The Adoption of Laura Rose Kennedy-Wright

1. [1]

   This proceeding concerns the proposed adoption of a child, whom I will call Laura Rose Kennedy-Wright, who is aged five, by Mrs Monique Olivia Lloyd and Mr Harry Luke Lloyd (the proposed adoptive parents) (not their real names). For convenience, and without intending any disrespect, I will refer to each of the individuals involved in this matter by his or her first name.

2. [2]

   By Summons filed 4 December 2025, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), by his delegate, the Principal Officer of Barnardos Australia, seeks the following orders:

   1. (1)

      an order pursuant to s 67(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act) that the consent of Laura’s birth mother be dispensed with;

   2. (2)

      an order pursuant to s 67(1) of the Act that the consent of Laura’s birth father be dispensed with;

   3. (3)

      an order for the adoption of Laura in favour of the proposed adoptive parents;

   4. (4)

      an order approving the name “Lloyd” as the surname and “Laura Rose” as the given names of Laura;

   5. (5)

      an order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Act, that the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Monique Olivia Lloyd and Harry Luke Lloyd on 24 November 2025 and signed by Principal Officer, Adoptions Barnardos Australia on 26 November 2025, be registered; and

   6. (6)

      an order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Act, that the Paternal Adoption Plan signed by Monique Olivia Lloyd and Harry Luke Lloyd on 24 November 2025 and signed by Principal Officer, Adoptions Barnardos Australia on 26 November 2025, be registered.

3. [3]

   The Plaintiff also seeks a notation to the orders that the Court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan and the Paternal Adoption Plan are in Laura’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

The circumstances of the case

1. [4]

   On 17 October 2020, Laura was born at X Hospital in New South Wales.

2. [5]

   Laura’s birth mother, as registered on her birth certificate, is Mia-Rae Kennedy (not her real name), who was born in February 1985.

3. [6]

   Laura’s birth father, as registered on her birth certificate, is Matthew Lawson Wright (not his real name), who was born in December 1980.

4. [7]

   Mia-Rae and Matthew are presently in a relationship and reside together with Mia-Rae’s father in Queensland.

5. [8]

   In November 2020, Laura was placed in the care of Monique and Harry and has lived with the proposed adoptive parents continuously since that date. Laura was around three weeks old at the time of placement.

6. [9]

   The placement occurred in circumstances where there was a history of child protection concerns being raised in relation to Mia-Rae and Matthew in Queensland since 2017. These included significant mental health concerns in respect of Mia-Rae, and a history of illicit-drug use by each of Mia-Rae and Matthew. In August 2017, one of Laura’s biological siblings, Wren Jordan Harper Kennedy-Wright, was removed from the care of Mia-Rae and Matthew when he was two months old and was placed in the care of the Queensland Minister for Child Safety. Wren remains in the care of the Queensland Minister under a long-term guardianship order and is presently residing with a foster carer in Queensland.

7. [10]

   Shortly before Laura’s birth, the DCJ received an interstate alert regarding concerns for Mia-Rae’s unborn child. In particular, the DCJ was informed that Mia-Rae:

   1. (1)

      had not accessed ante-natal care during her pregnancy;

   2. (2)

      had a child in the care of the Queensland Minister for Child Safety;

   3. (3)

      had Hepatitis C and a history of drug use;

   4. (4)

      had travelled from Queensland to New South Wales while heavily pregnant, in order to avoid Queensland Child Safety and in order to flee domestic violence; and

   5. (5)

      was unprepared for the birth of the child, with no suitable accommodation in X or necessary supplies.

8. [11]

   Shortly after her birth, Laura scored 9 on the neonatal abstinence scale, indicating that she may have been experiencing the effects of drug withdrawal. Laura was transported to X Hospital for paediatric treatment and discharged from hospital on 22 October 2020. She was placed with the proposed adoptive parents two weeks later.

9. [12]

   On 6 July 2021, the Children’s Court of New South Wales made final orders pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), providing for Laura to be placed under the Parental Responsibility of the Minister for Families and Communities until Laura attains the age of 18 years. These orders remain in effect.

10. [13]

    Laura resides with Monique and Harry, and four of their biological children, whom I will call Ashton Parker Lloyd, Stuart Peter Lloyd, Ryland Paul Lloyd, and Lewis Evan Lloyd in New South Wales. The proposed adoptive parents have one further biological adult child, whom I will call Kyle Louis Lloyd, who lives in the Australian Capital Territory.

11. [14]

    In addition to Wren, Laura has two other biological siblings, whom I will call Rebecca Kennedy-Wright and Kaleb David Wright. They are presently in the care of Mia-Rae and Matthew in Queensland.

12. [15]

    Laura has four maternal siblings, whom I will call Evan Jennings, Avery Jennings, Anna Jennings and Ross Evans. Evan and Avery are adults and reside with their birth father, Mr Tristan Jennings (not his real name), and Anna resides, alternatively, with Mr Jennings and with Mia-Rae. Until recently, Ross resided with his birth father in Tasmania, pursuant to an order of the Family Court. However, the Principal Officer of Barnardos deposed that Barnardos has been informed that Ross now resides with Mia-Rae in Queensland.

13. [16]

    Laura also has three paternal siblings, Russell Wright, Max Wright and Josh Wright (not their real names), who reside with their mother in Queensland.

14. [17]

    On 8 July 2025, the Minister's delegate consented to the adoption of Laura.

15. [18]

    Neither Mia-Rae nor Matthew has consented to the adoption.

16. [19]

    On 9 December 2025 and 15 December 2025 respectively, each of Mia-Rae and Matthew was given notice, pursuant to s 72(1) of the Act, of the Plaintiff’s application for an order dispensing with the requirement for their consent to Laura’s adoption; and notice, pursuant to s 88(1)(a) of the Act, of the application for the adoption order.

17. [20]

    Neither of Mia-Rae nor Matthew has appeared in this proceeding to oppose the orders sought.

Adoption orders generally and the “best interests” principles under the Act

1. [21]

   The principles regarding the making of an adoption order are well established. I have adopted the following summary of those principles from my decision in The Adoption of Ashleigh (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 763.

2. [22]

   The determination of applications for adoption is arguably the most important work of the Equity Division of this Court: Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate, Principal Officer, Barnardos Australia v MB and JW [2017] NSWSC 1087 at [9] (Sackar J). An order for adoption is one of the most significant and far-reaching of all orders the Court has power to make: Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS [2019] NSWSC 71 at [157] (Hallen J).

3. [23]

   In Re the Adoption of CCS and FLS at [150], Hallen J described the far-reaching nature of an adoption order as follows:

4. [24]

   When making a decision about the adoption of a child, the paramount consideration to which the Court must have regard is the best interests of the child, both in childhood and later life: s 8(1)(a) of the Act. In Adoption of JLK and CRK [2017] NSWSC 7, Brereton J, at [12], described the key aspects of the paramountcy principle as follows:

5. [25]

   The Court must also have regard to the principles that adoption is to be regarded as a service for the child; that no adult has a right to adopt the child; that, if the child is able to form his or her own views on a matter concerning adoption, the child must be given an opportunity to express those views freely and such views are to be given due weight; and that the child’s given names, identity, language and cultural and religious ties should, as far as possible, be identified and preserved: subss 8(1)(b)-(e) of the Act.

6. [26]

   The Court must not make an adoption order unless it is satisfied that the best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption and that, as far as practicable and having regard to the child’s age and understanding, the child’s wishes and feelings have been ascertained and due consideration given to them: subss 90(1)(a)-(b) of the Act.

7. [27]

   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 which will be inherently imprecise: Director General Department of Human Services; Re M [2011] NSWSC 369 at [90] per Hallen J, citing Re B (A Minor) [2001] UKHL 70; [2002] 1 All ER 241 at [16] (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead).

8. [28]

   In determining the best interests of Laura, I must have regard to the matters set out in s 8(2) of the Act including, relevantly:

9. [29]

   The Senior Case Manager at Barnardos has reported that although Laura does not have the capacity at her age to understand all of the implications of adoption, she has developed a strong connection to her proposed adoptive family. The Senior Case Manager observed Laura to be settled and happy in the care of the proposed adoptive parents.

10. [30]

    The Senior Case Manager has given evidence of Laura’s loving relationship with Monique and Harry, observing that Laura is “confident and happy within their presence” and that they have been providing Laura with “stability, love, and security”.

11. [31]

    The Senior Case Manager also reported that Monique’s and Harry’s adult son, Kyle, was very supportive of Laura’s proposed adoption and that he would be “willing to care for Laura and everything else that involves if anything were to happen to my parents”.

12. [32]

    The Principal Officer of Barnardos described Laura as a “confident, happy, funny and loving child who displays a healthy range of developing emotions, appropriate for her age”. She gave evidence that Laura is a generally healthy five-year-old girl with no current health concerns, and that Monique and Harry have facilitated Laura’s attendance at general GP check-ups and have undertaken recommended actions. In addition, they have facilitated Laura’s attendance, as required, at dental and optometry appointments, and have ensured that Laura is up to date with her immunisations.

13. [33]

    Laura began attending day care in November 2020, where she is described as “eager to learn” and as having “strong social skills”. Laura is reported as having developed friendships while at daycare and enjoys “sensory play” including painting, crafts, and spending time in the sandpit. The Senior Case Manager also reported that the educators at Laura’s daycare do not have any developmental concerns for her, and that Laura has started to learn number and letter recognition as part of a “school readiness program”. Laura loves to dance and she attends three classes per week, alongside regular swimming lessons.

14. [34]

    Laura is enrolled to commence kindergarten this year.

15. [35]

    Both Monique and Harry identify as Catholic and are raising Laura in the Catholic faith. Matthew was also raised in the Catholic faith. Mia-Rae does not identify with any religion. In around September 2023, Mia-Rae and Matthew consented to Laura being baptised in the Catholic Church at the request of the proposed adoptive parents, and Laura was subsequently baptised in December 2024. Mia-Rae, Matthew and other members of Laura’s biological family were invited by the proposed adoptive parents to the baptism ceremony, but were unable to attend.

16. [36]

    Laura is Anglo-Australian, and each of Mia-Rae and Matthew identifies as Anglo-Australian. Monique and Harry have stated that they are committed to ensuring that Laura grows up with an understanding of her belonging to two families, and that they consider it vital for Laura and her biological family to remain connected. The Principal Officer of Barnardos observed that Monique and Harry have developed “Life Story” books for Laura, which include information and photographs of Laura from birth, and that they have displayed photographs of members of Laura’s biological family in their home.

17. [37]

    Having regard to the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied that Laura’s emotional, physical, educational and cultural needs are being met by Monique and Harry.

Is adoption clearly preferable in the best interests of Laura?

1. [38]

   I may not make an order for adoption unless I am satisfied that the making of such an order would be “clearly preferable” in the best interests of Laura than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to her care: s 90(3) of the Act.

2. [39]

   I must be satisfied that there is more than a slight preponderance of considerations in favour of 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: Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813 at [14] (Brereton J). I must feel a degree of conviction in favour of adoption which is commensurate with the gravity of the decision: Application of A - re D [2006] NSWSC 1056 at [53] (Palmer J); Adoption of BL [2018] NSWSC 391 at [13] (Sackar J).

3. [40]

   Consideration of whether adoption would promote the best interests of the child and whether it is clearly preferable to any other order involves the identification of the likely effects of adoption and examining the benefits and detriments of each alternative from the perspective of the best interests of the child: Adoption of NG (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 680 at [74] (Brereton J).

4. [41]

   The alternatives to making an adoption order would appear to be as follows:

   1. (1)

      to make no order and to maintain the status quo (namely, that Laura is in the parental responsibility of the Minister until she attains the age of 18);

   2. (2)

      to make an order under s 92 of the Act allocating parental responsibility to Monique and Harry; or

   3. (3)

      to make an order under s 92 of the Act allocating parental responsibility to Mia-Rae and/or Matthew.

5. [42]

   Neither Mia-Rae nor Matthew is seeking the restoration of Laura to their care. Moreover, the Senior Case Manager has stated that Mia-Rae and Matthew are “at capacity caring for Laura’s two younger siblings [being Rebecca and Kaleb]”.

6. [43]

   Further, Laura has been in the care of Monique and Harry for most of her life and she identifies with her adoptive family, such that removing her from their care and their home would likely be distressing for her.

7. [44]

   Having regard to those matters, I accept that restoration of Laura to either of Mia-Rae or Matthew would introduce uncertainty and risk factors which are not currently present and is not a realistic option.

8. [45]

   If I were to make no order and were to maintain the status quo, Monique and Harry would be unable to make significant decisions concerning Laura, as those decisions would require the approval of the Minister by her delegate. An order allocating parental responsibility for Monique and Harry to Laura would alleviate some of the disadvantages of maintaining the status quo. However, this would remain a temporary order that would expire when Laura attains 18 years of age. It therefore lacks the permanency of an adoption order and would result in Laura losing her legal connection to her psychological family when she attains adulthood. The Senior Case Manager expressed the view that:

9. [46]

   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: In re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents’ Competing Claim) [2017] 1 WLR 889; [2016] EWCA Civ 793 at [64] (McFarlane LJ; Jackson and Lindblom LJJ agreeing). Adoption serves the identity needs of the child in question, in circumstances where the child is emotionally, psychologically and residentially already a member of the proposed adoptive family, by bringing the child’s legal status into conformity with reality, and by perfecting the child’s sense of permanent belonging in the family with which he or she identifies, not only during childhood but for life: Adoption of Taylor-Clay [2019] NSWSC 27 at [58] (Brereton J).

10. [47]

    In Re the Adoption of AJH [2017] NSWSC 1751 at [297], Hallen J said that:

11. [48]

    The Principal Officer of Barnardos deposed that Laura “is thriving in the care of the proposed adoptive parents and she identifies with them as being her family”, and that Laura has lived with Monique and Harry for over five years and has formed “strong relationships with Kyle, Ashton, Stuart, Ryland and Lewis, whom she views as brothers”. The Principal Officer of Barnardos has concluded that adoption will provide Laura with “a sense of belonging and permanence which cannot be achieved in long term foster care or under an order for parental responsibility to be allocated to the proposed adoptive parents”.

12. [49]

    Having regard to those matters, I am satisfied that the making of an adoption order would serve the best interests of Laura now, ensuring she is legally a part of her psychological family; and would also serve her best interests in the future, including after she has attained the age of 18.

13. [50]

    Accordingly, I am satisfied that the making of the proposed adoption order would be clearly preferable in the best interests of Laura than any other action that could be taken by law in relation to her care.

Requirements for dispensing with consent of birth parents under the Act

1. [51]

   Mia-Rae has not consented to the adoption of Laura and has previously expressed hesitation in respect of the making of an adoption order. During the proceedings before the Children’s Court, Mia-Rae expressed a desire to be assessed for restoration and filed an affidavit in support of her position on 23 April 2021 in which she deposed that she and Matthew were in a relationship and intended to marry. However, due to domestic violence and health concerns on Matthew’s part, restoration was not considered to be in Laura’s best interest at the time the final orders were made by the Children’s Court on 6 July 2021.

2. [52]

   On 27 March 2024, an open adoption case worker with the DCJ spoke with Mia-Rae on the telephone regarding Laura’s proposed adoption. The case worker’s file note of this conversation records that Mia-Rae “feels like she is giving up on [Laura]” and that “she never wants [Laura] to think that [Mia-Rae] didn’t want her”. However, the file note also records that Mia-Rae stated that she trusts Monique, that she “did not want to take [Laura]” from the proposed adoptive parents, and that she knew that the proposed adoption of Laura is “what is best for [Laura]”.

3. [53]

   On 24 October 2024, the Senior Case Manager spoke to Mia-Rae who again expressed that she “didn’t feel great about [the adoption]” but that she “[knew] that adoption is in Laura’s best interests”.

4. [54]

   Between October 2024 and October 2025, the Senior Case Manager attempted to contact Mia-Rae by telephone and by mail on at least ten occasions. The Senior Case Manager did not receive a response from Mia-Rae.

5. [55]

   On 9 December 2025, Mia-Rae was served with notice, pursuant to s 72(1) of the Act, of the application for an order dispensing with the requirement for her consent to Laura's adoption; and notice, pursuant to s 88(1)(a) of the Act, of the application for the adoption order.

6. [56]

   Mia-Rae has not appeared in this proceeding to oppose the orders sought by the Plaintiff, and has not signed the Maternal Adoption Plan.

7. [57]

   Matthew has not consented to the adoption, but has never formally sought restoration of Laura into his care.

8. [58]

   On 25 March 2024, an adoption case worker spoke with Matthew on the telephone in respect to Laura’s proposed adoption. Matthew indicated that he “wasn’t sure how he felt about Laura being adopted”, but also stated that he didn’t “have a problem” with the proposed adoptive parents and that he was himself adopted so he “sort of know[s] the whole deal”.

9. [59]

   On 26 November 2024, the Senior Case Manager spoke with Matthew who stated that he had “mixed feelings” about Laura’s adoption given the pain associated with his own experiences as an adopted child, but also stated that he “really like[d] [Monique] and Harry, and we have a great relationship, and Laura is happy with them”.

10. [60]

    Between January 2025 and September 2025, the Senior Case Manager attempted to contact Matthew by telephone and by mail on around ten occasions. The Senior Case Manager did not receive a response from Matthew.

11. [61]

    On 15 December 2025, Matthew was served with notice, pursuant to s 72(1) of the Act, of the application for an order dispensing with the requirement for his consent to Laura's adoption; and notice, pursuant to s 88(1)(a) of the Act, of the application for the adoption order.

12. [62]

    Matthew has not appeared in this proceeding to oppose the orders sought by the Plaintiff, and has not signed the Paternal Adoption Plan.

13. [63]

    Section 52(a) of the Act relevantly provides that the Court must not make an adoption order in relation to a child who is less than 18 years of age unless consent has been given by each of the child’s parents.

14. [64]

    In circumstances where neither Mia-Rae nor Matthew has consented to Laura’s adoption, the Plaintiff seeks orders under s 67 of the Act dispensing with the requirement for consent by each of Laura’s birth parents.

15. [65]

    The Principal Officer of Barnardos has standing to apply for the making of such “consent dispense orders”: s 68(b) of the Act.

16. [66]

    The relevant test for dispensing with consent is set out in s 67 of the Act, which relevantly provides as follows:

17. [67]

    The proposed adoptive parents are “authorised carers” because they have care and responsibility for Laura under out-of-home care arrangements made under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act: Dictionary to the Act.

18. [68]

    In Director General Department of Family and Community Services; Re Stephen [2011] NSWSC 1521 at [58]-[59], Slattery J made the following observations regarding s 67(1)(d) of the Act:

19. [69]

    Dispensing with the consent of a parent is a grave step, not lightly to be taken: Adoption of RCC and RZA at [17] (Brereton J). In Adoption of BL at [20], Sackar J noted that the “severance of the legal relationship will of course never sever the biological relationship nor will it detract from the potential for developing a meaningful relationship through ongoing contact”.

20. [70]

    For the reasons given above when considering the proposed adoption order, I am comfortably satisfied that:

    1. (1)

       Laura has established a stable relationship with Monique and Harry (s 67(1)(d)(i));

    2. (2)

       the adoption of Laura by Monique and Harry will promote her welfare (s 67(1)(d)(ii)); and

    3. (3)

       the making of a consent dispense order is in the best interests of Laura: s 67(2) of the Act.

21. [71]

    Having regard to the evidence of the proposed adoptive parents, the Senior Case Manager and the Principal Officer of Barnardos, which I have summarised above, I am satisfied that Laura has a stable and loving relationship with Monique and Harry and that they will continue to promote her welfare and continued development. Laura’s relationships with Monique, Harry, Kyle, Ashton, Stuart, Ryland and Lewis are the only close family relationships that she knows, having regard to the very young age at which she was placed in the care of her proposed adoptive parents. The making of a consent dispense order, so as to allow the making of the adoption order, is in the best interests of Laura so as to allow her close bond with her psychological family to be reflected in her legal status.

The Adoption Plans

1. [72]

   A Maternal Adoption Plan has been served upon Mia-Rae and signed by the proposed adoptive parents.

2. [73]

   The Maternal Adoption Plan makes provision for face-to-face visits with Mia-Rae to occur six times per year, with three visits to take place in New South Wales and three visits to take place in Queensland. The visits in Queensland are to be held, to the extent that it is feasible, jointly with Laura’s biological siblings, Wren, Rebecca and Kaleb. Provision is made in the Maternal Adoption Plan for the visits in Queensland to be held jointly, to the extent that it is feasible, with Laura’s maternal siblings who reside with Mia-Rae, Anna and Ross, as well as Laura’s maternal grandparents. The Maternal Adoption Plan also stipulates that Laura’s adult maternal siblings, Evan and Avery, will be invited to attend the visits in Queensland, or to visit Laura in New South Wales as arranged with the proposed adoptive parents.

3. [74]

   Monique and Harry have also agreed to provide Mia-Rae with photographs, letters or cards on significant occasions or at any other time according to Laura’s wishes, and to facilitate communication between Laura and Mia-Rae by telephone and other electronic means.

4. [75]

   Matthew has also been served with a Paternal Adoption Plan, which has been signed by the proposed adoptive parents.

5. [76]

   The Paternal Adoption Plan makes provision for six face-to-face visits per year, on the same terms as the as the Maternal Adoption Plan, to be held jointly with Mia-Rae. The Paternal Adoption Plan also makes provision for face-to-face visits with Laura’s biological siblings, Wren, Rebecca and Kaleb.

6. [77]

   Laura has not met any of her paternal siblings, and Matthew has no relationship with them, or their mother, due to a history of domestic violence. In February 2025, the Senior Case Manager contacted their mother to advise her that Barnardos was working towards Laura’s adoption, at which time their mother advised that “it’s just too overwhelming and for now we will leave it and not establish contact, but I will talk to the boys and see how they feel”. The Paternal Adoption Plan makes provision, following an introductory period, for three face-to-face visits per year in Queensland, separate from Matthew, with Laura’s paternal siblings, should they choose to make contact with the proposed adoptive parents.

7. [78]

   Monique and Harry have also agreed to provide Matthew with photographs, letters or cards on significant occasions or at any other time according to Laura’s wishes, and to facilitate communication between Laura and Matthew by telephone and other electronic means.

8. [79]

   The Senior Case Manager expressed the opinion that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan and the Paternal Adoption Plan:

9. [80]

   The Principal Officer of Barnardos also observed that Monique and Harry have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate family time and that Monique, Harry, Mia-Rae and Matthew have “built a respectful and warm relationship, often referring to each other as family”.

10. [81]

    Monique and Harry are already facilitating and supervising family visits with Mia-Rae, Matthew and some of Laura’s biological siblings and maternal siblings independently and do not need additional agency support to enact the Maternal Adoption Plan or the Paternal Adoption Plan following finalisation of the adoption.

11. [82]

    Having regard to those matters, I am satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan and the Paternal Adoption Plan are in Laura’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

Proposed name change

1. [83]

   The Plaintiff seeks an order approving the name “Lloyd” as the surname and “Laura Rose” as the given names of Laura.

2. [84]

   “Lloyd” is the surname of Monique and Harry and “Laura Rose” is comprised of part of Laura’s existing name.

3. [85]

   The name “Laura” has significance to Mia-Rae and Matthew, as it is a combination of the “Rae” from Mia-Rae’s name, and Matthew’s middle name “Lawson”.

4. [86]

   On 12 July 2023, Mia-Rae expressed a preference to the DCJ that, should an adoption order be made in favour of the proposed adoptive parents, the names “Kennedy” and “Wright” be incorporated as middle names for Laura, resulting in Laura’s name being “Laura Rose Kennedy Wright Lloyd”. Mia-Rae has subsequently expressed her view that “Laura Rose Kennedy Wright Lloyd” would be too long and it would be better for Laura to have the shorter name of “Laura Rose Lloyd”. Mia-Rae has also indicated to Barnardos that she liked that Laura’s proposed surname “Lloyd” is similar to Wren’s new surname, “Roy”.

5. [87]

   The Senior Case Manager has not been able to obtain Matthew’s views on Laura’s proposed name change, due to him being uncontactable from January 2025.

6. [88]

   Monique and Harry have indicated their desire to change Laura’s name to “Laura Rose Lloyd” to give her with a sense of belonging with her adoptive family and to provide consistency in her daily life, particularly by having the same name as her adoptive siblings with whom she will attend school.

7. [89]

   Having regard to those matters, and in circumstances where maintaining Laura’s first name maintains a connection to Mia-Rae and Matthew, I am satisfied that the name “Lloyd” should be adopted as Laura’s surname, and “Laura Rose” as the given names of Laura.

Conclusion

1. [90]

   For the reasons given above, I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      An order pursuant to s 67(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), that the consent of Laura’s birth mother be dispensed with.

   2. (2)

      An order pursuant to s 67(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), that the consent of Laura’s birth father be dispensed with.

   3. (3)

      An order for the adoption of Laura in favour of the proposed adoptive parents.

   4. (4)

      An order approving the name “Lloyd” as the surname and “Laura Rose” as the given names of Laura.

   5. (5)

      An order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Act, the Maternal Adoption Plan signed by Monique Olivia Lloyd and Harry Luke Lloyd on 24 November 2025 and signed by Principal Officer, Adoptions Barnardos Australia on 26 November 2025, be registered.

   6. (6)

      An order pursuant to ss 50(1) and (3) of the Act, the Paternal Adoption Plan signed by signed by Monique Olivia Lloyd and Harry Luke Lloyd on 24 November 2025 and signed by Principal Officer, Adoptions Barnardos Australia on 26 November 2025, be registered.

   7. (1)

      It is noted that the Court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Maternal Adoption Plan are in Laura’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.

   8. (2)

      Note that the Court is satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Paternal Adoption Plan are in Laura’s best interests and are proper in the circumstances.