//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 1053
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-09-03
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 Hazel Ava Olivia Finau [2026] NSWSC 1053
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 3 September 2026
Decision date: 03 September 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: McGrath J
Decision: Orders for adoption made, declaration of birth father’s parentage, orders for amending the child’s birth certificates to include the birth father’s name, consent of the birth parents dispensed with, child’s change of name approved, maternal and paternal adoption plans in the best interests of the child and registered
Catchwords: CHILD WELFARE — Adoption — where the proposed adoptive parents are the child’s current foster parents — whether adoption order is in the child’s best interests — whether a declaration of parentage should be made for the birth father — whether the child’s birth certificates should be amended to include the birth father’s name — whether the child’s change of name should be approved — whether paternal and maternal adoption plans are in the best interests of the child and proper in the circumstances — HELD — adoption order is clearly preferable in the child’s best interests — declaration of parentage should be made for the birth father — the child’s birth certificates should be amended to include the birth father’s name — order dispensing with consent is in the best interests of the child — change of name approved — maternal and paternal adoption plans are in the best interests of the child 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, 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 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 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
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia (Plaintiff)
Lucas Daniel Vella (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
New South Wales Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
JWP Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2025/00389932
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW).
This case concerns an application made by further amended summons filed on 23 June 2026 by the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) through his Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia, seeking that Hazel Ava Olivia Finau (now four years of age) be adopted by the proposed adoptive parents, Harper Lily Day-Adams and Harry James Adams**,** by an order of this court pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW).
The Secretary further seeks:
a declaration pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that Lucas Daniel Vella is the birth father of Hazel;
an order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) that Lucas be included as the birth father of Hazel in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages;
an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the consent of Hazel’s birth mother, Chloe Evelyn Finau, to the adoption of Hazel is dispensed with;
an order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act that the requirement for the consent of Hazel’s birth father, Lucas, to the adoption of Hazel is dispensed with;
an order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act for the approval of the name “Day-Adams” as the surname and “Hazel Ava Olivia” 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 Chloe on 3 October 2025, by Harper and Harry on 14 October 2025 and by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos on 16 October 2025 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 Harper and Harry on 19 June 2026 and by Ms Rennie on 22 June 2026 be approved and registered.
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 Hazel.
The adoption order sought in respect of Hazel is in favour of Harper and Harry, the long-term foster carers of Hazel, with whom Hazel has been continuously living since 10 January 2024, when Hazel was about 18 months old.
For the reasons set out below, I have determined to order that Hazel be adopted by Harper and Harry. I have also determined to make all the other orders sought by the Secretary.
Hazel was born on 13 July 2022 at Bankstown Hospital, Bankstown, New South Wales and is presently four years old. She is an Australian citizen and has Australian, Italian, Maltese, Irish and Macedonian heritage. She is not of Aboriginal descent.
Hazel has one half maternal sibling, Adrian Felix Finau, who was born on 21 June 2017. Adrian resides in a kinship placement with his maternal great grandmother in Western Sydney, New South Wales.
Hazel has two half twin paternal siblings, Emma Graham and John Graham (both born on 28 June 2016). Emma and John reside in a kinship placement with their maternal great grandmother, however, their current whereabouts are unknown.
Hazel is a shy but fun-loving child who loves indoor and outdoor play. She enjoys story time, interactive games and imaginative play with Harper and Harry.
Hazel is generally in good physical health but was diagnosed with global developmental delay in February 2024. She regularly visits her paediatrician and undertook speech therapy and physiotherapy in 2024. Hazel receives funding from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and this funding was approved on 26 March 2025. From about May 2025, Hazel resumed speech therapy. She is noted to have age-appropriate emotional development, displays a range of prosocial behaviours during play (such as sharing and turn taking) and can comfortably manage individual/group activities with minimal support.
Harper and Harry enrolled Hazel in daycare in July 2024. To complement her learnings at the daycare, Harper and Harry enrolled Hazel in an early intervention program at Everyday Independence in April 2025. From August 2025, Hazel commenced childcare at Milestones Early Learning for two days per week.
To assist with Hazel’s learning and growth, Harper and Harry have provided Hazel with stimulating books, toys, puzzles and swimming and gymnastics classes.
Harper and Harry are the proposed adoptive parents of Hazel.
Harper was born on 11 July 1983 at Belmont Hospital, Belmont, New South Wales and is presently 43 years old. She is an Australian citizen and has Anglo-Australian heritage. She is not of Aboriginal descent. She does not identify with any religion.
Harry was born on 8 February 1982 at Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales and is presently 44 years old. He is an Australian citizen and has Anglo-Australian heritage. He is not of Aboriginal descent. He identifies with the Catholic faith but is currently non-practising.
Harper and Harry married on 11 October 2010 and share a relationship of love and affection. They do not have biological children together.
Harper and Harry have lived together since 2014 in Gwandalan, New South Wales. They live in a house they own that has four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a triple garage, two living areas, a theatre room and a screened alfresco area with a backyard. The house of Harper and Harry is located 11 minutes away from their general practitioner, 13 minutes away from local shops and 20 minutes away from Hazel’s daycare. They have a public primary school, general store, post office, pharmacy and three playgrounds within walking distance of their house.
Harper has completed six years of secondary education in New South Wales and subsequently completed a certificate 3 in children’s services in 2000, a certificate 3 in community pharmacy in 2004 and a certificate 4 in hospital pharmacy in 2017.
Harry has completed six years of secondary education in New South Wales and subsequently completed a certificate Ill in plumbing drainage and gas fitting in 2004, a certificate in bonded asbestos removal in 2005 and a confined space certificate with breathing apparatus certification in 2012.
Harry currently works full-time as an operations manager at a water treatment company in New South Wales. Harper worked full-time as a pharmacy technician at a government health agency in New South Wales until January 2025, after which she resigned to be a stay-at-home mother and provide care for Hazel.
The combined monthly income of Harper and Harry from various sources and assets make them financially sound.
Both Harper and Harry enjoy overall positive physical health and wellbeing and have completed the necessary medical assessments required under the Adoption Act. Both were diagnosed with certain medical issues in the past, from which they have made full recovery.
Both Harper and Harry maintain good repute and have cleared the required background checks.
The birth mother of Hazel is Chloe. She was born on 19 June 1998 and is presently 28 years old. She has Australian heritage. She is not of Aboriginal descent.
The birth father of Hazel is Lucas. He was born on 21 June 2002 and is present 24 years old. He has Maltese, Italian, Irish and Macedonian heritage. He is not of Aboriginal descent.
Chloe has another child, Adrian (Hazel’s half maternal sibling), from a different relationship. Lucas has two other children, Emma and John (Hazel’s half paternal twin siblings), from a different relationship. As stated earlier, Adrian, Emma and John live separately in their respective kinship placements. Hazel is the only biological child of Chloe and Lucas and they have no other biological children together.
Chloe and Lucas are currently not in a relationship and have not been previously married. Their current relationship statuses are unknown.
Chloe has past exposure to trauma and has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia disorder, depression, borderline personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder and intellectual delay. Chloe has high support needs and requires assistance of NDIS-funded disability service, Embrace Community Care, to navigate daily life. This service provides Chloe with accommodation, transportation and case management. Chloe has made progress in her medical and psychological treatments but unfortunately has not been able to transition to residential rehabilitation. Her progress has been described as “good and bad” and “up and down”.
Lucas has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lucas experiences coping and functioning difficulties and has high support needs. Lucas requires the assistance of NDIS-funded disability services to navigate daily life, which provide him with accommodation, transportation and case management.
From July 2024 to December 2024, Lucas was incarcerated. On 6 December 2024, he was released from custody and transitioned to a supported care facility managed by Campfire Care Services. Lucas remains at this facility and receives daily support from his care team at Campfire Care Services.
The DCJ records indicate that Chloe has her own child protection history relating to concerns of physical abuse, Lucas was removed from his parents’ care on 30 November 2015 due to concerns relating to drug and alcohol use and physical abuse and Adrian (Hazel’s half maternal sibling) was removed from Chloe’s care in 2017 due to child protection concerns.
On 31 March 2022, a risk of significant harm (ROSH) report was received in relation to unborn Hazel. The report raised concerns about Chloe’s extensive history of substance use, mental health issues and the previous removal of Adrian from Chloe’s care.
The DCJ then received 16 prenatal ROSH reports in relation to unborn Hazel about concerns for Chloe experiencing domestic violence, her self-harm attempts, alcohol and substance misuse, homelessness, mental health issues, sexual harassment, failure to take her prescribed medication and lack of antenatal care.
From May to July 2022, the DCJ supported Chloe to engage with housing and rehabilitation services. The DCJ records show that after a few days of commencing rehabilitation, Chloe had to be discharged due to her lack of engagement.
Following Hazel’s birth on 14 July 2022, the DCJ caseworkers attended Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital to conduct a safety assessment. During their interview with Chloe, Chloe requested a cigarette break and did not return to the hospital.
On the same day, Hazel was assumed into care of the Minister for Families and Communities at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital due to unaddressed child protection concerns, including no caregiver being available for Hazel, Chloe’s substance abuse during her pregnancy, Chloe’s mental health issues and Chloe being unable to secure safe and consistent housing.
As indicated above, on 14 July 2022, Hazel was assumed into care of the Minister at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital.
On 21 July 2022, Hazel was discharged from the hospital and was placed in a short-term placement with a Barnardos Temporary Family Care (TFC) carer. This placement ended on 15 February 2023 due to the TFC carer experiencing an unexpected medical event.
On 16 February 2023, Hazel commenced her second TFC placement, which ended on 23 July 2023.
On 23 July 2023, Hazel commenced her third TFC placement, which ended on 10 January 2024.
From 10 January 2024, Hazel commenced her placement with Harper and Harry, and she has lived with them ever since.
Following Hazel’s placement with Harper and Harry, Hazel has had limited visits with Chloe. Up until June 2024, Barnardos, Harper and Harry were unable to contact Chloe.
Once Barnardos was able to contact Chloe, she was offered six family visits with Hazel in 2024. Chloe attended three of these visits on 18 July 2024, 2 October 2024 and 20 December 2024. The contact between Chloe and Hazel during these three visits was described as positive and warm.
Since December 2024, Chloe has not attended any visits with Hazel.
In 2024, Hazel had seven face-to-face visits with Lucas. From February to July 2025, Hazel had one face-to-face visit and four FaceTime calls with Lucas. In August 2025, Lucas requested additional family visit time with Hazel. From August 2025 to April 2026, Hazel and Lucas have had five face-to-face visits and one FaceTime call. The overall nature of contact between Hazel and Lucas has been described has positive, loving and warm.
From time-to-time, Harper and Harry send emails to both Chloe and Lucas with progress updates and photos of Hazel.
On 19 July 2022, the Secretary filed an application initiating care proceedings in the Children**’**s Court of New South Wales in relation to Hazel.
On 22 July 2022, an interim order was made allocating parental responsibility for Hazel to the Minister until further order of the court.
Chloe and Lucas participated in the Children’s Court proceedings and were legally represented.
During the Children’s Court proceedings, no suitable family members were identified as being able to care for Hazel.
On 5 August 2022, the DCJ filed a summary of the proposed plan in relation to Hazel. This document outlined various changes required to be made by Chloe in order for the DCJ to consider restoring Hazel to her care.
On 18 August 2023, the Secretary filed a care plan in relation to Hazel in the Children’s Court. The care plan stated there was no realistic possibility of restoring Hazel to the care of either Chloe or Lucas.
On 29 January 2024, the Secretary filed an amended care plan in relation to Hazel in the Children’s Court to address her cultural needs and achieve permanency in her placements.
On 14 February 2024, the Children’s Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility to the Minister in relation to Hazel until she attains 18 years of age. These orders remain in effect.
On 14 August 2024, 31 January 2025 and 6 August 2025, the Secretary filed reports pursuant to s 82 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) in the Children’s Court, which provided an update in relation to Hazel’s placement and contact with Chloe and Lucas.
On 8 October 2025, the Secretary filed a summons seeking adoption orders for Hazel. On 20 October 2025, the Secretary filed an amended summons.
On 22 October 2025, Chloe was personally served with notice of the adoption application for Hazel.
On 6 November 2025, Lucas was personally served with notice of the adoption application for Hazel.
On 10 November 2025, Lucas filed a notice of appearance.
Chloe has not filed a notice of appearance in these proceedings and has expressed to Barnardos case managers on two occasions, once in person on 18 July 2024 and again during a telephone call on 2 September 2024, that she considers adoption to be in the best interests of Hazel, that Harper and Harry are lovely carers for Hazel, that Hazel should be happy and settled in her life and that Harper and Harry are capable of providing Hazel with such a life.
On 13 November 2025, the Secretary filed an adoption matter summary form.
On 3 December 2025, a directions hearing was held before me at which I made orders joining Lucas as a defendant in these proceedings, listing these proceedings for preliminary hearing on 23 April 2026 and other case management orders.
On 18 February 2026, I made an order in chambers vacating the listing on 23 April 2026 and relisting these proceedings for preliminary hearing on 28 May 2026.
On 28 May 2026, a preliminary hearing was held before me at which I made orders granting leave to the Secretary to file an amended summons by 18 June 2026, noting that these proceedings could be determined on the papers in chambers after 16 July 2026 and other case management orders.
During the preliminary hearing on 28 May 2026, Lucas appeared via audio-visual link and shared that he appreciates the care Hazel is receiving under the care of Harper and Harry and that while he still disagrees with Hazel’s proposed adoption, he no longer wishes to formally contest these proceedings.
On 23 June 2026, the Secretary filed a further amended summons.
Pursuant to s 61 of the Adoption Act, there is no signed instrument of consent from either Chloe or Lucas in relation to the proposed adoption of Hazel.
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 states 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.
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 parents 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
(c) (Repealed)
(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, Hazel was 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 Hazel, Harper and Harry were 42 and 43 years of age respectively, had been married for 14 years, were residents in New South Wales and were more than 18 years older than Hazel (ss 28(1)(a), 28(3)(a), 28(4) and Dictionary of the Adoption Act).
For reasons more fully explained below, each of Harper and Harry 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 Harper and Harry 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 Report prepared by Riya Mariya Bino in accordance with s 91 of the Adoption Act has been received and read. Ms Bino 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 Hazel was filed on 8 October 2025.
The mandatory written information was provided to Chloe personally on 2 December 2024 and to Lucas on 13 November 2024 (s 59 of the Adoption Act).
Chloe was personally served with notice of the adoption application for Hazel on 22 October 2025 and Lucas was served with notice of the adoption application for Hazel on 6 November 2025. Therefore, each of Chloe and Lucas were provided with at least 14 days’ notice of the adoption application for Hazel (s 88(1) of the Adoption Act).
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 Lucas is the birth father of Hazel.
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 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.
Lucas regards himself as the birth father of Hazel. He has consistently engaged with and referred to Hazel as his daughter during family contact visits and during the preliminary hearing before me on 28 May 2026. Lucas was also identified as the birth father of Hazel on documents filed during the Children’s Court proceedings and he contested those proceedings in that capacity. Although this does not amount to a formally executed “paternity acknowledgement” for the purposes of giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of Hazel being the child of Lucas under s 13 of the Status of Children Act, it is evidence to which I give weight.
Further, in line with the reasoning in “M”, my decision is supported by the following additional evidence:
To establish paternity in respect of Lucas as the birth father of Hazel, the DCJ arranged for a paternity test through DNALabs. The results of the paternity test were received on 1 June 2023, which confirmed that Lucas is the birth father of Hazel with a probability of paternity being 99.999999%.
Lucas does not appear to contest the conclusion of the paternity test.
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 Lucas is the birth father of Hazel.
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 Lucas be included as the birth father of Hazel in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
I am content to make the above order as Hazel deserves to have the name of her birth father acknowledged on her birth certificate and be able to ascertain her identity and origins if she wishes to do so. She should have an accurate life story and be able to access records and information regarding Lucas in the future, particularly medical records.
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 90(1)(b) of the Adoption Act, I must not make an adoption order for Hazel unless I am satisfied that her best interests will be promoted by the adoption, and that, as far as practicable and having regard to her age and understanding, the wishes and feelings of Hazel have been ascertained and duly considered.
I must have regard to the best interests of Hazel, 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.
In determining the best interests of the child, the decision maker is to have regard to the following—
(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 Peter [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 Peter 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].
Hazel is four years old and, in accordance with ss 54(2) and 55 of the Adoption Act, is unable to consent to her own adoption.
Hazel is too young to understand the concept of adoption; however, she refers to Harper and Harry as “Mum” and “Dad” and considers them as her primary caregivers. Harper and Harry intend to discuss the concept of adoption with Hazel in an open, honest and age-appropriate manner once Hazel develops the requisite emotional and intellectual maturity. Harper and Harry maintain a life story book and photo albums for Hazel to assist her in understanding where she has come from and how she has grown up. Harper and Harry have also purchased certain books that they read together to Hazel, explaining how people live in different family units.
Hazel has Australian, Italian, Maltese, Irish and Macedonian heritage. Harper and Harry support Hazel in building her knowledge of her culture through books, traditional foods and conversations in an age-appropriate manner. For example, Hazel loves to have pasta dishes and make her own mini pizzas by putting on the toppings with Harper and Harry. They are also assisting Hazel in learning Italian, and they try to incorporate different Italian phrases in their conversations with Hazel such as “Buongiorno” as their morning greeting. Harper and Harry also intend to foster stronger connections with their Italian and Maltese neighbours so they can guide Hazel in deepening her understanding of her cultural heritage.
Harper and Harry identify activities that Hazel can participate in such as cultural events, and they support Hazel to have regular and positive family visits with Hazel’s family members who share her mixed cultural heritage.
Harper and Harry intend to take Hazel to Italy, Malta and Macedonia in the future to assist Hazel connect with her cultural roots and heritage.
Hazel has been continuously living with Harper and Harry since she was 18 months old. As mentioned, Hazel considers Harper and Harry as her primary caregivers and refers to them as “Mum” and “Dad”.
Hazel met with Chloe three times in 2024, after which Chloe stopped attending family contact visits with Hazel. Lucas has had around 18 family contact visits (in person and via FaceTime calls) with Hazel since 2024. Hazel’s visits with both Chloe and Lucas have been described as largely positive and warm. Hazel refers to Chloe as “Mumma Z” and Lucas as “Pa Pa”.
Collectively, I find that Hazel maintains a positive relationship with her birth parents but has spent a significantly less time with Chloe and relatively more time with Lucas. She is clearly closest to Harper and Harry, with whom she has spent most of her time growing up since she was 18 months old.
Hazel also has regular contact visits with her half maternal sibling, Adrian, and some contact visits with members of her extended maternal and paternal families. Hazel and Adrian share a positive bond and look forward to seeing each other during contact visits.
Harper and Harry have made sincere efforts to meet the emotional needs of Hazel and build her identity and self-confidence. Due to Hazel’s young age, she has not yet asked many questions about her proposed adoption. Nonetheless, Harper and Harry maintain a life story book and photo albums for Hazel and display various photos in Hazel’s bedroom to foster her sense of self-worth and belonging. For example, while playing with her dolls, Hazel would ask Harper to “see baby Hazel” and Harper in response would show Hazel her baby pictures, to which Hazel would respond “I’m cute” and that she is “a big girl now”.
Harper and Harry also make considerable efforts to deepen Hazel’s ties with her birth parents and extended family. For example, Harper and Harry record short videos of Hazel, which she loves participating in, and send it to Hazel’s birth family on special occasions such as birthdays and Christmas. Similarly, Harper and Harry find value in organising regular contact visits with Hazel’s birth family and facilitating video calls with them. Harper and Harry also send regular emails about “all things Hazel” to Hazel’s birth parents and extended family to keep them updated about Hazel’s life and developments.
Harper and Harry have satisfactorily arranged for Hazel’s educational and extracurricular needs to be met. They have also ensured that Hazel’s health needs are adequately met by regularly taking her to her medical and therapy appointments.
Harper and Harry maintain sufficient financial circumstances, maintain a good character and health and have provided Hazel with a comfortable place to live in.
Taking all the above matters into account, I consider Harper and Harry to be suitable and with the appropriate capacity to provide for the physical, emotional and educational needs of Hazel, including fostering her sense of personal, family and cultural identity.
The overall attitudes of Harper and Harry towards Hazel are characterised by love, commitment, warmth and a dedicated approach to Hazel’s care. I am satisfied that Harper and Harry are devoted towards their responsibilities of parenthood and providing Hazel with a nurturing, stable and loving home environment.
In the s 91 Report, Ms Bino observed the following about Harper and Harry’s attitudes towards adoption and their relationship with Hazel:
After careful consideration, the couple elected to pursue permanent care/adoptions. The proposed adoptive parents recognised that while surrogacy could provide them with a child, it would not “address the fact that there are many children already existing who cannot live with biological family and need a home”. The proposed adoptive parents expressed excitement at the prospect of helping a child or children “reach their potential and be part of a loving and safe home”.
It was, according to the proposed adoptive parents an ideal time to pursue permanent care/adoption. They could comfortably accommodate a child within their home and lifestyle, even if this child had additional support needs. The proposed adoptive parents demonstrated a realistic understanding of adoption and expressed confidence in their ability to fulfil the carer role, over time.
During home visits and review meetings, feedback has been sought from the proposed adoptive parents, and they have consistently shared positive views about parenting role. They have worked collaboratively with a range of services, to meet Hazel’s needs, demonstrating commitment to her ongoing care. They have raised no doubts about their ability to provide permanent care for Hazel, pursuing open adoption to formalize this care arrangement.
…
Hazel was placed with the proposed adoptive parents in January 2024 at 18 months of age. Since this time the proposed adoptive parents worked tirelessly to build positive connections with Hazel. Mr Adams took leave from work immediately following the transition, returning after Hazel had settled into the placement. Mrs Day-Adams took extended leave from work to ensure that stability was achieved.
As a result of these efforts, Hazel settled well, developing and maintaining a healthy connection with the proposed adoptive parents. The proposed adoptive parents are both highly attentive to Hazel and attuned to her needs. During home visits, interactions between family members have been observed to be positive. The proposed adoptive parents are affectionate, warm and loving with Hazel. They give Hazel encouragement, praise and talk proudly about her achievements. The proposed adoptive parents also promote Hazel’s feelings of security, by ensuring that she has stable, predictable routine and a quiet, calm home environment.
The proposed adoptive parents have not, at any time, expressed doubts or uncertainty about the proposed adoption. During home visits and review meetings, the proposed adoptive parents talk positively about Hazel and about the parenting role that they fulfil. In a meeting with the proposed adoptive parents on 9 July 2025, both claimed to be “very lucky” to have Hazel in the care, reporting they “love her to bits”.
[Harper]
I wish to adopt Hazel because family is important to me, and I always wanted to be a mother. When I met Hazel for the first time in December 2023, I had this instant connection to her. She was shy, quiet, playful and cuddly. She was perfect. I knew from that first meeting Hazel was our family.
[Harry]
I wish to adopt Hazel because simply I love her to bits. I always wanted to be a father, and from the moment I met her in December of 2023 I was instantly in love with this little girl with a beautiful soul. She deserves everything I can give.
Referees for Harper and Harry describe them as calm, thoughtful, loving, caring, patient, compassionate, consistent, kind, gentle, generous, empathetic, hardworking and considerate with a stable and happy marriage and always ready to support Hazel.
In these circumstances, I consider that Harper and Harry demonstrate a deep sense of responsibility and commitment to Hazel’s wellbeing and development. They prioritise Hazel’s needs, aim to be supportive and loving parents and ensure that Hazel is raised in an environment grounded in stability, empathy and love.
Chloe is not contesting these adoption proceedings, even though she has not signed a formal instrument of consent pursuant to s 61 of the Adoption Act.
Chloe has expressed on numerous occasions to Barnardos caseworkers that adoption is in the best interests of Hazel and that Harper and Harry would provide Hazel with a happy and stable life.
From the evidence before me, I find that Chloe is supportive of Hazel’s proposed adoption by Harper and Harry.
Lucas is a named defendant and is formally contesting these adoption proceedings.
On 26 November 2024, Lucas said the following to a Barnardos caseworker about his views towards Hazel’s proposed adoption:
I am fully against it...they told me that they would not do adoptions for at least 3 years .... .
I told them at court that I was not ready, but to give me a chance and I will go for custody later…they told me that I had 3 years…I still have some shit to sort out...I need everyone to wait.
I have no problem with Harper and Harry…they do an amazing job…I just don’t like the whole idea of adoption. I want to get her back and with adoption, that is out of the question. Adoption stops me from getting her back.
…I just wanted it on record everything I’ve done, you know what I mean. I didn’t want it looking like I’ve just sat here and given up, like, I’ve been the first here, I’ve gone and got medication, I’ve gone and got mental health assessments, I’ve gone and got re diagnoses, I got all my diagnoses reassessed, I’m still in the process of getting all my diagnoses reassessed for my mental health. I went and done parenting courses, I went and done Safer Futures which is a domestic violence course and family violence, and all that, to teach you how not to do, like, how to deal with your emotions and stuff better.
I’ve done all these different I just wanted it on record that I didn’t give up on her, I tried. No matter what your decision is today, I tried, that’s all I wanted on there.
Like, I love Harper and Harry and the way they look after my daughter is impeccable, you could not expect any better, like, it is impeccable, and, like, to be honest, judge, I am not ready, I am still not ready. So I just wanted it there that, you know, I’ve done courses, I went and done parenting courses through the local DCJ office, I went and done so much stuff since I found out about this girl to try and better myself, I just wanted that there. So when she’s older, she can look at it and go, okay, dad done this, dad done that, and it was all for her, every bit of it was for her. If it weren’t for her, I would have given up ages ago, I’d still be sitting in a cell.
Mainly, like, that’s how it is but I’ve got a daughter, I’ve got her, I’ve got reasons to do better now, and she’s my reason. The camera is not even facing me. She’s my reason, you know, and I wanted it just there so when she sees the paperwork, when she sees everything, she knows I fought and I know that I got up and at least had my say, I got to get up and say I done better, I’ve bettered myself, you know, I’ve tried. I’m still nowhere near better than Harper and Harry, I’m not a better option than Harper and Harry. Like I said, I can’t agree to it just because of personal things, but I’m not contesting it.
…
… All I wanted to say is I agree with everything Harper and Harry said too about her [Hazel] coming out of her shell and her doing so much better. Like I said, the way those two [Harper and Harry] have … [parented] that girl is impeccable, like, you cannot fault her, and you can tell it in the visits, you can tell it in the messages, in her schooling, in everything you can tell that they are doing an amazing job with her, they are doing great, yeah. So I just wanted to say that and say thank you to Harper and Harry for the way they are looking after her and taking care of her.
Like I said, I do not oppose, like, formally, I have no problem with Hazel going to Harper and Harry. Me being completely honest, they’re the two best people I’ve ever met for her to go to.
I commend Lucas for these remarks. It is clear to me that Lucas has made efforts to improve his life for Hazel and that he cares for Hazel. Lucas appears to understand and appreciate that Harper and Harry are providing high-quality care to Hazel and that she receives the love and stability she deserves under their care.
Lucas also clarified at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing on 28 May 2026 that while he still wishes to remain a defendant in these proceedings, he no longer opposes Hazel’s proposed adoption. He came to this position because he feels that if he formally executes an instrument of consent pursuant to s 61 of the Adoption Act, he would “give up” on Hazel. Lucas’s feelings are understandable; however, as Lucas himself accepted, Hazel’s best interests would be secured by her being adopted by Harper and Harry. Hazel’s adoption would not mean that Lucas “gave her up”, but only that her safety and prosperity would be better achieved under the care of Harper and Harry.
As previously outlined in detail, there is a concerning child protection history for Hazel under the care of Chloe and Lucas.
Since Hazel was removed from Chloe and Lucas, I note that each of them has made attempts to improve their lives, personal circumstances and their mental health. However, both Chloe and Lucas are not yet in a place to provide a safe and nourishing environment in which Hazel can grow and thrive. If Hazel is restored to their care, there remains a very real possibility that Hazel 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 Harper and Harry are able to provide a safe, stable and nurturing environment that supports Hazel’s physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing. Hazel has been physically, mentally and emotionally well in the care of Harper and Harry, and no concerns about Hazel’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 Hazel, compared with any other legal measure that could be taken in relation to her 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 for Hazel are:
an order allocating parental responsibility of Hazel to either or both of Chloe and Lucas pursuant to s 92 of the Adoption Act (also commonly known as restoration);
make no order and maintain the status quo, which is that Hazel remains under the parental responsibility of the Minister until she reaches the age of 18; or
an order allocating parental responsibility of Hazel to Harper and Harry, 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 Hazel.
In the s 91 Report, Ms Bino noted the following about why adoption is clearly preferable in the best interests of Hazel and why maintaining the status quo or making a guardianship order are not in the best interests of Hazel:
The proposed adoptive parents have demonstrated capacity to independently meet Hazel’s needs and prioritise her care. As a result of their efforts, Hazel is thriving in this placement. It is the proposed adoptive parents’ goal, to pursue adoption. The couple hold the view that adoption is in Hazel’s best interest. I share this view. Adoption will promote Hazel’s sense of permanency, stability and legal security, vital for her ongoing development.
Permanent care or guardianship would not provide Hazel with the security of an adoption order. This is the only order that provides permanency beyond the age of eighteen years. Once an adoption order has been made, the care arrangement is legally formalised. With permanent care or guardianship, however, an order can be rescinded or varied if birth family pursue a S90 application. There is, therefore, a degree of uncertainty with these orders.
Open adoption, however, provides certainty and Hazel will have the opportunity to build and maintain lifelong connections with her caregivers and the proposed adoptive parents will be recognised as Hazel’s legal parents and be responsible for decision-making and all aspects of her care. Hazel will become a full member of the Day-Adams family. For these reasons, I believe open adoption to be the preferred order for Hazel.
It is clear from the evidence before me that Chloe and Lucas are unable to provide care for Hazel. Restoration of Hazel to the care of Chloe and Lucas is neither realistically possible nor in the best interests of Hazel.
Making no order and maintaining the status quo of Hazel, which is that Hazel would remain under the parental responsibility of the Minister until she reaches 18 years of age, would be highly detrimental to her. It would cause ongoing stress of instability, insecurity and uncertainty regarding Hazel’s life and care with Harper and Harry. Additionally, maintaining the status quo would also mean that Hazel would remain a ward of the state until she attains the age of 18 years and that Harper and Harry would be unable to make significant decisions in regard to her without the approval of the Minister’s delegate.
If I were to maintain the status quo and make no order, this would mean that Harper and Harry would not be legally recognised as parents to Hazel, despite Harper and Harry diligently fulfilling their duties as parents. It would also place additional pressures on Hazel’s placement, owing to the need for Harper and Harry to seek consents and approvals regarding decisions about Hazel on an ongoing basis. An adoption order has the advantages of certainty and permanency. Making no order risks that Hazel may experience insecurity, uncertainty and ongoing trauma, or at least internal disquiet, arising, for instance, from the fact that Hazel would continue to be the foster-child of Harper and Harry rather than their child, at least so far as the law is concerned. Hazel is deserving of a more certain outcome.
The same can be said for an order allocating long-term parental responsibility of Hazel to Harper and Harry 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 Hazel attains 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 Hazel and her care.
I also give weight to the views of each of Harper and Harry on why an adoption order in their favour would be the best outcome for Hazel:
[Harper]
I believe that an adoption order is in Hazel’s best interest and is the preferred order above any other as Hazel has been in care since birth. Prior to being placed with us, she was placed with three different foster carers, that’s a lot of instability for such a young child. Orders for Parental Responsibility or Guardianship won’t give Hazel a sense of security or stability as a section 90 can be applied for by birth family at any point until she turns 18, which could also create feelings of uncertainty for Hazel as she gets older and these orders do not provide a sense of belonging and Hazel won’t have the same surname as our family and she will not have permanency into her teenage years and beyond as these orders cease at 18 years of age. Therefore, I believe an adoption order is in Hazel’s bests interests as Hazel will thrive if adopted, and grow into a happy, grounded, caring and independent adult.
[Harry]
I believe that an adoption order is in Hazel’s best interest and is the preferred order above any other because it will give her permanent stability, a sense of belonging beyond what people can tell you, and because it provides us ultimate responsibility in Hazel’s development as she grows up. It also means that Hazel will grow up knowing we have committed to her forever and that this process we are doing is for her.
In Hazel’s case I do not believe that Parental Responsibility order is in Hazel’s best interest as it removes our ability to make decisions for Hazel’s upbringing without permission from DCJ and/or Barnardos. It also provides uncertainty that a Section 90 could be implemented which is also a constant fear for myself that this beautiful little girl could be taken away….
As with Parental Responsibility, a Guardianship order again falls short of what is best for Hazel which is having legal lifelong parents. While the decision making for Hazel’s upbringing is addressed compared to Parental Responsibility, a Guardianship order still does not have the stability of an Adoption order with a Section 90 still hanging over our heads. We also want Hazel to be part of our family forever and not have her feel like there is a time limit until she is 18 hanging in the air, this is why I feel an adoption order is in Hazel’s best interests.
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.
As indicated, Chloe does not oppose these proceedings and while Lucas remains a named defendant in these proceedings, he has now indicated that he is content with the care Hazel is receiving from Harper and Harry. Despite this, both Chloe and Lucas have not executed a signed instrument of consent.
I am satisfied that Chloe was personally served with notice of the adoption application for Hazel on 22 October 2025 and Lucas was served with notice of the adoption application for Hazel on 6 November 2025. Therefore, each of Chloe and Lucas has been provided with at least 14 days’ notice of the adoption application for Hazel (s 88(1) of the Adoption Act).
Hazel is under the age of 12 and is therefore unable to provide sole consent to her own adoption.
Accordingly, if an adoption order is to be made in relation to Hazel, it will be necessary for me to dispense with the consent of each of Chloe and Lucas.
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 Hazel has established a stable relationship with Harper and Harry as her authorised carers and that the adoption of Hazel by Harper and Harry will promote her welfare.
I am satisfied as to these matters. Hazel has continuously lived with Harper and Harry since 10 January 2024, when Hazel was about 18 months old. Hazel is secure and comfortable in the care of Harper and Harry and shares a strong and affectionate relationship with them and their family. Hazel is thriving in the care of Harper and Harry, who provide her a stable, nurturing and supportive environment that meets her 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 Hazel that I override any formal opposition expressed by Chloe and Lucas to Hazel’s proposed adoption. Each of Chloe and Lucas have already expressed that the welfare of Hazel is best secured by Hazel’s adoption by Harper and Harry.
Having regard to the whole of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that formally dispensing with the consent of each of Chloe and Lucas to enable the making of an adoption order in favour of Harper and Harry is in the best interests of Hazel.
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 name of Hazel without first considering her express wishes and any factors (such as her 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 name of Hazel unless I am satisfied that the name change is in her best interests.
The Secretary seeks the approval of the name “Day-Adams” as the surname and “Hazel Ava Olivia” as the given names for the child.
The Secretary submits that the proposed name change will maintain Hazel’s given name and identity, whilst reflecting her inclusion in the family of Harper and Harry. The proposed given names will allow Hazel to have an ongoing connection to her birth family, life story and identity. The proposed surname will reflect the strong relationship that Harper and Harry share with Hazel and their desire to recognise Hazel as part of their family for life.
Hazel has not expressed any particular wishes in relation to her proposed name change as she is only four years old.
In the s 91 Reports, Ms Bino stated:
Should an adoption order be made, it is the proposed adoptive parents wish, to proceed with a change of name. The name they have proposed is “Hazel Ava Olivia Day-Adams[”], preserving the names given by Ms Finau will legally recognise the existing parent-child relationship if an adoption order is made. Changing the surname, however, will identify Hazel as a member of the proposed adoptive parents’ family, promoting her sense of security and belonging within this family network.
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 is a maternal adoption plan and a paternal adoption plan prepared in these proceedings in accordance with the requirements in s 46 of the Adoption Act.
A maternal adoption plan for Hazel was signed by Harper and Harry on 14 October 2025, by Ms Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 16 October 2025 and by Chloe on 3 October 2025.
In summary, the maternal adoption plan for Hazel provides as follows:
Chloe: Face-to-face supervised family contact visits with Chloe are to occur at least six times per year for a minimum of one hour on dates to be agreed between Harper, Harry and Chloe at the beginning of each year at a venue to be agreed. Hazel may use telephone or other electronic communication to contact Chloe based on the needs and wishes of Hazel.
Half maternal sibling, Adrian: Face-to-face family contact is to occur at least six times a year for a minimum of two hours and an additional six video calls a year, with these to occur around birthdays and celebratory events like Christmas. These family contact visits are to be combined with Hazel’s visits with her extended maternal family. Harper and Harry are supportive of ongoing electronic communication between Adrian and Hazel in the form of emails, telephone calls and FaceTime calls.
Other maternal extended family: The specific details of any face-to-face family time between Hazel and her extended family members (such as timeframes and venue) will be negotiated directly between Harper and Harry and the respective maternal family members. These visits will be supervised by Harper and Harry and, where possible, will occur in conjunction with the family contact visits with Adrian. Harper and Harry are supportive of ongoing electronic communication between the extended maternal family and Hazel in the form of emails, telephone calls and FaceTime calls.
In accordance with s 90(2) of the Adoption Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in the maternal adoption plan are in the best interests of Hazel and are proper in the circumstances. The maternal adoption plan should be registered pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act.
A paternal adoption plan for Hazel was signed by Harper and Harry on 19 June 2026 and signed by Ms Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 22 June 2026. Lucas has not signed or agreed to the paternal adoption plan.
In summary, the paternal adoption plan for Hazel provides as follows:
Lucas: Face-to-face family contact visits are to occur six times a year for a minimum of two hours and an additional six video calls a year, with these to occur around birthdays and celebratory events like Christmas. A schedule of visits for the upcoming six months will be prepared by Harper and Harry and sent to Lucas for his views in December and June each year. If Lucas moves closer to Hazel (within a 30-kilometre radius) then additional face-to-face visits (in lieu of video calls) could be considered, subject to Hazel’s needs and wishes. If Lucas fails to attend a contact visit, he will forfeit that visit. If Lucas is incarcerated, face-to-face contact and video calls will not occur and will resume once Lucas has been released. While Lucas is incarcerated, Harper and Harry will continue to provide Lucas with written updates and he may send letters to Hazel. Hazel may use telephone or other electronic communication to contact Lucas based on the needs and wishes of Hazel.
Other paternal extended family: Face-to-face family contact visits are to occur three times a year for a minimum of two hours. The specific details of any face-to-face family time between Hazel and the extended family members (such as timeframes and venue) will be negotiated directly by Harper and Harry and the respective paternal family members. Hazel may use telephone or other electronic communication to contact the extended paternal family based on the needs and wishes of Hazel.
Paternal half-siblings, Emma and John: Hazel has never met Emma and John. If it becomes feasible for family contact visits to occur in the future, Harper and Harry will support Hazel with this.
In accordance with s 90(2) of the Adoption Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in the paternal adoption plan are in the best interests of Hazel and are proper in the circumstances. The paternal adoption plan should be registered pursuant to ss 50(1) and 40(3) of the Adoption Act.
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 Hazel Ava Olivia Finau be adopted by adopting parents Harper Lily Day-Adams and Harry James Adams.
Declare pursuant to s 21(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) that Lucas Daniel Vella is the birth father of Hazel Ava Olivia Finau.
Order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) that Lucas Daniel Vella be included as the birth father of Hazel Ava Olivia Finau in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Order pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the requirement for the consent of the birth mother, Chloe Evelyn Finau, to the adoption of Hazel Ava Olivia Finau 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, Lucas Daniel Vella, to the adoption of Hazel Ava Olivia Finau is dispensed with.
Order pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) for the approval of the name “Day-Adams” as the surname and “Hazel Ava Olivia” 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 by Harper Lily Day-Adams and Harry James Adams on 14 October 2025, by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 16 October 2025 and by Chloe Evelyn Finau on 3 October 2025, a copy of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “A”, and find this maternal adoption plan to be in the best interests of Hazel Ava Olivia Finau and proper in the circumstances.
It is noted that the court is satisfied by the arrangements proposed in the paternal adoption plan signed by Harper Lily Day-Adams and Harry James Adams on 19 June 2026 and by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 22 June 2026, a copy of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “B”, and find this paternal adoption plan to be in the best interests of Hazel Ava Olivia Finau and proper in the circumstances.
Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the maternal adoption plan signed by Harper Lily Day-Adams and Harry James Adams on 14 October 2025, by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 16 October 2025 and by Chloe Evelyn Finau on 3 October 2025, a copy of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “A”, be registered.
Order pursuant to ss 50(1) and 50(3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) that the paternal adoption plan signed by Harper Lily Day-Adams and Harry James Adams on 19 June 2026 and by Olivia Rennie, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia on 22 June 2026, a copy of which will be annexed to these orders and marked “B”, be registered.
**********