//
[2025] NSWSC 1242
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-10-22
McGrath J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: The Adoption of Matthew Bell [2025] NSWSC 1242
Hearing dates: 2 October 2025
Date of orders: 22 October 2025
Decision date: 22 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: McGrath J
Decision: Orders for adoption made, consent of birth parents dispensed with, change of name approved and adoption plans approved and registered
Catchwords: CHILD WELFARE — Adoption — where proposed adoptive parents are child’s current foster parents —whether adoption order is in child’s best interests — whether birth parents’ consent should be dispensed with — whether change of name should be approved — whether adoption plans are in the best interests of child and proper in the circumstances — HELD — adoption order is clearly preferable and in child’s best interests — consent dispense order is in the best interests of child — change of name approved — adoption plans are in the best interests of child and proper in the circumstances — adoption plans registered
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
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), ss 43, 90
Adoption Regulation 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited: A Child Proposed for Adoption [2019] NSWSC 1653
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
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
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (Plaintiff)
J Shirley by her Guardian ad Litem, S Sloane (First Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
R D Turnbull (Plaintiff)
S Leis (First Defendant)
V Taylor (Legal Representative for Matthew Bell)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Rafton Family Lawyers (First Defendant)
File Number(s): 2024/00131143
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
This case concerns an application by summons filed 25 March 2024 by the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) by their delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia, seeking that Matthew Bell (now 9 years of age) be adopted by the proposed adoptive parents, Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis, by order of this court pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (Act).
The Secretary also seeks orders:
dispensing with the consent of the birth parents, Jane Shirley and Thomas Bell;
approving the name “Gillis” as the surname and “Matthew Eagle” as the given names of the child;
registering the maternal adoption plan; and
registering the paternal adoption plan.
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 this published version of the judgment, all persons referred to have been assigned pseudonyms in keeping with s 180 of the Act.
The central issue I am required to decide is whether an adoption order is in the best interests of Matthew.
The adoption orders sought in the present case are in favour of his long-term foster parents, Anne and Charlie, with whom Matthew has been living for a continuous period of over three and a half years.
For the reasons set out below, I have determined to order that Matthew be adopted by both Anne and Charlie; make an order dispensing with the consent of both Jane and Thomas; approve the proposed change of name for Matthew; and register the maternal and paternal adoption plans.
Matthew was born on 16 August 2016 in New South Wales. Matthew is the only child of the relationship of Jane and Thomas. Matthew is an Australian citizen.
Matthew is a bright, bubbly and kind boy who enjoys playing Uno and building and displaying Lego. Matthew has been described as an “absolutely delightful little boy” with a “kind, caring soul”.
Matthew is a Joey Scout and has pride in wearing his uniform each week as he participates in a range of activities including canoeing, rock climbing, swimming, orienteering, bush walking, cooking and planting seedlings. He attends Joey Scouts with Charlie and Charlie’s son, Jim.
Matthew is currently in Year 2 at a Catholic school. Matthew’s teachers have described him as being full of smiles every day, confidently putting his hand up when he knows an answer, playing happily with other children and doing exceptionally well. He is also described as lovely, polite and inquisitive. Matthew appears to be excelling in Mathematics and English.
Matthew has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (level 3 social communication and level 2 restrictive/repetitive behaviours), global developmental delay (GDD), childhood attachment and childhood trauma issues and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He has severely delayed receptive and expressive language skills and sometimes has difficulty regulating his emotions. On 31 October 2024, Matthew’s paediatrician noted that Matthew has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) inattentive subtype. Matthew was previously taking Ritalin daily and is now taking Vyvanse. He has made improvements through consistent engagement with various therapists, including with weekly speech and occupational therapy and monthly visits to a psychologist.
Since 21 October 2020, Matthew’s care requirements have been funded under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
Overall, Matthew is in good physical health and has his health reviewed regularly.
Although Matthew’s age and ASD diagnosis limit his ability to understand adoption, Matthew has stated that “I don’t want to live anywhere else, I just want to stay here forever and ever”, “the judge will make me a Gillis forever and ever and ever” and “I’m Matthew Eagle Gillis”. After contact visits, Matthew has also asked Charlie why the adoption is “taking so long”.
Anne was born on 1 March 1984 in New South Wales and is currently 41 years old. Anne is an Australian citizen. Anne completed a Bachelor of Teaching/Bachelor of Arts and her current occupation is home duties.
Charlie was born on 24 May 1973 in New South Wales and is currently 52 years old. Charlie is an Australian citizen. Charlie is employed as a Practice Manager at a medical practice in New South Wales.
Anne and Charlie have been married since September 2005. Anne and Charlie are of Australian heritage and identify with the Catholic faith, attending church services regularly. Both Anne and Charlie are in good physical health. Anne and Charlie currently reside together in their jointly owned home in New South Wales. Their house comprises seven bedrooms, three living areas, kitchen, dining room, laundry and outdoor amenities including a pool, trampoline and sandpit.
In their home, Anne, Charlie and Matthew reside with:
Paul Gillis (born 17 October 2010, now 15 years old, biological child);
Gilbert Gillis (born 19 December 2013, now 11 years old, biological child);
Jim Gillis (born 10 May 2016, now 9 years old, adopted on 3 October 2018);
Walter Gillis (born 4 October 2022, now 3 years old, biological child);
Diana Gillis (born 21 July 2025, now 3 months old, biological child);
Ruby Cuthbert (born 16 February 2012, now 13 years old, foster child residing in initial 12-month placement); and
Rachel Blythe (born 30 January 2020, now 5 years old, foster child residing in permanent placement with Anne and Charlie, Jim’s full sibling).
Anne and Charlie are authorised carers who have had the care and responsibility for Matthew under out of home care arrangements pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (Care Act) since 9 February 2022. Matthew was 5 years and 5 months old at the time of placement.
Thomas was born on 13 November 1962 and currently resides in New South Wales with his current partner, Josie Barry. He has Australian heritage and refers to himself as a “cultural Christian”.
Thomas has three children from previous relationships:
Charlotte Bell (born 3 April 1998, now 27 years old);
Leslie Bell (born 28 July 2012, now 13 years old); and
Cornelia Bell (born 14 March 2015, now 10 years old).
Charlotte resides with her birth mother, Rilla MacPherson, in New South Wales. Leslie and Cornelia reside with Thomas and their birth mother, Lu, in New South Wales.
Thomas has no child protection history. However, DCJ records indicate he has a significant police history for human trafficking and enabling prostitution.
Thomas has expressed being supportive of Matthew’s adoption by the proposed adoptive parents and has expressed his desire to provide formal consent to his adoption. No formal consent has been given. To date, Thomas has been difficult to contact to organise registered counselling and has not engaged with Barnardos.
Jane was born on 4 September 1991 and lives in New South Wales. Jane has Vietnamese heritage and follows the Buddhist faith.
Jane is opposed to Matthew’s adoption.
Between 19 August 2016 and 20 February 2020, the DJC received 13 risk of significant harm (ROSH) reports and 11 non-ROSH reports in relation to Matthew. The concerns raised by these reports included: risk of significant neglect for Matthew with parental risk factor of domestic violence, serious illness or developmental delay due to neglect with concerns that Matthew is failing to thrive, inadequate basic care for Matthew including hazardous living conditions, risk of significant neglect with parental risk factor of mental health for Jane, inadequate basic care, food and nutrition, and medical/mental neglect for Matthew.
On 16 July 2019, DCJ caseworkers met with Jane to complete a safety assessment. Following completion of the safety assessment, the DCJ held concerns that Jane’s alternative belief system based on the Lunar Calendar was impacting her ability to meet Matthew’s developmental needs. The DCJ was also concerned about Matthew’s limited interaction with others and Jane’s limited verbal interaction with Matthew, both of which were impacting his ability to build relationships, interact with other children and meet his developmental milestones.
The DCJ attempted to work with Jane, including by developing a safety plan with Jane and a women’s refuge (where Jane and Matthew had been staying since January 2018) and referring Jane to the Benevolent Society Resilient Families program and Brighter Futures program. However, despite these supports, Jane was unable to support Matthew’s wellbeing, safety and development.
The DCJ were also concerned that, although Thomas understood Matthew’s needs, experiences and DCJ’s concerns around his safety, Thomas was not willing to take an active role in addressing these concerns.
On 20 May 2020, Matthew was assumed into care pursuant to s 43(1) of the Care Act due to concerns held by the DCJ that Matthew was not receiving adequate care from Jane or Thomas in order to support him to reach his full potential physically, emotionally and developmentally. Matthew was placed with Barnardos temporary foster carers in a temporary placement, where he remained until 5 September 2021.
On 6 September 2021, Matthew was placed with Barnardos permanent foster carers, Davy Lynde and Marilla Lynde. In February 2022, Davy and Marilla expressed that due to the incompatibility of Matthew and their adopted son, Jem, and the stress that Matthew’s additional needs were placing on their family, they wished to end the placement.
Due to Matthew’s ASD diagnosis, Barnardos was unable to find a permanent carer to care for Matthew. Barnardos then looked for a short-term crisis care placement. Anne and Charlie were approached and agreed to care for Matthew.
On 9 February 2022, Matthew was placed with Anne and Charlie on a short-term basis. Shortly after Matthew was placed with them, Anne and Charlie expressed their interest in caring for Matthew permanently, with a view to adoption.
On 25 May 2020, the DCJ filed an application initiating care proceedings in the Children**’s Court of New South Wales in relation to Matthew (Children’**s Court proceedings). Jane and Thomas participated in the Children’s Court proceedings.
On 28 May 2020, an interim order was made placing all aspects of parental responsibility for Matthew to the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services until further order.
On 12 June 2020, the DCJ filed a summary of the proposed plan in relation to Matthew. This document outlined various changes required to be made by the birth parents in order for the DCJ to consider restoring Matthew to their care.
During the Children’s Court proceedings, Jane and Thomas were unable to identify family members who they wished to care for Matthew. Thomas identified a family friend and carer of his paternal uncle, Faith Andrews, to care for Matthew permanently. However, Faith advised Barnardos she was not in a position to care for Matthew permanently. The DCJ also noted that Faith did not wish to have contact with Jane. Jane suggested her parents in Vietnam to care for Matthew. However, no information is held by Barnardos as to the DCJ’s attempts to assess maternal family for suitability to care for Matthew.
On 23 October 2020, the DCJ filed a Care Plan in relation to Matthew in the Children’s Court. The Care Plan stated there was no realistic possibility of restoring Matthew to the care of either Jane or Thomas.
On 13 May 2021, the Children’s Court made final orders allocating parental allocating to the Minister in relation to Matthew until he reaches 18 years of age. These orders remain in effect.
On 25 March 2024, the Secretary filed the summons seeking adoption orders for Matthew.
On 23 April 2024, Jane and Thomas were each personally served with documents, including a notice of application for adoption order, a copy of the maternal/paternal adoption plan and a leaflet from Legal Aid on court proceedings concerning adoption.
On 5 June 2024, Jane was joined as the defendant to these proceedings pursuant to s 118 of the Act.
On 5 December 2024, Stevenson J ordered that Virginia Taylor be appointed as legal representative for Matthew pursuant to s 122 of the Act.
On 21 October 2024, Stevenson J made orders for a guardian ad litem to represent Jane’s interests in these proceedings pursuant to s 124 of the Act. The appointed guardian ad litem is Jim Sloane.
Thomas did not appear or participate in these proceedings. Thomas has indicated that he approves of Matthew’s placement with Anne and Charlie, but he has not signed a formal instrument of consent.
On 2 October 2025, the final hearing of these proceedings was held before me. Thomas did not appear at the hearing. Ross Turnbull appeared for the Secretary instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office, Virginia Taylor appeared as Matthew’s legal representative and Susan Leis appeared for Mr Sloane, the appointed guardian ad litem for Jane.
No oral evidence was given at the final hearing. Mr Turnbull relied on his written submissions. Ms Taylor made oral submissions, the substance of which were that Jane contested the adoption, believing that it was not in Matthew’s best interests and hoping that Matthew would be restored to her care at some later time.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my judgment.
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 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 Act requires that both members of the couple be:
resident or domiciled in New South Wales (s 28(1)(a)), and have lived together continuously for a period of at least two years immediately prior to the adoption application (s 28(4));
of good repute and fit and proper persons to fulfil the responsibilities of parents (s 28(1)(b)); and
21 or more years of age and at least 18 years older than the child (s 28(3)).
Section 90(1)(c) of the Act requires that proposed adoptive parents must also be selected in accordance with the Act. Section 45F of the Act requires proposed adoptive parents to be assessed and determined to be suitable to adopt.
Section 59 of the 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 consent to the adoption.
Section 87 of the 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 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 Act.
Section 91 of the 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 Act are met. Specifically:
The adoption application is made by the Secretary on behalf of the proposed adoptive parents (s 87 of the Act).
When the adoption application was filed, Matthew was present in New South Wales and less than 18 years of age (ss 23(2)(a) and 24(1)(a) of the Act).
When the application was filed, both Anne and Charlie resided and were domiciled in New South Wales (ss 23(2)(b) and 28(1)(a) of the Act).
Anne and Charlie have been in a relationship and have been living together continuously since June 2019 (s 28(3) of the Act).
Anne and Charlie are over the age of 21 years, and each is 18 years or more older than Matthew (s 28(4) of the Act).
For reasons more fully explained below, both Anne and Charlie are of good repute and fit and proper persons to fulfil the responsibilities of parents (s 28(1)(b) of the Act).
Each of Anne and Charlie have been assessed and determined to be suitable to adopt and selected to adopt (ss 45F and 90(1)(c) of the Act).
A written report prepared by Megan Lee Allomes in accordance with s 91 of the Act has been received and read (s 91 Report). Ms Allomes provided the s 91 Report in her capacity as an “approved assessor” within the meaning of s 91(2A)(a) of the Act. The s 91 Report was filed on 25 March 2024.
The mandatory written information was provided to Jane on 12 December 2022 and to Thomas on 1 November 2022 (s 59 of the Act).
Each of Jane and Thomas has been provided with at least 14 days’ notice of the adoption application (s 88 of the Act).
I am satisfied that all of the formal requirements of an adoption application have been met.
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 adoption order should 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.
Note—
Other action that could be taken in relation to a child includes a parenting order under the Family Law Act 1975 of the Commonwealth or a care order under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. Part 1 of Chapter 4 describes the persons who may be adopted and the persons who may adopt.
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 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) 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 Act, I must not make an adoption order for Matthew unless I am satisfied that his best interests will be promoted by the adoption; and that, as far as practicable and having regard to his age and understanding, the wishes and feelings of Matthew have been ascertained and duly considered.
I must have regard to Matthew’s best interests, both in youth and later life, this being the paramount consideration as stated in s 8(1)(a) of the 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 Act) and that no adult is entitled as of right to adopt the child (s 8(1)(c) of the Act).
In determining the best interests of a child, I must have regard to the matters contained in s 8(2) of the Act, including:
any wishes expressed by the child;
the child’s age, maturity, level of understanding, gender, background and family relationships and any other relevant characteristics of the child;
the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs, including the child’s sense of personal, family and cultural identity;
any wishes expressed by either or both of the parents of the child;
the relationship that the child has with his or her parents and any siblings (if any) and any significant other people (including relatives);
the attitude of each proposed adoptive parent to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood;
the nature of the relationship of the child with each proposed adoptive parent;
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;
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; and
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.
Fundamental considerations in matters of this kind, the presence or absence of which underlie many of the above-listed matters, is a child’s need for a sense of identity, autonomy, security and belonging. These are complex and core psychological needs of humanity and it has been recognised in this court that any perceived absence or precariousness in this regard can have ongoing consequences for a child in care. The notion of providing a child in care with a sense of security as soon as possible to aid their development in the future was well-described in Re the Adoption of AJH [2017] NSWSC 1751, by Hallen J at [297]–[299] as follows:
[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 Act that the making of the 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, Nicholls LJ (with whom Mackay, Hoffmann, Millett and Rodger LLJ agreed) at [16], cited with approval in Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369, Hallen J at [90].
Matthew has repeatedly and consistently expressed that it is his wish to be adopted by Anne and Charlie (whom he refers to as “mum” and “dad”) and to become a “Gillis”. He has stated to Ms Allomes that “the judge will make me a Gillis forever and ever” and, on numerous occasions, “I don’t want to live anywhere else, I just want to stay [with Anne and Charlie] forever and ever”. Matthew has also expressed eagerness for the adoption to be finalised.
If an adoption order is to be made, Matthew has requested his given names to be “Matthew Eagle” and his surname to be “Gillis”. He has chosen “Eagle” as his proposed middle name to symbolise him soaring to greater heights in the Gillis family. Matthew has proudly exclaimed “I am Matthew Eagle Gillis” and told Ms Allomes that “Bell” was his “old name”.
Matthew’s wishes were confirmed by the submissions made at the final hearing that Matthew clearly “wishes to remain in the [Gillis] family and feel a sense of belonging”.
Matthew is nine years old and, in accordance with ss 54(2) and 55 of the Act, is unable to consent to his own adoption. Consequently, if an adoption order is to be made, it will be necessary for me to dispense with the consent of each of Jane and Thomas pursuant to s 67(1) of the Act, an issue I have addressed below.
Notwithstanding his age and diagnoses, I have given particular weight to Matthew’s wishes. Although Matthew’s ASD diagnosis may limit the extent of his understanding, the evidence indicates that his views are clear and consistent.
Matthew demonstrates an age-appropriate understanding of adoption and its effect. It was submitted that he “has a strong grasp of the concept of adoption and the effect of an adoption order”. Matthew is able to speak about his adoption “with confidence and enthusiasm” and considers himself part of the Gillis family.
Matthew enjoys a close bond with the extended family of Anne and Charlie and has expressed desire to be a farmer like Anne’s brother, who he spends time with during school holidays.
Matthew describes his foster siblings as his “best friends” and proudly took photos to school to show everyone his “new sister” following the arrival of Diana in July 2025. The letters of January 2023 from each of Paul, Gilbert and Jim demonstrate the mutual affection among the siblings and their shared wish for Matthew to remain in the family.
In his letter, Paul stated:
When mum and dad told me about Matthew I straight away said yes I could already tell we were all going to love him. We want Matthew to stay with us forever too, he needs a family that will love him, keep him safe and teach him everything he needs to know.
All we need now is the Judge to say that Matthew and Rachel are officially Gillis’ so the whole world can know that they are my siblings even though I already know.
I want Matthew to stay with us forever because he needs to have brothers that are nice to him and can teach him lots of things. We are all a family and that is Matthew and Rachel as well.
I want Matthew to stay with us because we like to play together and are learning to play chess.
Matthew has experienced difficulty regulating his emotions and demonstrated some adverse behaviours following family contact visits with Jane and Thomas.
Matthew’s treating psychologist, Dr Moody Allan, reported that Matthew experiences extreme anxiety in connection with family visits. Matthew has said that he does not wish to see his birth parents but is fearful of the consequences if he were to tell them so, stating that he would be “locked in a cupboard and they would take the key”. Matthew has stated that “I do not like the visits at the park with Jane and Thomas, I want to do less visits … I love the park, I just want to go to the park with no visitors ... because they hurt my feelings”.
Dr Allan observed that Matthew’s overall functioning regresses significantly following contact visits. He becomes constipated, complains of stomach pain from anxiety, experiences disturbed sleep, and exhibits increased clinginess towards the proposed adoptive parents, distractibility and destructive behaviours. These behaviours persist for up to two weeks after each visit. Dr Allan opined that face-to-face visits are “extremely anxiety-provoking, damaging [Matthew’s] self-esteem and mental health, as well as his interactions and functioning at home and school” and that “Matthew experiences significant distress when required to meet with or video call his biological parents”.
Following recommendations from Dr Allan, visits with Jane and Thomas were reduced to bi-monthly in November 2022.
Jane does not interact with Matthew in a manner that is consistently positive for him, and this has adversely impacted his relationship with her. Jane has expressed concerns about Matthew’s diet and hygiene, which she has raised directly with him during visits. Matthew has indicated these interactions do not make him feel good. During the “Three Islands” activity, Matthew placed Jane on the “Island of Far Away”, reflecting his sense of distance and discomfort in their relationship. Matthew refers to his birth mother as “Jane”.
Matthew has a mostly positive relationship with Thomas. A contact report from 6 April 2025 recorded that Matthew “initiated a hug [with Thomas] and was seen smiling while greeting him”. While Thomas can be unreliable in his attendance at contact visits, Matthew recognises him as a parental figure, as reflected in the “Three Islands” activity completed in January 2025, in which Matthew placed “other dad (Thomas)” on the “Island of Sometimes”. Matthew refers to his birth father as “Thomas”.
Matthew has met his paternal siblings, Charlotte, Leslie and Cornelia, although he does not regularly have family time visits with them. The Care Plan did not make any recommendations for contact between Matthew and his paternal siblings.
Matthew’s most secure and loving relationships are with Anne, Charlie and their children. Matthew enjoys a close and affectionate relationship with Anne and Charlie and their children, who he refers to as “mum” and “dad” and considers part of his family. Anne and Charlie have facilitated a stable and supportive environment that enables Matthew to maintain, where appropriate, connections with his birth family while prioritising his emotional wellbeing.
In 2020, Matthew was diagnosed with ASD, GDD and childhood attachment and trauma issues, and at that time presented with severely delayed receptive and expressive language skills. Despite having diagnoses that impact his daily life, Matthew has made significant progress in his speech and communication since being in the care of Anne and Charlie, owing to their consistent engagement with recommended therapies.
Anne and Charlie ensure Matthew attends medical appointments as required and support his participation in weekly speech and occupational therapy, monthly sessions with his psychologist and weekly sessions with his behavioural therapist. These interventions have contributed meaningfully to Matthew’s emotional regulation, language development and social functioning.
Anne and Charlie have also shown strong commitment to meeting Matthew’s educational needs. They advocated for Matthew’s transition into a mainstream classroom setting in 2023 and were actively involved in planning his move from a supported learning class to his current school. Following consultation with the school, they jointly decided that Matthew should repeat kindergarten in a mainstream class to assist his adjustment to routine, environment and social interactions before progressing through primary school.
Matthew has benefitted considerably from this consistent and thoughtful support. In Semester 1, 2025, he achieved high outcomes in English and Mathematics at school, reflecting both his effort and the stability provided by the Gillis’ care.
Matthew enjoys a close and affectionate bond with Anne and Charlie, their children, and the family’s dog. During the “Three Islands” activity completed in January 2025, Matthew placed “mum and dad” (Anne and Charlie) and their children on his “Island of Always”, reflecting his enduring sense of belonging and security within their family.
Anne and Charlie have also demonstrated a sustained commitment to maintaining Matthew’s relationship with his birth family. They continue to facilitate bi-monthly contact with Jane and Thomas, despite challenges arising from Jane’s interactions with Matthew and Thomas’s inconsistent attendance.
In terms of Matthew’s cultural identity, Matthew’s maternal family is of Vietnamese heritage, and both his paternal family and the Gillis’ are of Anglo-Australian heritage. Jane has expressed a desire for Matthew to learn about his Vietnamese heritage, including by listening to Vietnamese music and trying Vietnamese food. The Gillis’ have taken active steps to support Matthew’s understanding of his Vietnamese background, including through trying traditional Vietnamese foods, exploring maps of Vietnam, reading Vietnamese storybooks before bed and attending the Tet Festival (Vietnamese Lunar New Year Festival) in Cabramatta in February 2025.
On the evidence before me, Anne and Charlie have provided a stable, nurturing and culturally responsive environment that enables Matthew to thrive physically, emotionally and educationally. It is obvious to me that each of Anne and Charlie are both suitable and capable to provide for the needs of Matthew. Anne and Charlie’s proactive engagement with a broad array of support services demonstrate their commitment to meeting the emotional and intellectual needs of Matthew and reinforces their suitability as adoptive parents.
Additionally, each of Anne and Charlie have been assessed and determined to be suitable to adopt Matthew in accordance with s 45F of the Act, with each being deemed as being a fit and proper person to adopt in accordance with s 28(1)(b) of the Act.
Anne and Charlie are the central adult figures in Matthew’s life. Their attitude toward Matthew and the responsibilities of parenthood are characterised by commitment, warmth and a shared approach to his care. I am satisfied that they are devoted to providing Matthew with a nurturing, stable and loving home environment, while also recognising and supporting the importance of his continued connection with his birth family.
In the s 91 Report, Ms Allomes observed that:
Mr and Mrs Gillis work together in a fair, open and caring way to raise their children. Mrs Gillis provides attachment-based and child-focused parenting, while Mr Gillis is a hands-on and practical dad. There is nothing that is too much for them in terms of supporting their children’s needs and positive development.
Referees for Anne and Charlie described them as great listeners who work well as a team, support one another through challenges and maintain a devoted and respectful relationship. Their relationship provides Matthew with a model of stability, empathy and mutual respect.
Anne and Charlie are also active members of their community, including the school community, local Scout Cubs and Joeys groups, local surf live saving club and their church.
Anne is described as confident, independent, caring, compassionate, understanding, patient and supportive. She is attuned to her children’s emotional and physical needs, and is calm, approachable, organised, optimistic and resilient. These qualities underpin her responsible and sensitive approach to parenting Matthew.
Charlie is described as reliable, patient, helpful, a great listener, will do whatever is needed for his family and always offering to help others. He is non-judgmental, hardworking, humorous, playful and protective, and maintains a consistent and loving presence in the family. His attitude toward Matthew is characterised by steadiness, warmth and engagement in all aspects of Matthew’s life.
Both Anne and Charlie are open with Matthew about adoption and respond to his questions about adoption in an age-appropriate and honest way. Anne and Charlie have developed a Life Story book for Matthew, which includes information and photographs of Matthew’s birth family, which are also displayed around the home. Matthew follows each of Anne and Charlie around the home, talks to them, reads books with them, and looks to them for encouragement, reassurance and cuddles on their laps.
Overall, Anne and Charlie demonstrate a deep sense of responsibility and commitment to Matthew’s wellbeing. They prioritise his needs, work together as supportive and loving parents, and ensure that Matthew is raised in an environment grounded in stability, empathy and respect for his identity and connections.
[Jane] remains very forcefully against the notion of an adoption. It is not something that she perceives to be in Matthew’s best interests. She does not want it to occur, and she has hopes of Matthew being restored to her care at some later time.
Matthew’s care and protection history raises concerns regarding his welfare in Jane’s care, particularly given her inconsistent engagement with him and her inability to understand and meet his needs. Inappropriate and explicit emails sent by Jane, including to Matthew, further demonstrate the importance of ensuring that he is protected from emotional harm.
It is clear from the evidence before me that Anne and Charlie are able to provide a safe, stable and nurturing environment that supports Matthew’s physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing. Matthew is physically, mentally and emotionally well in their care, and no concerns about his welfare have been raised by his treating practitioners or school.
I may not make an adoption order unless satisfied that such an order is “clearly preferable” in the best interests of Matthew, compared with any other legal measure that could be taken in relation to his care: s 90(3) of the 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 Matthew are:
An order allocating parental responsibility to either or both of Jane or Thomas pursuant to s 92 of the Act.
Make no order and maintain the status quo, which is that Matthew remains under the parental responsibility of the Minister until he is 18 years old.
An order allocating parental responsibility to Anne and Charlie pursuant to s 92 of the Act (also known as a guardianship order).
The Secretary submits that restoration to either Jane or Thomas is not a “realistic possibility” and I agree with that assessment.
While Jane does seek restoration, I am of the view that after years living with Anne and Charlie since 9 February 2022, restoration would have a significant adverse impact on Matthew who has clearly expressed his desire to remain where he is and be adopted. Jane’s mental health and lack of ability to understand Matthew’s needs and to care for him, which led to his removal from her care in 2020, do not appear to have been addressed or improved over the intervening years. In making the final care order, the Children’s Court made a finding that there is no realistic prospect of restoration. No challenge has been brought to that finding or that order, either on appeal, or by way of application under s 90 of the Care Act.
Thomas does not seek restoration, and restoration is not realistic as Thomas has not demonstrated his ability to be a consistent figure in Matthew’s life or understand Matthew’s needs, often disagreeing with and continually questioning Matthew’s ASD diagnosis. It is the Secretary’s understanding that Thomas’s partner is not supportive of him having parental responsibility for Matthew.
Making no order and maintaining the status quo of Matthew remaining under the parental responsibility of the Minister until he reaches 18 years old would be highly detrimental to Matthew. It would cause the ongoing stress of instability, insecurity and uncertainty to remain with him. Additionally, maintaining the status quo would also mean that he would remain a ward of the state until he attains the age of 18 years and that Anne and Charlie would be unable to make significant decisions in regard to him without the approval of the Minister’s delegate.
If I were to maintain the status quo and make no order, this would mean that, notwithstanding the assumption of the role of parents Anne and Charlie and the provision of care in kind by each of them to Matthew for the past three years, and the perception of Anne and Charlie as his parents and primary caregivers, Anne and Charlie would not be legally recognised as Matthew’s parents. It would also place additional pressures on the placement, owing to the need for Anne and Charlie to seek consents and approvals regarding decisions about Matthew on an ongoing basis. An adoption order has the advantages of certainty and permanency. Making no order risks that Matthew may experience insecurity, uncertainty and ongoing trauma, or at least internal disquiet, arising, for instance, from the fact that he would continue to be the foster-child of Anne and Charlie rather than their son, at least so far as the law is concerned. Matthew is deserving of a more certain outcome.
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.
Pursuant to s 52 of the Act, in conjunction with s 90(1)(d) of the Act, the consent to the proposed adoption of each of a child’s birth parents and any person who has parental responsibility for the child is generally required. However, parental consent may be dispensed with if the court so orders: s 66 of the Act. If consent is dispensed with by the court, consent is not required under s 52 of the Act: s 54(1)(a) of the Act.
Parental consent is therefore required unless:
consent has been dispensed with (s 54(1)(b) of the Act); or
the child has provided sole consent to their own adoption (s 54(1)(c) of the 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 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 Act.
Section 67 of the 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 for Jane or Thomas in regard to Matthew’s adoption by Anne and Charlie. I am satisfied that both Jane and Thomas have been served with the requisite documents and are each on notice of the application to make a consent dispense order. Matthew is nine years old and therefore cannot consent to his own adoption. If an adoption order is to be made in relation to Matthew, it will be necessary for me to dispense with the consent of each of Jane and Thomas.
Sections 67(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act make clear that I may not make a consent dispense order unless I am satisfied that Matthew has established a stable relationship with Anne and Charlie as his authorised carers, and that adoption by Anne and Charlie will promote the welfare of Matthew.
For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied as to these matters. Matthew has lived with Anne and Charlie since 9 February 2022, when he was five years and five months old. He is secure and comfortable in their care and shares a strong, affectionate relationship with each of them and with their children. Matthew views Anne and Charlie as his parents and considers himself part of the Gillis family unit.
In the s 91 Report, Ms Allomes stated:
Matthew came into the proposed adoptive parents’ home as a short term, crisis care placement at five and a half years of age. From the day Matthew arrived both Mr and Mrs Gillis knew they wanted Matthew to be part of their family permanently and were eager to start appropriate assessments to make this a reality. Mrs Gillis advised that Matthew shared and instant connection with Mr Gillis and would wait for him to come home from work, call out ‘Daddy’ and run to give him a big cuddle. From early in the placement Matthew had shared he would like to stay at the Gillis’ home forever.
Matthew is thriving in the care of Anne and Charlie, who provide a stable, nurturing and supportive environment that meets his emotional, developmental and physical needs. They are also committed to maintaining contact that supports Matthew’s ongoing connection with his birth family, as reflected in the maternal and paternal adoption plans set out below.
Having regard to the whole of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that dispensing with the consent of Jane and Thomas to enable the making of an adoption order in favour of Anne and Charlie is in Matthew’s best interests.
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 Act is that I cannot change Matthew’s name without first considering his express wishes and any factors (such as his maturity and understanding) that I consider relevant to the weight to be given to his wishes.
The effect of s 101(5) of the Act is that I cannot change Matthew’s name unless I am satisfied that the name change is in his best interests.
The Secretary seeks approval for the name “Matthew Eagle Gillis”. The proposed change retains Matthew’s original first name, adds “Eagle” as his middle name and changes his surname from “Bell” to “Gillis”.
Matthew has clearly and consistently expressed his wish to be known as “Matthew Eagle Gillis”. He refers to himself by that name and has said that “Bell” is his “old name”. Matthew also told Ms Allomes that “the judge will make me a Gillis forever and ever”. He has expressed his desire to have a first, middle and surname, like the other children in the Gillis family.
Matthew’s wish to include “Eagle” as his middle name arose after he noticed that the other Gillis children had middle names. Anne explained to Ms Allomes, who supported the name change in the s 91 Report, that:
Eagle is the bird that [soars to new heights]. Matthew is such a strong and resilient little guy overcoming some incredible obstacles in his early life and diagnosis that we want his name to be a reminder to him of how strong he is and with continued determination that he can do anything.
The Secretary submits that the proposed name preserves Matthew’s given name to maintain a connection to his birth family, while also recognising his growth in the care of Anne and Charlie and affirming his full inclusion in the Gillis family.
The Secretary submits that the proposed change recognises the given name given to Matthew at birth to maintain a connection to his birth family, recognises the growth Matthew has experienced in the care of Anne and Charlie and acknowledges and accepts Matthew as a full member of the Gillis family.
Jane opposes the name change, stating “I don’t want change anything” when discussing possible name changes for Matthew. Thomas’s views on the name change are unknown.
I am satisfied that the proposed name change is in Matthew’s best interests. The proposed name change reflects Matthew’s repeatedly expressed and unambiguous wish, symbolises his resilience and new beginning, and gives formal legal recognition to the family life he shares with Anne, Charlie and their children. It is also consistent with the name of Jim Gillis, the previously adopted son of Anne and Charlie.
Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that the proposed change of name to “Matthew Eagle Gillis” is in Matthew’s best interests and should be approved.
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 Act.
A maternal adoption plan was signed by Anne and Charlie on 27 August 2025 and the delegate of the Secretary on 28 August 2025. An updated and final maternal adoption plan was signed by the delegate of the Secretary, Anne and Charlie on 2 October 2025. Jane has not signed the maternal adoption plan.
On 27 February 2024, Ms Allomes sent an email to Jane that explained the nature of an adoption plan and attached a draft copy of the maternal adoption plan and a clean copy of the maternal adoption plan for Jane to sign and return in the envelope provided.
In summary, the maternal adoption plan provides as follows:
The purpose of the plan is to support Matthew with his development and assist him to be connected with and build on his knowledge of his birth family and his sense of identity.
Contact arrangements should be structured in a way that will meet Matthew’s needs, taking into account his age, stage of development and any expressed wishes.
Matthew will have face-to-face contact visits with Jane three times a year on dates to be agreed between Anne, Charlie and Jane at the beginning of each year. The visits will be supervised by Anne and/or Charlie, occur separately to Matthew’s visits with Thomas but on the same day and last a minimum of 1.5 hours. Additional contact visits may be arranged.
Three additional video calls will occur every year on dates to be arranged between Anne, Charlie and Jane.
If dates for face-to-face visits and video calls cannot be agreed upon, the default date will be the first Sunday of every second month.
Anne and Charlie agree to facilitate contact with Matthew’s maternal birth family.
If Jane has any concerns in relation to Matthew and/or his care, she is to raise these issues with Anne and/or Charlie by email.
In the event Jane returns to Vietnam on a permanent basis, video calls will occur at least six times a year for a minimum of 30 minutes. If Jane visits New South Wales, at least one face-to-face visit will be arranged for a least 1.5 hours. If Anne and/or Charlie visit Vietnam with Matthew, Jane will be offered a face-to-face visit at a mutually suitable location.
Matthew may contact Jane electronically on birthdays or other important occasions such as Easter, Christmas and Mother’s Day.
Anne and/or Charlie will contact Jane in the event of Matthew sustaining a serious illness, injury or in the event of death.
Anne and/or Charlie will provide Jane with information about Matthew at least 72 hours prior to each contact visit by email and photos of Matthew at special events.
Anne and/or Charlie will provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts to Jane by post on significant occasions or at any other time according to Matthew’s wishes. Jane may provide these items to Matthew at contact visits.
Jane may provide information about her family and Vietnamese culture at contact visits or by email.
Anne and Charlie wish to have Matthew baptised in the Catholic church and raised in the Catholic faith and are open to providing Matthew with the opportunity to develop his understanding and knowledge of religious principles and practices so that they can make informed decisions in the future about their own belief systems.
Matthew will be eligible for the Out-Of-Home Care Adoption Allowance paid by the DCJ.
Anne and Charlie have provided their contact details and Jane has provided her contact details, including her postal address.
I place importance on Matthew’s face-to-face visits with Jane to occur separately from Thomas’ face-to-face visits in light of Jane being subject to coercive control by Thomas, which Mr Sloane believes hinders Jane’s ability to meaningfully engage with Matthew during the contact visits when Thomas is present.
As explained above, family contact visits, particularly with Jane, are extremely anxiety-provoking and distressing to Matthew, damaging his self-esteem, mental health, and interactions and functioning at home and school.
In accordance with s 90(2) of the Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in the maternal adoption plan are in Matthew’s best interests and proper in the circumstances, and that the maternal adoption plan should be registered.
A paternal adoption plan was signed by Anne and Charlie on 28 February 2024 and the delegate of the Secretary on 29 February 2024. Thomas has not signed the paternal adoption plan.
On 27 February 2024, Ms Allomes sent an email to Thomas that explained the nature of an adoption plan and attached a draft copy of the paternal adoption plan and a clean copy of the paternal adoption plan for Thomas to sign and return in the envelope provided.
In summary, the paternal adoption plan provides as follows:
The purpose of the plan is to support Matthew with his development and assist him to be connected with and build on his knowledge of his birth family and his sense of identity.
Contact arrangements should be structured in a way that will meet Matthew’s needs, taking into account his age, stage of development and any expressed wishes.
Matthew will have face-to-face contact visits with Thomas three times a year on dates to be agreed between Anne, Charlie and Thomas at the beginning of each year. The visits will be supervised by Anne and/or Charlie and last a minimum of 1.5 hours. Additional contact visits may be arranged. Any further children that Thomas may have may attend visits. Anne and Charlie will provide photos, news and information about Matthew at each visit.
Matthew will have face-to-face contact visits with his paternal siblings, Charlotte, Leslie and Cornelia, three times a year for a minimum of 1.5 hours. These visits will be conducted jointly with Thomas’s visits.
Three additional video calls will occur every year on dates to be arranged between Anne, Charlie and Thomas.
Matthew may contact Thomas or other members of his paternal family electronically on birthdays or other important occasions such as Easter, Christmas and Father’s Day.
Anne and/or Charlie will contact Thomas in the event of Matthew sustaining a serious illness, injury or in the event of death.
Anne and/or Charlie will provide photographs of Matthew to Thomas at least three times a year at contact visits.
Anne and/or Charlie will provide cards, letters, photographs and gifts to Thomas by post on significant occasions or at any other time according to Matthew’s wishes. Thomas, Charlotte, Leslie and Cornelia may provide these items to Matthew at contact visits.
Anne and Charlie wish to have Matthew baptised in the Catholic church and raised in the Catholic faith and are open to providing Matthew with the opportunity to develop his understanding and knowledge of religious principles and practices so that they can make informed decisions in the future about their own belief systems.
Matthew will be eligible for the Out-Of-Home Care Adoption Allowance paid by the DCJ.
Anne and Charlie have provided their contact details and Thomas has provided her contact details, including his postal address.
As explained in more detail above, family contact visits significantly impact Matthew’s mental health and wellbeing.
In accordance with s 90(2) of the Act, I consider that the arrangements proposed in the paternal adoption plan are in Matthew’s best interests and proper in the circumstances, and that the paternal adoption plan be registered.
For the reasons given above, I propose to make the following orders and notations:
Pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth mother, Jane Shirley, is dispensed with.
Pursuant to s 67(1)(d) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the requirement for the consent of the child’s birth father, Thomas Bell, is dispensed with.
Pursuant to s 23 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), order for the adoption of the child, Matthew Bell, in favour of the adopting parents, Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis.
Pursuant to s 101(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), order the approval of the name “Gillis” as the surname and “Matthew Eagle” as the given names of the child.
It is noted that the court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Sonya Shariff (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice), Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis on 2 October 2025, copies of which will be annexed to the orders and marked “A”, are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.
Pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Sonya Shariff (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice), Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis on 2 October 2025, be registered.
Pursuant to s 194(2) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), leave is granted to provide a copy of the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Sonya Shariff (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice), Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis on 2 October 2025, copies of which will be annexed to the orders and marked “A”, to Jane Shirley.
It is noted that the court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Paternal Adoption Plan signed by Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis on 28 February 2024 and Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 29 February 2024, copies of which will be annexed to the orders and marked “B”, are in the child’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.
Pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the Paternal Adoption Plan signed by Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis on 28 February 2024 and Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 29 February 2024, be registered.
Pursuant to s 194(2) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), leave is granted to provide a copy of the Paternal Adoption Plan signed by Anne Gillis and Charlie Gillis on 28 February 2024 and Olivia Rennie (Delegate of the Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice) on 29 February 2024, copies of which will be annexed to the orders and marked “B”, to Thomas Bell.
**********
Amendment to final orders