking a determination that the relationship of parent and child exists between a named person and another named or identified person, or
(e) a person prescribed by the regulations who seeks a determination that the relationship of parent and child exists between a named person and another named or identified person, or
(f) a person who may be affected by the result who seeks a determination that the relationship of parent and child exists between a named person and another named or identified person.
(2) On any such application, the Supreme Court may make a declaration that a named or identified person is a child’s parent.
I can make a declaration of parentage if one of the following six presumptions arise under Part 3, Division 1 of the Status of Children Act:
presumptions of parentage arising from marriage (s 9 of the Status of Children Act);
presumption of paternity arising from cohabitation (s 10 of the Status of Children Act);
presumption of parentage arising from registration of birth (s 11 of the Status of Children Act);
presumption of parentage arising from findings of courts (s 12 of the Status of Children Act);
presumption of parentage arising from acknowledgments (s 13 of the Status of Children Act); or
presumptions of parentage arising out of use of fertilisation procedures (s 14 of the Status of Children Act).
Section 15 of the Status of Children Act stipulates that all of the above presumptions are rebuttable except those arising from the findings of courts or those arising out of the use of fertilisation procedures: ss 12(1) and 14(1)–(3) of the Status of Children Act.
The court’s power to make a declaration of parentage under s 21 of the Status of Children Act is not limited to any particular evidentiary basis and, if appropriate, the court can make that declaration on a basis other than the tender of a report of parentage testing procedures, as relevantly observed in “M” [2002] NSWSC 158, Campbell J at [7], cited in L & Ors v L [2013] NSWSC 916, Hallen J at [7], DM v TH [2023] NSWSC 1421, Elkaim AJ AJ at [33] and The Adoption of Ava (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 1448, Nixon J at [15].
The standard of proof necessary to establish a particular evidentiary basis in relation to the making of a parentage declaration is the balance of probabilities. This has been observed in Farnell v Penhalluriack (No 2) [2008] VSC 214 by Bell J at [4] (references omitted), quoted with approval by Elkaim AJ in DM v TH at [34]:
Serious though the issue of paternity is, an application for a declaration of paternity is a civil application, and the standard of proof applicable in such proceedings is the ordinary civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. As the High Court held in G v H in reference to the essentially beneficial nature of the paternity provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), it was not necessary, in applications under those provisions, to prove paternity according to the higher civil standard that applies when the question involves a grave allegation. I think the paternity provisions of the Status of Children Act are analogous in this respect. Therefore, in an application for a declaration of paternity, it is sufficient to prove the facts according to the ordinary civil standard. The applicant does not have to achieve the higher civil standard discussed in Briginshaw v Briginshaw. The decision in G v H has overtaken the authority of earlier decisions that the higher standard was applicable.
A child born to a woman is presumed to be a man’s child if, at any time during the period beginning not earlier than 44 weeks and ending not less than 20 weeks before the birth, the man and the woman cohabit but are not married.
The Secretary submits that the presumption of paternity arises from cohabitation in this case in the following manner:
in relation Luke’s birth, it arises from the fact that Susie and Dylan were likely cohabiting during the period 24 July 2019 (being 44 weeks before Luke’s birth) and 8 January 2020 (being 20 weeks before Luke’s birth);
in relation to Manny’s birth, it arises from the fact that Susie and Dylan were likely cohabiting during the period 2 June 2018 (being 44 weeks before Manny’s birth) and 17 November 2018 (being 20 weeks before Manny’s birth); and
in relation to Alex’s birth, it arises from the fact that Susie and Dylan were likely cohabiting during the period of 31 October 2020 (being 44 weeks before Alex’s birth) and 17 April 2021 (being 20 weeks before Alex’s birth).
To support the above submissions, the Secretary relies on the 17 ROSH reports received by the DCJ between 4 January 2017 and 8 April 2021 in relation to concerns of substance abuse by Susie and Dylan, neglect, domestic violence and homelessness. These reports indicated that Susie and Dylan were cohabiting together during the above period, and this was further noted in Ms Castro’s s 91 Reports. It was during this period that Manny was conceived and born, Luke was conceived and born and Alex was conceived.
I accept the Secretary’s submissions. From the evidence before me, I find that on the balance of probabilities Susie and Dylan were cohabiting together during the period between 4 January 2017 and 8 April 2021, and as such, it is more likely than not that Dylan is the biological father of Luke, Manny and Alex under the presumption of paternity arising from cohabitation pursuant to s 10 of the Status of Children Act.
Further, in line with the reasoning in “M”, my decision is supported by the following additional evidence:
On 8 May 2026, DNALabs prepared a report on Y chromosome testing between Luke and Manny and kinship testing between Luke, Haley, Manny and Alex. The Y chromosome testing results concluded that both donors (Luke and Manny) shared identical Y chromosomes and were 89,114 times more likely to share paternal lineage than having unrelated paternal lineage, equating to a probability of shared paternal lineage of 99.99887785445772%. Moreover, the kinship testing results concluded that the first-degree relationship likelihood ratio among Luke, Haley, Manny and Alex was “practically proven”.
On 12 April 2021, Dylan confirmed during a conversation with the DCJ that he was the biological father of Luke and Manny.
Dylan was identified as the birth father of each of Luke, Manny and Alex on documents filed during the Children’s Court proceedings.
Susie has consistently identified Dylan as the birth father of each of Luke, Manny and Alex.
Susie has registered each of Luke, Manny and Alex with the surname “Marshall”.
On 22 August 2023, Susie stated that she would be happy to assist Barnardos to add Dylan to the birth certificate for each of Luke, Manny and Alex as their birth father.
Taking each of the above matters into account, I find it appropriate to make a declaration of parentage pursuant to s 21 of the Status of Children Act that Dylan is the birth father of each of Luke, Manny and Alex.
19 Orders for registration of birth or inclusion of registrable information
…
(2) If any court (including any court of another State or the Commonwealth) makes a finding about a birth or a child’s parents, the court may order registration of the birth or inclusion of registrable information about the birth or the parents in the Register.
The Secretary seeks an order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act that Dylan be included as the birth father of each of Luke, Manny and Alex in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
The Secretary submits that I should make the above order for two reasons:
to ensure that each of Luke, Manny and Alex have an accurate life story; and
to ensure that each of Luke, Manny and Alex are able to access records and information regarding Dylan in the future, particularly medical records.
The Secretary relies on the following observations in Adoption of BS (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 2033 by Brereton J at [100]:
Inclusion of his birth father’s name on the original birth certificate would enable the child to access that information under the adoption information provisions in due course. If that information is not included, the birth father would be an “unacknowledged birth father” within those provisions, and the child would not be able to access information concerning him.
The Secretary seeks an order pursuant to s 88(4) of the Adoption Act that the requirements for the giving of notice of the adoption applications for each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex to Dylan be dispensed with.
Sections 72(1) and 72(2) of the Adoption Act provide:
72 Notice of consent dispense order
(1) The Court must not make a consent dispense order on the application of any person unless notice of the application has been given to the person whose consent is sought to be dispensed with at least 14 days before the order is made.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—
(a) the person cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found or identified, or
(b) the person is in such a physical or mental condition as not to be capable of properly considering the question of whether he or she should give consent and his or her physical or mental health would, in the opinion of the Court, be detrimentally affected if he or she were to receive notice of the application, or
(c) the Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the case it is desirable to make an order without notice of the application having been given.
…
88 Notice of application for adoption orders
(1) The Court may not make an adoption order unless at least 14 days’ notice of the application for the order (containing the particulars, if any, prescribed by the regulations) has been given—
(a) to any person whose consent to the adoption of the child concerned is required under this Act and has not been given (or the requirement for which has been dispensed with by the Court), and
(b) to any person (not being a person whose consent is so required) with whom the child resides or who has parental responsibility for the child.
…
(4) The Court may dispense with the giving of the notice.
Generally, the Court “must not make a consent dispense order on the application of any person unless notice of the application has been given to the person whose consent is sought to be dispensed with at least 14 days before the order is made”: s 72(1) of the Act. However, the Court has the power to dispense with the giving of such notice: s 88(4) of the Act. The test for dispensing with the requirement to provide notice to a consent dispense order is set out in s 72(2) of the Act…
… That question turns on what is meant by the expression “reasonable inquiry”. Whether an inquiry is reasonable is to be evaluated from the perspective of the person making the application and the perspective of the person about whom the inquiry is to be made. …
The Secretary submits that to date, Barnardos and the CSO have been unable to effect personal service on Dylan of the notice of the adoption applications for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex.
The following attempts have been made to locate and serve the notice of the adoption applications on Dylan:
attempts to contact Dylan through his last known contact details on record via text message, email and Facebook Messenger;
making enquiries as to the Dylan’s current residential address by issuing subpoenas to VicRoads and Victoria Police;
making enquiries as to Dylan’s current residential address by contacting Dylan’s mother, Melody Blackbird;
sending a letter via registered post (person-to-person), which was ultimately not collected;
engaging a process server; and
engaging a skip tracer.
The Secretary further submits that Dylan has chosen not to update his contact details with Barnardos since vacating his last known residential address. He has also changed his contact details, including his telephone number. He is suspected to be aware of these adoption proceedings through his mother but has nonetheless chosen not to engage with them.
I have reviewed all the evidence before me submitted by the Secretary and find that Barnardos and the CSO have made all necessary reasonable inquiries to locate Dylan and communicate with him about these adoption proceedings. Accordingly, it is appropriate in these circumstances to dispense with the requirements for the giving of notice of the adoption applications to Dylan pursuant to s 88(4) of the Adoption Act.
90 Court to be satisfied as to certain matters
(1) The Court must not make an adoption order in relation to a child unless the Court is satisfied—
(a) that the best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption, and
(b) that, as far as practicable and having regard to the age and understanding of the child, the wishes and feelings of the child have been ascertained and due consideration given to them, and
(c) if the prospective adoptive parent or parents are persons other than a step parent or relative of the child-that the prospective adoptive parent or parents have been selected in accordance with this Act, and
(d) that consent to the adoption of the child has been given by every person whose consent is required under this Act or that consent has been, or should be, dispensed with, and
…
(h) in the case of a child (other than an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child)—that the culture, any disability, language and religion of the child and, as far as possible, that the child’s given names, identity, language and cultural and religious ties have been taken into account in the making of any adoption plan in relation to the adoption.
The Court may not make an adoption order if the parties to the adoption have agreed to an adoption plan unless it is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the plan are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.
The Court may not make an adoption order unless it considers that the making of the order would be clearly preferable in the best interests of the child than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the care of the child.
Determining adoption applications is an important part of the court’s work: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services v MB [2017] NSWSC 1087, Sackar J at [9].
An order for adoption is one of great magnitude, particularly because the legal and social consequences that flow from an adoption are far-reaching (for the child themselves as well as for the persons connected to the child) and involve a particular degree of finality: Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71, Hallen J at [157], citing Re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239, Sir Thomas Bingham at 251G-H.
As observed by Hallen J in Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS at [150]:
An adoption order is status changing. It severs, in law, but not in fact, the existing relationship of blood, and creates an adoptive relationship in place of the natural relationship, which in fact, although not in law, continues, unchanged. New family ties are created which approximate blood ties. The child becomes part of his, or her, adoptive parents’ family, solely through operation of law, and there is no necessity for any actual blood relationship to exist between them. He, or she, thereafter, is regarded, in law, as the child of the adoptive parents, and the adoptive parents are regarded in law as the parents of the adopted child: s 95(2)(c) of the Act. The adopted child also ceases to be regarded, in law, as the child of the birth parents and the birth parents cease to be regarded in law as the parents of the adopted child: s 95(2)(d) of the Act. The effect of an adoption order is to extinguish any parental responsibility of the birth parents. They no longer qualify as parents for the purpose of taking part in any future proceedings about the child. Thus, the adoption order directly affects three parties, namely the child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents.
Because of the seriousness and significance of the decision, and in line with ss 90(1)(a) and (b) of the Adoption Act, I must not make an adoption order for each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex unless I am satisfied that each of their best interests will be promoted by the adoption, and that, as far as practicable and having regard to their respective ages and understanding, the wishes and feelings of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex have been ascertained and duly considered.
I must have regard to the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, both in youth and later life — this being the paramount consideration as stated in s 8(1)(a) of the Adoption Act. I must also have regard to the principles that adoption is to be regarded as a service for the child (s 8(1)(b) of the Adoption Act) and that no adult is entitled as of right to adopt the child (s 8(1)(c) of the Adoption Act).
The paramount consideration of the best interests of the child has been described in Adoption of LJK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7 by Brereton J at [12] as follows:
The “paramountcy principle” contained in par (a) means that the inquiry is child and future focussed: as the best interests of the children, both in childhood and in later life, must be the paramount consideration, so it is necessary to evaluate the competing proposals (and any viable alternatives) so as to ascertain which will best serve the interests of these children now and in the future, given what has already happened, rather than revisiting the actual or perceived rights and wrongs of the past (save insofar as they may be indicative of the future). In speaking of adoption being a “service to the child”, the Act requires decisions in connection with adoption to be made on the basis that the prime consideration is benefit to the child, as distinct from providing a service to people who wish to adopt a child. However, that does not mean that no service is provided to a child by adoption just because his or her needs are already being adequately met.
(a) any wishes expressed by the child,
(b) the child’s age, maturity, level of understanding, gender, background and family relationships and any other characteristics of the child that the decision maker thinks are relevant,
(c) the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including the child’s sense of personal, family and cultural identity,
(d) any disability that the child has,
(e) any wishes expressed by either or both of the parents of the child,
(f) the relationship that the child has with his or her parents and siblings (if any) and any significant other people (including relatives) in relation to whom the decision maker considers the question to be relevant,
(g) the attitude of each proposed adoptive parent to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood,
(h) the nature of the relationship of the child with each proposed adoptive parent,
(i) the suitability and capacity of each proposed adoptive parent, or any other person, to provide for the needs of the child, including the emotional and intellectual needs of the child,
(j) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused, or that may be caused, by being subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour, or being present while a third person is subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour,
(k) the alternatives to the making of an adoption order and the likely effect on the child in both the short and longer term of changes in the child’s circumstances caused by an adoption, so that adoption is determined among all alternative forms of care to best meet the needs of the child.
[297] It is often referred to in the literature that a child placed with foster carers has an abiding need for a sense of security and identity and that she, or he, will feel most secure when she, or he, is assured that no one can take her, or him, away from the family of which she, or he, is a legal member. It is recognised that the sooner a child can feel this sense of security, the better for her, or his, development in the future: see Re Gary [2009] NSWSC 697, per Palmer J, at [35].
[298] As was written in Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793, by McFarlane LJ, with agreement of the other two members of the Court of Appeal (Jackson and Lindblom LJJ), at [64]:
“One of the principal benefits of adoption is to achieve a secure, stable, reliable, permanent, lifetime placement for the child in the adoptive family as the adoptive son or daughter of the adopters.”
[299] Also, if the carers who have developed a strong bond of family relationship with the child feels that they are under threat of an application to the Children’s Court, at any time, for vacation of a care order and the consequent removal of the child from them, then they could be subjected to a level of stress and anxiety that must affect the parental relationship with the child who is in their care: Re Gary at [36].
The requirement in s 90(3) of the Adoption Act that the making of the adoption order must be clearly preferable in the best interests of the child rather than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the care of the child “requires something more than a slight preponderance of considerations in favour of adoption over the alternatives” and “the requirement that the Court consider that an adoption order be ‘“clearly preferable’” is one that adoption be obviously, plainly or manifestly preferable to any other action that could be taken by law”: Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813, Brereton J at [14].
Consideration of whether adoption would promote the child’s best interests, and whether it is clearly preferable to any other order that could be made, involves identification of the likely effects of adoption, and of the various available alternatives, and examining their respective benefits and detriments from the perspective of the best interests of the child, so as to conclude whether adoption is, or is not, clearly preferable to all the others: Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680, Brereton J at [74].
The question of what is in a child’s best interests involves the making of a judicial evaluation and the balancing of many factors from which an overall conclusion must be reached. It will, inevitably, be impressionistic and inexact: Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 641, Lord Nicholls (with whom Lord Mackay, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett and Lord Rodger agreed) at [16], cited with approval in Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369, Hallen AsJ at [90].
Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex are nine, six, seven and four years old respectively and, in accordance with ss 54(2) and 55 of the Adoption Act, are unable to consent to their own adoption. Given their young ages, the four children have a limited understanding of the concept of adoption.
Nonetheless, all four children have indicated their willingness towards adoption in varying degrees, in line with their ages. For example, in a conversation with Ms Castro, Haley became upset about the fact that she had not yet been adopted by Gloria and Jay and that she wished her last name to be “Pritchett”. Similarly, Manny has expressed to Ms Castro, “I want to be adopted”. While referring to Claire and Phil, Manny said, “Mum and Dad are the best”.
Similarly, on 21 August 2025, Ms Castro engaged in a conversation about adoption with Manny and Alex using a social story book about their lives. Ms Castro informed the children that if they are adopted, they would legally be a part of the Dunphy family. Manny asked what “legally” meant, and Claire informed him that it meant “when a judge stamps the paper which makes it legal”. Manny followed by saying “where’s the judge already!”. Ms Castro further asked Manny and Alex why they wanted to be adopted, with Manny responding, “because I want my parents’ last name”, and Alex responding, “I feel loved”.
Each of Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil are aware of the importance of supporting the four children in developing an understanding of their life story as they grow and they have the resources and commitment to do so. The proposed adoptive parents maintain life story books for the children and display photographs of the children’s birth family in their rooms.
Haley and Luke have been living with Gloria and Jay since Haley was five and a half years old and Luke was two and a half years old. Manny and Alex have been living with Claire and Phil since Manny was three years and nine months old and Alex was one year and four months old.
As stated earlier, Susie has been inconsistent in her attendance and behaviour at family time visits with the four children since the beginning, and Dylan has not attended any family time visits with the children since they were assumed into care.
Collectively, this means that each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex do not share a bond with their birth parents. They have lived with their respective proposed adoptive parents from a very young age and have spent little-to-no time with their birth parents. The children clearly have a stronger bond and relationship with their respective proposed adoptive parents.
Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil have made sincere efforts to meet the emotional needs of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex and build their sense of identity and self-confidence. The proposed adoptive parents maintain open, age-appropriate and positive communication about the children’s foster care and adoption journey and gather and preserve details about the children’s background, significant life events and milestones. For example, as indicated above, Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil maintain a life story book for the children, which has allowed the children to develop pride in their story by reinforcing that they are loved.
Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil have satisfactorily arranged for the children’s educational and extracurricular needs to be met. The proposed adoptive parents also ensure that the children’s health needs are adequately met by taking them to their various medical and therapy appointments.
Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil maintain sufficient financial circumstances, maintain a good character and health and have provided the children with a comfortable place in which to live.
Taking all the above matters into account, I consider Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil to be suitable and with the appropriate capacity to provide for the physical, emotional and educational needs of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, including fostering their sense of personal, family and cultural identity.
The overall attitudes of Gloria and Jay towards Haley and Luke and those of Claire and Phil towards Manny and Alex is characterised by love, commitment, warmth and a dedicated approach to the children’s care. I am satisfied that the proposed adoptive parents are devoted towards their responsibilities of parenthood and providing the children with a nurturing, stable and loving home environment.
In the s 91 Report, Ms Castro observed the following about Gloria and Jay’s relationship with Haley and Luke:
Haley has been with her proposed adoptive parents from the age of 5 years of age, and Luke from 2 years of age. As such both children have had the opportunity to start developing a strong connection with their proposed adoptive parents I have observed Haley to have flourished within the placement, making leaps and bounds with her language and emotional literacy and creating a firm bond with the proposed adoptive parents in that she is usually able to verbalise her thoughts and emotions. I have observed Luke to present as a happy and engaging child, comfortable within the family home and relaxed in the presence of his proposed adoptive parents. Haley and Luke seek out both of their proposed adoptive parents for affection and play. Haley has been observed to refer to her proposed adoptive parents as ‘mum and dad’, whilst Luke has been observed to refer to the proposed adoptive parents as “Mummy” and “Daddy”.
The proposed adoptive parents acknowledge that having two children join their household was quite overwhelming, and the children’s trauma responses were challenging to deal with. However, they now feel they have found their “groove”. Mr Pritchett has spoken of feeling that their family is now complete, and being overjoyed to have Haley and Luke in their lives. Mrs Pritchett spoke their lives being completely transformed with Haley and Luke joining the family lives. The proposed adoptive parents discussed efforts they make to provide each child with individual attention, such as taking Haley to the park to ride her bike or scooter, and having a coffee and juice with Luke following his swimming lessons. Mr Pritchett noted he enjoys cooking with the children and will usually help Haley with her homework and make muffins and other meals with her, take Luke on the weekend to do the family grocery shopping.
Both the proposed adoptive parents’ extended families are reported to be very excited about the possibility of Haley and Luke legally joining their family. Whilst Mr Pritchett’s mother and father reside some distance away in Newcastle, they visit the family regularly so they can be a part of special family occasions as well as weekly Facetime calls. Mrs Pritchett’s mother and sister are also frequent visitors to the home, seeing the children on an approximately fortnightly basis.
The proposed adoptive parents have demonstrated an ongoing willingness to support Haley and Luke’s connection to their birth family members. They continue to demonstrate empathy towards the children’s birth family and send them regular updates and photos via emails and text messages, to ensure that they remain involved in their daily events and life. They are aware that despite the emotional impact that has occurred for the children post family time, the importance of the children having the opportunity for continuing significant birth family relationships. They particularly support Haley and Luke’s relationship with their siblings, Manny and Alex, who are also in care. The proposed adoptive parents have been able to foster a close relationship with Manny and Alex’s proposed adoptive parents, Mr and Ms Dunphy, recognising this relationship, recognising the importance of these relationships in supporting the and strengthening of the children’s ongoing connection to each other.
The proposed adoptive parents are motivated to adopt Haley and Luke, seeing open adoption as the only order that will cement permanency for the children. They have a strong love and affection for Haley and Luke, relating to them as if they had been born to the couple, and desire to formalise their relationship with the children, allowing them to make decisions as the children’s legal parents. Haley and Luke have made significant progress in the care of the proposed adoptive parents, who have clearly demonstrated their continuing ability to meet all of the children’s physical, emotional and developmental needs. The proposed adoptive parents see open adoption as providing Haley and Luke with the security of knowing they are formal members of the Pritchett family, now, and into adulthood, providing them with a sense of belonging and security. Mrs Pritchett noted adoption as removing the worry of feeling like they may have to move homes and Mr Pritchett added that adoption would remove the worry that one morning they may not be their parents anymore.
Manny and Alex have been in the placement with their proposed adoptive parents since January 2023. The proposed adoptive parents have provided them with a safe, warm, and loving home environment from the beginning of the placement, responding empathetically and consistently to the unsettled behaviours the children displayed on moving into the placement. Both children have developed a strong connection with the proposed adoptive parents. The proposed adoptive parents are sensitive to the children’s needs and have been proactive in addressing the children’s developmental, emotional and therapeutic needs, as well as being strong advocates for the children. They have provided a stable and predictable routine, which has contributed to the progress the children have made since in the placement. I observed the children interact with the proposed adoptive parents at home visits and family time visits. They relate warmly and easily with each other, with the children seeking out the proposed adoptive parents for affection, comfort and play. The proposed adoptive parents have demonstrated a strong understanding of trauma and its impact on childhood development, and this is noted in the significant progress in development the children have made since entering the placement. The proposed adoptive parents have developed a strong skill set in supporting the children, and their commitment to Manny and Alex, and joy they find in the relationship is evident. The proposed adoptive parents have expressed to Ms Millburn their delight in the love that they feel for the children, describing it as “no different than if we were blood relations”.
The proposed adoptive parents share a close relationship both of their families. They report that Manny and Alex have been warmly welcomed into their wider family unit. Manny describes Mr Dunphy’ nephew of the same age as him as his “cousin” and they are close friends. Ms Millburn and I have also occasionally observed Mr and Ms Belgrave at home visits and can see the connection they have established with Manny and Alex, and the evident love they have for them. Ms Belgrave has expressed to me that she loves the children deeply and that she and her husband view them as their grandchildren and the most important thing in their lives. The proposed adoptive parents’ extended family view Manny and Alex as integral members of their family. The children have also developed a connection with the proposed adoptive parents’ church community, which they attend on a weekly basis, and is an important part of their family and social life.
The proposed adoptive parents recognise and understand the importance of the relationship Manny and Alex share with their birth family. They are aware of the children’s attachment to Ms Smith, and the conflicting feelings that may arise from this. They understand the strong bond Manny and Alex share with Haley and Luke and have consistently demonstrated their commitment to promoting the sibling relationship and welcoming Haley, Luke and their proposed adoptive parents into their lives as extended family members. The proposed adoptive parents engage respectfully with Ms Smith and Ms Adamson at family time visits and have been proactive in establishing a positive relationship with them. I consider this to be a stable and nurturing placement where Manny and Alex will have the maximum opportunity to meet their potential and develop a positive and integrated sense of self.
Referees for Gloria and Jay describe them as honest, devoted, loving, patient, calm, supportive, kind, caring, reliable, empathetic and understanding parents to Haley and Luke. They are also described as “soul mates” to each other.
Referees for Claire and Phil describe them as calm, thoughtful, caring, patient, compassionate, consistent, kind, gentle, generous, empathetic, with a stable and happy marriage, and always ready to support Manny and Alex.
In these circumstances, I consider that Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil demonstrate a deep sense of responsibility and commitment to the children’s wellbeing and development. They prioritise the children’s needs, aim to be supportive and loving parents and ensure that the children are raised in an environment grounded in stability, empathy and love.
Susie has expressed her intention to contest these adoption proceedings to Barnardos caseworkers on numerous occasions in 2023 and 2024. On 17 December 2025, she filed her notice of appearance in these proceedings but failed to appear at the preliminary hearing on 7 May 2026. During the preliminary hearing, I was informed that Susie has ceased her engagement with these proceedings and is unresponsive to any communications being sent to her. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, I directed the solicitor for Barnardos to make a final attempt to communicate with Susie. The solicitor for Barnardos sent her a letter by post on 7 May 2026 and an email and a text message on 13 May 2026. On 28 May 2026, it was confirmed to me that no response was received from Susie.
Dylan has largely remained inactive in these proceedings and is not a named defendant. He has not expressed any views on the children’s adoption.
As previously outlined in detail, there is a concerning child protection history for each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex under Susie and Dylan’s care.
Since the children were removed from Susie and Dylan, both have made no serious efforts to improve their lives and parenting abilities and, at the time of writing this judgment, both have ceased to engage with these proceedings completely.
I consider that both Susie and Dylan are unable to provide a safe and nourishing environment in which each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex can grow and thrive. If the children are restored to their care, there is a very real possibility that they will be subjected to serious physical or psychological harm, including exposure to abuse, ill-treatment or violence.
It is clear from the evidence before me that Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil are able to provide a safe, stable and nurturing environment that supports the children’s physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing. The children have been physically, mentally and emotionally well in their respective proposed adoptive parents’ care, and no concerns about the children’s welfare have been raised by any caseworker, medical practitioner or other relevant professional.
I may not make an adoption order unless I am satisfied that such an order is “clearly preferable” in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, compared with any other legal measure that could be taken in relation to their care: s 90(3) of the Adoption Act.
I must therefore be satisfied that the balance weighs more than slightly in favour of the proposed adoption over other alternatives. The making of an adoption order must be obviously, plainly or manifestly preferable to any other action that could be taken by law. I must reach the degree of conviction in favour of the adoption commensurate with the gravity of the decision: Adoption of RCC and RZA, Brereton J at [14]; Adoption of NG (No 2), Brereton J at [74].
The alternatives to making an adoption order in respect of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex are:
an order allocating parental responsibility of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex to either or both of Susie and Dylan pursuant to s 92 of the Adoption Act (also commonly known as restoration);
make no order and maintain the status quo, which is that each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex remain under the parental responsibility of the Minister until each of them reaches the age of 18; or
an order allocating parental responsibility of each of Haley and Luke to Gloria and Jay and each of Manny and Alex to Claire and Phil, pursuant to s 92 of the Adoption Act (also known as a guardianship order).
I consider that each of the above three alternatives to adoption are not in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex.
In the s 91 Report, Ms Castro noted the following about why adoption is clearly preferable in the best interests of each of Haley and Luke:
I consider that open adoption will provide Haley and Luke with the stability and sense of permanence which is vital for their continuous positive development. Open adoption will confirm, in the legal sense, the emotional and psychological connection that they are developing with the proposed adoptive parents, allowing this to securely continue. Remaining in Out of Home Care or under a Guardianship Order will not legally solidify or represent Haley and Luke’s position as highly valued and loved members of the Pritchett family, with both orders ending when the children turn 18 years of age. The insecurity of remaining in out of home care has particular implications for Haley ‘s emotional and psychological development. Open Adoption provides a legal acknowledgment of the role that the proposed adoptive parents have taken on in Haley and Luke’s life, allowing them to make decisions for Haley and Luke as their legal parents, recognising the commitment and affection that they have for Haley and Luke. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the court a rant orders for the adoption of Haley and Luke by the proposed adoptive parents.
I consider that adoption will provide Manny and Alex with the stability and sense of permanence which is essential to their continued development. Adoption will confirm, in the legal sense, the emotional and psychological connection that they have developed with the proposed adoptive parents, and their extended family. Adoption provides a legal acknowledgement of the role that proposed adoptive parents have taken on in Manny and Alex’s lives, allowing them to make decisions as their legal parents, recognising the commitment and affection they have for Manny and Alex.
I believe that open adoption is in the best interests of both Manny and Alex. Open adoption will confirm their sense of being full members of the Dunphy family, providing permanency, stability and legal security for the children. This in turn will maximise Manny and Alex’s ability to become emotionally secure and form healthy relationships. I consider the permanence achieved through open adoption will give the children a continued opportunity to grow and develop. Remaining in out-of-home care, or under a guardianship order will not legally solidify or represent the children’s position as full members of the Dunphy family for life. For example, a guardianship order would expire when the children turn 18 years. I consider that only open adoption will provide the children with the permanency and security they need for life. Furthermore, open adoption will provide the children with a continued opportunity to grow and develop to their potential, whilst preserving their connection with their family of origin. For these reasons, I believe open adoption to be the preferred order for both Manny and Alex and respectfully ask that the court grant orders for the adoption of Manny and Alex in respect of the proposed adoptive parents.
It is clear from the evidence before me that Susie and Dylan are unable to provide care for Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex. Restoration of each of the four children to the care of Susie and Dylan is neither realistically possible nor in the best interests of each of the children.
Making no order and maintaining the status quo of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, which is that the children would remain under the parental responsibility of the Minister until each of them reaches 18 years of age, would be highly detrimental to them. It would cause ongoing stress of instability, insecurity and uncertainty regarding the children’s life and care with their respective proposed adoptive parents. Additionally, maintaining the status quo would also mean that the children would remain a ward of the state until they attain the age of 18 years and that their respective proposed adoptive parents would be unable to make significant decisions in regard to them without the approval of the Minister’s delegate.
If I were to maintain the status quo and make no order, this would mean that the proposed adoptive parents would not be legally recognised as parents to the respective children under their care, despite the proposed adoptive parents diligently fulfilling their duties as parents. It would also place additional pressures on the children’s placement, owing to the need for proposed adoptive parents to seek consents and approvals regarding decisions about the children on an ongoing basis. An adoption order has the advantages of certainty and permanency. Making no order risks that Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex may experience insecurity, uncertainty and ongoing trauma, or at least internal disquiet, arising, for instance, from the fact that the children would continue to be the foster-children of the respective proposed adoptive parents rather than their children, at least so far as the law is concerned. Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex are deserving of a more certain outcome.
The same can be said for an order allocating long-term parental responsibility of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex to their respective proposed adoptive parents under a guardianship order. While achieving some of the functional aims served by an adoption order, a guardianship order lacks the symbolic and expressive value of a formal adoption order. Not only would such an order expire when each of the four children attain 18 years of age, it also lacks the permanence and sense of ongoing belonging afforded by an adoption order. Such shortcomings were remarked upon in A Child Proposed for Adoption [2019] NSWSC 1653 by Slattery J at [165] as follows:
An order allocating parental responsibility to the proposed adoptive parents would address some deficiencies arising with the alternative of maintaining the status quo. An order allocating parental responsibility to the proposed adoptive parents would allow them to make significant decisions about the child. But it still lacks the permanency of an adoption order: Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680, (at [75]-[82]). And a major disadvantage of this alternative is that when the child reaches 18 years of age [they] would lose [their] legal connection to the proposed adoptive parents and their children, despite the reality that the proposed adoptive parents have been acting in the role of [their] parents almost since [their] birth.
I am therefore of the view that a guardianship order will not be a suitable alternative for each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex and their care.
I also give weight to the views of each of Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil on why an adoption order in their favour will be the best outcome for the respective children under their care:
[Gloria]
Since the day they moved in, Haley and Luke have become part of our family. They have developed and grown so much over the last two years we have had them. and really cannot see our family without them in it. I believe we have built a safe, loving environment for the children. Luke feels particularly settled. He is such a homebody and loves hanging out at home playing with his toys. He has even stated developing a friendship with the cats. He also loves our extended family, and his favourite person to see is Yaya.
Haley is also settled much more over the last year. She is enjoying swimming lessons and occupational therapy. Since she started school, she writes little notes and draws pictures for me all the time often about how much she loves this family and how happy she is living here. She also has a close relationship and a special band with my sister her Aunty Em. They talk about crystals and make up.
The main reason we wish to adopt Haley and Luke is we have grown to love these children more than anything and we know we can give them a safe, healthy and loving home.
I believe that adoption is in Haley and Luke’s best interest and is the preferred order above any other because Adoption will give the children a sense of belonging and permanence in being part of family and sharing a last name. Also I think knowing they are officially adopted they will feel more safe and secure and know for certain they have family they will not moved from or taken away from. I think it will give them a sense stability that they may not feel with other orders especially as other orders may have an end date for when they turn 18, and although that will not change our relationship as they will always be part of the family, it will feel less permanent than an adoption.
[Jay]
I wish to adopt Haley and Luke because I love them both…
Haley and I are very similar people. But she is much braver than I could ever be. We have a very close bond and understand each other deeply. I am so proud of her and so happy that she came into my life. Luke is a delight to be around. He and I bond over early mornings and silliness. He constantly surprises me with his curiosity and absurdity. Both children make happy and I cannot imagine being without them. I want to provide them with the stability and permanency that adoption provides.
I believe that adoption is in Haley and Luke’s best interest and is the preferred order above any other because it will provide them with a sense of stability, security and permanency that other orders may not.
[Claire]
I love Manny and Alex so much and will always put their interests first. I consider them to be my family and I feel so blessed that they are in Phil’s and my life, that we have the opportunity to be their mum and dad and to love and care for them. They are the funniest, cutest and most loveable little kids we have ever met and I have loved watching them grow and develop their little personalities.
I have loved seeing Manny and Alex appear to feel more safe and secure while living with us over the past two and a half years. In particular, Manny who is older, is much calmer and doesn’t appear as scared and anxious anymore. Unlike when Manny first came to us, he now sleeps through the night, doesn’t have as many bad dreams or wet the bed, has significantly less emotional meltdowns and appears so much happier throughout the day. Manny has also developed new skills such as imaginative play, increased his capacity for emotional regulation (even though this is a work in progress) and has caught up to his peers in several key areas, including his speech and language skills.
I believe that adoption is in Manny and Alex’s best interest and is the preferred order above any other as it is the most permanent option and provides them with more security and permanency than other options.
I have observed that safety and security is important for the kids’ wellbeing, particularly Manny. Manny continues to be emotionally elevated after birth family visits with Susie…. Manny will ask questions immediately after the visits such as:
“Can I still stay with you? Do I have to move again? I don’t want to go. Can I stay here forever?”
Adoption orders will mean that Phil and I can confidently reassure Manny that he will never have to leave our family or our home and that no applications could be made in future that would seek to change that or even make it uncertain for a period of time (for example, if restoration orders were sought but were unsuccessful). I expect we may need to provide similar reassurances to Alex as she grows older and her understanding increases.
l do not believe that orders for either guardianship or parental responsibility with the Minister are in Manny and Alex’s best interests as they leave open the possibility that applications for restoration could be made in future. Even if the applications were unsuccessful, we would need to tell Manny and Alex that an application had been made for them to move houses and families again and there would be a period of uncertainty and confusion for them while the matter progressed through court. This would be very distressing and challenging for the kids, especially Manny who has said on many occasions that he is scared and does not want to move homes or families again.
Adoption is also the only option that will meet Manny’s express…. Adoption allows Manny to have the same surname as us which he has requested many times. Adoption is also consistent with Manny and Alex’s current understanding that they will be part of our family forever.
[Phil]
I wish to adopt Manny and Alex because from the day that I married Claire, I have wanted to be a dad. As mentioned previously, Susie told Claire and I about how much she wanted Manny to have a positive male role model in his life. Fathers have a crucial impact on a child’s development.
Manny and Alex are in an incredibly important stage of their development as children. By having me in their life as a dad at this important stage of their lives, I have the incredible opportunity to encourage, teach, love, cheer, help, educate, celebrate and support Manny and Alex with everything developmental in their lives. I see this opportunity as extremely important and take my role as their dad very seriously. I want to partner with my wife Claire to help Manny and Alex achieve all of their developmental goals and watch them achieve their potential each year as their father. I was very blessed to have a loving father in my life and I hope to share all of the wisdom I learned from my own dad to Manny and Alex for the rest of my life.
Manny is an intelligent, funny, empathetic, energetic boy with a heart of gold and has formed an incredible bond with me since we met. Manny has said that he wants to work in schools just like I do and is always wanting to celebrate and support everything and everyone that is important to me. Alex was a cute little baby when I first met her, but I have formed an incredible connection with her also. Alex is a funny, energetic, cheeky, intelligent girl who loves quality time with me (Dad). Having Manny and Alex in our lives has been an incredible blessing and honour for me. I would love nothing more than to adopt Manny and Alex and continue being the best dad that I can for them for the rest of my life.
I believe that adoption is in Manny and Alex’s best interest and is the preferred order above any other because both Manny and Alex need continued stability in their lives. Manny has had so much disruption in the first four years of his life, and he craves to be part of a stable, safe, calm family unit. This environment is one that Claire and I have created, and Manny says many times to us that he doesn’t want to live with anyone else but us.
Adoption is the only order that is permanent and will give Manny and Alex the necessary stability that they both need. Our current Parental Responsibility Order and a Guardianship Order are only short-term solutions for Manny and Alex. Both Manny and Alex need a permanent solution for their lives. Manny has been craving a permanent, safe and stable family unit since we first met him. One of the reasons that Manny was so unsettled when he moved in with us was because he had started settling in with his temporary carer family and then after two years he had to move into a new home with a new family. It took a very long time for Manny to settle into his new home and life with us. Once Manny was settled, he kept checking with us that he wouldn’t have to live with another family. Manny has asked multiple times if he can live with Claire and I forever. Manny wants and needs permanent adoption for his mental health, his development, and his own peace of mind. Any other orders other than permanent adoption would definitely not be in the best interest of either Manny or Alex.
Pursuant to s 52, and in conjunction with s 90(1)(d), of the Adoption Act, the consent of each of a child’s birth parents, and any person who has parental responsibility for the child, to the child’s adoption is generally required. However, parental consent may be dispensed with if the court so orders: s 66 of the Adoption Act. If consent is dispensed with by the court, consent is not required under s 52 of the Adoption Act: s 54(1)(a) of the Adoption Act.
Parental consent is therefore required unless:
consent has been dispensed with (s 54(1)(b) of the Adoption Act); or
the child has provided sole consent to their own adoption (s 54(1)(c) of the Adoption Act).
If the child is 18 or more years of age, parental consent is not required for an adoption order: s 54(1)(d) of the Adoption Act. If a child is 12 or more years of age and of sufficient maturity to understand the effect of giving consent, he or she may give sole consent to his or her adoption by a proposed adoptive parent or parents if the child has been cared for by the proposed adoptive parent or parents for at least two years: s 54(2) of the Adoption Act.
Section 67 of the Adoption Act sets out the circumstances in which a consent dispense order may be made, providing:
67 When can Court dispense with consent of person other than the child?
(1) The Court may make a consent dispense order dispensing with the requirement for consent of a person to a child’s adoption (other than the child) if the Court is satisfied that—
(a) the person cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found or identified, or
(b) the person is in such a physical or mental condition as not to be capable of properly considering the question of whether he or she should give consent, or
(c) if the person is a parent of, or person who has parental responsibility for, the child—there is serious cause for concern for the welfare of the child and it is in the best interests of the child to override the wishes of the parent or person who has parental responsibility, or
(d) if an application has been made to the Court for the adoption of the child by one or more persons who are authorised carers or the guardians for the child—
(i) the child has established a stable relationship with those carers or guardians, and
(ii) the adoption of the child by those carers or guardians will promote the child’s welfare, and
(iii) in the case of an Aboriginal child, alternatives to placement for adoption have been considered in accordance with section 36.
(2) The Court must not make such a consent dispense order unless satisfied that to do so is in the best interests of the child.
There is no signed instrument of consent by Susie and Dylan in regard to the adoption of each of Haley and Luke by Gloria and Jay, and in regard to the adoption of each of Manny and Alex by Claire and Phil. I am satisfied that Susie was personally served with the notice of the adoption applications of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex on 4 December 2025, and therefore, she has had at least 14 days’ notice of the adoption applications (s 88(1) of the Adoption Act). Further, as discussed previously, Barnardos has been unable to personally serve Dylan with the notice of the adoption applications, and I have accordingly dispensed with the requirement to serve this notice on Dylan under s 88(4) of the Adoption Act. All four children are under the age of 12 and are therefore unable to provide sole consent to their own adoption.
If an adoption order is to be made in relation to each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, it will be necessary for me to dispense with the consent of each of Susie and Dylan.
Sections 67(1)(d)(i) and 67(1)(d)(ii) of the Adoption Act make clear that I may not make an order dispensing with the consent requirement unless I am satisfied that Haley and Luke have established a stable relationship with Gloria and Jay as their authorised carers and that the adoption of Haley and Luke by Gloria and Jay will promote their welfare. Similarly, I must be satisfied of the same matter in relation to Manny and Alex in respect of Claire and Phil.
I am satisfied as to these matters. Haley and Luke have lived with Gloria and Jay since 8 December 2022, when Haley was five and a half years old and Luke was two and a half years old. Manny and Alex have lived with Claire and Phil since 5 January 2023, when Manny was three years and nine months old and Alex was one year and four months old. The four children are secure and comfortable in their respective proposed adoptive parents’ care and share a strong and affectionate relationship with them and their family. Haley and Luke view Gloria and Jay as their parents and consider themselves part of the Pritchett family unit. Similarly, Manny and Alex view Claire and Jay as their parents and consider themselves part of the Dunphy family unit. Moreover, Gloria, Jay, Claire and Phil also ensure the four children, who are biological siblings, maintain close contact with each other and continue building a strong bond with each other. The children are thriving in the care of their respective proposed adoptive parents, who provide a stable, nurturing and supportive environment that meets each of the children’s emotional, developmental and physical needs.
Pursuant to s 67(1)(c) of the Adoption Act, I also consider that it is in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex that I override any opposition expressed by Susie and Dylan to the children’s proposed adoption, which is limited in any event. I find that both Susie and Dylan have disregarded the welfare of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex and have not engaged with these proceedings in any meaningful manner. Should I not make the order dispensing with the requirement for the consent of each of Susie and Dylan, there will be a serious cause of concern for the welfare of each of the four children.
Having regard to the whole of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that dispensing with the consent of each of Susie and Dylan to enable the making of an adoption order in favour of Gloria and Jay is in the best interests of each of Haley and Luke and the making of an adoption order in favour of Claire and Phil is in the best interests of each of Manny and Alex.
101 Names of adopted children
(1) On the making of an adoption order—
(a) an adopted child who is 18 or more years old is (unless he or she decides otherwise) to have the same surname and given name or names as he or she used immediately before the order is made, and
(b) an adopted child who is less than 18 years of age is to have as his or her surname and given name or names such name or names as the Court, in the adoption order, approves on the application of the adoptive parent or parents.
(2) Before changing the surname or given name or names of a child, the Court must consider any wishes expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s wishes.
(3) If, before the making of the adoption order, the adopted child has been generally known by a particular surname, the Court may, in the adoption order, order that the child is to have that name as his or her surname.
(4) An approval of a change in the given name or names of a child who is over the age of 12 years must not be given by the Court unless the child has, in a consent given under section 55, consented to the change.
(5) The Court must not approve a change in the given name or names of a child who is more than one year old, or a non-citizen child, unless the Court is satisfied that the name change is in the best interests of the child.
The effect of s 101(2) of the Adoption Act is that I cannot make an order changing the names of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex without first considering their express wishes and any factors (such as their maturity and understanding) that I find relevant and the weight to be given to those wishes and factors.
The effect of s 101(5) of the Adoption Act is that I cannot make an order changing the names of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex unless I am satisfied that the name change is in each of their best interests.
For Haley, the Secretary seeks the approval of the name “Pritchett” as the surname and “Haley Janine Marshall” as the given names. For Luke, the Secretary seeks the approval of the name “Pritchett” as the surname and “Luke Jacob Marshall” as the given names.
For Manny, the Secretary seeks the approval of the name “Dunphy” as the surname and “Manny Gregory Marshall” as the given names. For Alex, the Secretary seeks the approval of the name “Dunphy” as the surname and “Alex Ava Marshall” as the given names.
In the s 91 Reports, Ms Castro stated:
The proposed adoptive parents request that should an Adoption Order be made in relation to Haley and Luke that they be known as Haley Janine Marshall Pritchett and Luke Jacob Marshall Pritchett. These names preserved the forenames given to Haley and Luke by their parents, and preserves Marshall as a second middle name. It has been proposed that their siblings, Manny and Alex, will also retain Marshall as a second middle name, thereby ensuring the children share a connection to each other and their birth family through their name. The change of surname will identify Haley and Luke as members of the Pritchett family, consolidating their sense of belonging and security as family members. It will also honour the legal parent-child relationship if an Adoption Order is granted, and I consider the proposed change of surname for Haley and Luke to be in their best interest.
On 27 November 2024, Ms Millburn and I discussed the children’s proposed names with Ms Smith. She stated she was aware the children’s last names would change from earlier conversations with us and stated “I am happy that the original surnames would stay [as middle names]. That is something I’m glad to hear”. She noted she was happy with their proposed new last names.
…
The proposed adoptive parents request that should an Adoption Order be made in relation to Manny and Alex that they be known as Manny Gregory Marshall Dunphy and Alex Ava Marshall Dunphy. These names preserved the forenames given to Manny and Alex by their parents and preserves Marshall as a second middle name. It has been proposed that their siblings, Haley and Luke, will also retain Marshall as a second middle name, thereby ensuring the children share a connection to each other and their birth family through their name. The change of surname will identify Manny and Alex as members of the Dunphy family, consolidating their sense of belonging and security as family members. It will also honour the legal parent-child relationship if an Adoption Order is granted, and I consider the proposed change of surname for Manny and Alex to be in their best interest.
I also place weight on the fact that all four children — and in particular, Haley, Manny and Alex — have expressed on numerous occasions their desire to have their name changed and take the surnames of their respective proposed adoptive parents. For example, Haley often asks Gloria and Jay when he “gets to be Pritchett”. Similarly, Manny has often said to Claire and Phil, “I want my name to be Dunphy” and “I want the same name as you”. Alex has made similar remarks to Claire and Phil and has said, “I’m Alex Dunphy”.
Taking the above into account, I am satisfied that the proposed name change is in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex as it reflects the children’s expressed wishes and enthusiasm to share their respective proposed adoptive parents’ surname while retaining their original given names. This maintains their connection to their birth family and heritage, while giving formal recognition to the family life they share with their respective proposed adoptive families. All four children will also keep “Marshall” as one of their given names, ensuring they preserve a shared sense of identity and belonging with each other.
46 What is an adoption plan?
(1) An adoption plan is a plan agreed to by two or more of the parties to the adoption of a child that includes provisions relating to—
(a) the making of arrangements for the exchange of information between the parties in relation to any one or more of the following—
(i) the child’s medical background or condition,
(ii) the child’s development and important events in the child’s life,
(iii) the means and nature of contact between the parties and the child, and
(b) any other matter relating to the adoption of the child.
(2) Without limiting the matters for which an adoption plan may make provision—
(a) it may set out the ways in which the child is to be assisted to develop a healthy and positive cultural identity and for links with that heritage to be fostered, and
(b) it may provide for the giving of certain financial and other assistance as referred to in section 201.
(2A) A birth parent who has not consented to the adoption of a child (a non-consenting birth parent) is, as far as possible, to be given the opportunity to participate in the development of, and agree to, an adoption plan in relation to the child.
…
The Adoption Regulation 2015 (NSW) does not contain any requirements in respect of an application for registration of an adoption plan.
There are maternal adoption plans and paternal adoption plans prepared in both of these proceedings in accordance with the requirements in s 46 of the Adoption Act.
A maternal adoption plan for Haley and Luke was signed by Gloria and Jay on 17 December 2024 and by Ms Rennie on 18 December 2024.
A maternal adoption plan for Manny and Alex was signed by signed by Claire and Phil on 17 December 2024 and by Ms Rennie on 18 December 2024.
Susie has not signed or agreed to either of the maternal adoption plans.
In summary, the maternal adoption plan for Haley and Luke provides as follows:
Face-to-face supervised contact to occur at a minimum of four times a year during school holidays for a minimum of two hours, with an additional visit during the Christmas school holiday period provided that this additional visit is deemed in the best interests of the children having regard to their level of emotional dysregulation before, during or after visits. The date and venue of the visits will be decided independently between the proposed adoptive parents and Susie.
As the children age, they may wish to speak with Susie via telephone, which will be supported based on their wishes.
The proposed adoptive parents are to provide updating information about the children during family time visits, photographs on an informal basis and agree to provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts on significant occasions as per the children’s wishes.
Face-to-face supervised contact to occur two times per year for a minimum of two hours at a venue and date to be decided between the proposed adoptive parents and the maternal grandmother. Additional family time visits may occur as per the children’s wishes.
Manny and Alex will be invited to all visits with Susie and the maternal grandmother, and additional ongoing regular informal contact visits between the siblings are to be arranged by the proposed adoptive parents.
The maternal adoption plan for Manny and Alex can be summarised as follows:
Face-to-face supervised contact to occur at a minimum of four times a year during school holidays for a minimum of two hours, with an additional visit during the Christmas school holiday period provided that this additional visit is deemed in the best interests of the children having regard to their level of emotional dysregulation before, during or after visits. The date and venue of visits will be decided independently between the proposed adoptive parents and Susie.
As the children age, they may wish to speak with Susie via telephone, which will be supported based on their wishes.
The proposed adoptive parents are to provide updating information about the children during family time visits, photographs on an informal basis and agree to provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts on significant occasions as per the children’s wishes.
Face-to-face supervised contact to occur two times per year for a minimum of two hours at a venue and date to be decided between the proposed adoptive parents and the maternal grandmother. Additional family time visits may occur as per the children’s wishes.
Haley and Luke will be invited to all visits with Susie and the maternal grandmother, and additional ongoing regular informal contact visits between the siblings are to be arranged by the proposed adoptive parents.
The Secretary submits that in circumstances where Susie has been inconsistent in her attendance at the family time visits with the four children and where the visits often cause emotional and behavioural dysregulation for the children, both maternal adoption plans are proper as they create a balance between maintaining and promoting a relationship between Susie and the children whilst not unduly impacting the children’s physical and emotional wellbeing.
I agree with the Secretary’s submissions. In accordance with s 90(2) of the Adoption Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in both the maternal adoption plans are in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, are proper in the circumstances, and that both the maternal adoption plans should be registered.
A paternal adoption plan for Haley and Luke was signed by Gloria and Jay on 17 December 2024 and signed by Ms Rennie on 18 December 2024.
A paternal adoption plan for Manny and Alex was signed by Claire and Phil on 17 December 2024 and by Ms Rennie on 18 December 2024.
Dylan has not signed or agreed to either of the paternal adoption plans.
In summary, the paternal adoption plan for Haley and Luke provides as follows:
Once re-introductive activities have occurred, face-to-face family time visits will occur at a minimum of two times per year for a duration of two hours, with the venue and date to be agreed independently between the proposed adoptive parents and Dylan. Additional visits may be arranged subject to the children’s wishes.
As the children age, they may wish to speak with Dylan via telephone, which will be supported based on their wishes.
The proposed adoptive parents are to provide updating information about the children during family time visits, photographs on an informal basis and agree to provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts on significant occasions as per the children’s wishes.
Manny and Alex will be invited to all visits with Dylan, and additional ongoing regular informal contact visits between the siblings are to be arranged by the proposed adoptive parents.
The paternal adoption plan for Manny and Alex can be summarised as follows:
Once re-introductive activities have occurred, face-to-face family time visits will occur at a minimum of two times per year for a duration of two hours, with the venue and date to be agreed independently between the proposed adoptive parents and Dylan. Additional visits may be arranged subject to the children’s wishes.
As the children age, they may wish to speak with Dylan via telephone, which will be supported based on their wishes.
The proposed adoptive parents are to provide updating information about the children during family time visits, photographs on an informal basis and agree to provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts on significant occasions as per the children’s wishes.
Haley and Luke will be invited to all visits with Dylan, and additional ongoing regular informal contact visits between the siblings are to be arranged by the proposed adoptive parents.
The Secretary submits that because no family contact visits have occurred between Dylan and the four children yet, both the paternal adoption plans are proper in the circumstances and in the children’s best interests.
I agree with the Secretary’s submission. In accordance with s 90(2) of the Adoption Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in both the paternal adoption plans are in the best interests of each of Haley, Luke, Manny and Alex, are proper in the circumstances, and that both the paternal adoption plans should be registered.
For the reasons given above, I make the following orders, notations and declaration:
Order pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that Haley Janine Marshall be adopted by adopting parents Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett.
Order pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that Luke Jacob Marshall be adopted by adopting parents Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett.
Order pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that Manny Gregory Marshall be adopted by adopting parents Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy.
Order pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that Alex Ava Marshall be adopted by adopting parents Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy.
Declare pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that Dylan Marshall is the birth father of Luke Jacob Marshall..
Declare pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that Dylan Marshall is the birth father of Manny Gregory Marshall.
Declare pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that Dylan Marshall is the birth father of Alex Ava Marshall.
Order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) that Dylan Marshall be included as the birth father of Luke Jacob Marshall in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) that Dylan Marshall be included as the birth father of Manny Gregory Marshall in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) that Dylan Marshall be included as the birth father of Alex Ava Marshall in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Order pursuant to s 88(4) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the requirements for the giving of notice of the application for adoption orders to Dylan Marshall is dispensed with.
Order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the requirement for the consent of the birth mother, Susie Erika Smith, to the adoption of Haley Janine Marshall, Luke Jacob Marshall, Manny Gregory Marshall and Alex Ava Marshall is dispensed with.
Order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the requirement for the consent of the birth father, Dylan Marshall, to the adoption of Haley Janine Marshall, Luke Jacob Marshall, Manny Gregory Marshall and Alex Ava Marshall is dispensed with.
Order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the approval of the name “Pritchett” as the surname and “Haley Janine Marshall” as the given names of the child.
Order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the approval of the name “Pritchett” as the surname and “Luke Jacob Marshall” as the given names of the child.
Order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the approval of the name “Dunphy” as the surname and “Manny Gregory Marshall” as the given names of the child.
Order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the approval of the name “Dunphy” as the surname and “Alex Ava Marshall” as the given names of the child.
It is noted that the court is satisfied by the arrangements proposed in the maternal adoption plan signed Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024, copies of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “A”, and find this maternal adoption plan to be in the best interests of each of Haley Janine Marshall and Luke Jacob Marshall and proper in the circumstances.
It is noted that the court is satisfied by the arrangements proposed in the paternal adoption plan signed Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024, copies of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “B”, and find this paternal adoption plan to be in the best interests of each of Haley Janine Marshall and Luke Jacob Marshall and proper in the circumstances.
It is noted that the court is satisfied by the arrangements proposed in the maternal adoption plan signed by Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024, copies of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “C”, and find this maternal adoption plan to be in the best interests of each of Manny Gregory Marshall and Alex Ava Marshall and proper in the circumstances.
It is noted that the court is satisfied by the arrangements proposed in the paternal adoption plan signed by Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024, copies of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “D”, and find this paternal adoption plan to be in the best interests of each of Manny Gregory Marshall and Alex Ava Marshall and proper in the circumstances.
Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the maternal adoption plan signed Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be registered.
Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the paternal adoption plan signed Gloria Amber Pritchett and Jay Pritchett on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be registered.
Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the maternal adoption plan signed by Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be registered.
Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the paternal adoption plan signed by Claire Tina Dunphy and Phil Gary Dunphy on 17 December 2024 and signed by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 18 December 2024 be registered.
**********
Amendment made to the "Publication restriction" section of the cover sheet to note that this judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW).
Amendment made to order 12 of paragraph 228 to rectify a grammatical error.
Amendment made to a case name to add its missing medium neutral citation.
Amendments made to paragraph 168 to rectify certain anonymisation errors.
[2026] NSWSC 742
[2026] NSWSC 547