The Adoption of Katharine Clifton

These proceedings concern the proposed adoption of Katharine Clifton.

By summons filed 8 December 2025, the plaintiff, the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), seeks an order, pursuant to s 67(1)(a) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act), dispensing with the requirement for the consent of Katharine’s birth father to Katharine’s adoption.

In this judgment, I will refer to each of the family members involved by their first names for convenience and without intending any disrespect. In the anonymised version of this judgment, all persons referred to have been assigned pseudonyms in keeping with s 180 of the Act.

I have been greatly assisted by the submissions I received from Amanda Wimalasiri for the Secretary. Much of what follows is taken, with gratitude, from those submissions.

Katharine was born on 29 July 2025 and is now just four and a half months old.

Katharine’s mother, Hana Clifton, has consistently expressed a wish for Katharine to be placed into care and adopted. Hana has stated that she cannot care for Katharine. Hana is a Fijian citizen who has been in Australia since 2024 on a student visa (subclass 500) that expires on 26 August 2026.

Hana presently resides in New South Wales, and is not currently in a relationship.

There is no birth father recorded on Katharine’s birth registration statement and the identity of Katharine’s birth father is currently unknown.

As will be explained in more detail below, three individuals were identified by Hana as the possible birth father of Katharine. Two of the possible birth fathers, David Clifton and Geoffrey Caravaggio, underwent DNA paternity testing that excluded them from being the birth father. The third man, Kirpal Singh, has been unwilling to undergo DNA paternity testing. Kirpal has stated that he is presently married to another woman with whom he shares two daughters.

The DCJ have identified no maternal siblings for Katharine. If Kirpal is the birth father, Katharine may have two paternal siblings. Katharine’s maternal family all reside in Fiji, with the exception of Hana’s cousin, Jan Suffolk, who resides together with Hana in New South Wales.

On 29 July 2025, immediately following Katharine’s birth, the DCJ received a Birth Referral and an adoptions caseworker, Katie Molteno, spoke with Hana via telephone. During this conversation, Hana identified the possible birth father as David. Following this conversation, Ms Molteno provided Hana with the Mandatory Written Information (MWI) on adoption via email.

On 31 July 2025, Ms Molteno met with Hana and discussed voluntary adoption. Jan also attended this meeting to support Hana. During this meeting, Hana signed a Temporary Care Arrangement (TCA) in respect of Katharine, pursuant to s 151 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (the Care Act).

On 1 August 2025, Katharine was discharged from hospital and placed in a voluntary short term pre-adoptive placement with authorised foster carers, Patrick Fraser and Clara Almasy.

On 4 August 2025, DCJ adoptions caseworker, Theresa Moy, spoke with Hana via telephone and discussed DNA paternity testing in relation to David.

On 6 August 2025, Ms Moy met with Hana and assisted her in providing a DNA sample, which was followed by a family time visit with Katharine at a Community Services Centre (CSC).

On 19 August 2025, Ms Moy met with Hana at the CSC for a pre-adoption counselling session and discussed long-term desires and plans for Katharine’s care, all of which were premised on the understanding that David was Katharine’s father. At this meeting, Hana discussed another man with whom she had been in a relationship but noted that she considered this relationship was too close to the time of Katharine’s birth for him to be Katharine’s birth father.

On 21 August 2025, the DCJ received the DNA report in relation to David (David Paternity Report), which indicated that David could not be Katharine’s birth father.

On 25 August 2025, Ms Moy spoke with Hana via telephone and discussed the David Paternity Report and agreed to meet to further discuss Katharine’s paternity. During this conversation, Hana did not identify any other possible birth father for Katharine.

On 2 September 2025, Ms Moy and Hana met for a pre-adoption counselling session at which time Hana identified Kirpal as a possible birth father for Katharine. Hana explained that Kirpal was not the same person to whom she had previously referred as being too close in time to Katharine’s birth for him to be the birth father. As a result, by that time Hana had identified three individuals as the possible birth father.

On 17 September 2025, Ms Moy and Hana met for a pre-adoption counselling session. During this session, Hana expressed the view that there was no adequate family support and/or support services available to her to allow her to care for Katharine. Hana provided Ms Moy with Kirpal’s social media accounts to allow Ms Moy to make further attempts to engage with Kirpal. Ms Moy and Hana also discussed the third possible father at this time, whom Hana identified as Geoffrey. Following this meeting, Hana provided Ms Moy with Geoffrey’s details via text message.

On 26 September 2025, Ms Moy and Hana met for a pre-adoption counselling session. During this meeting, the birth registration paperwork for Katharine was completed and arrangements were made for Hana’s previously provided DNA sample to be used again for DNA paternity testing in relation to Geoffrey.

On 29 September 2025, Ms Moy and Hana met for a pre-adoption counselling session and discussed Hana’s relationships with each of Kirpal and Geoffrey. During this meeting, final arrangements were made for the DNA paternity testing in relation to Geoffrey.

On 27 October 2025, Hana agreed to extend the TCA in respect of Katharine (extended TCA). The extended TCA commenced on 1 November 2025 and remains in force.

On 31 October 2025, the DCJ received the DNA report in relation to Geoffrey (Geoffrey Paternity Report) which indicated that Geoffrey could not be Katharine’s birth father.

On 7 November 2025, Ms Moy and Hana met for a pre-adoption counselling session. At this meeting, the Geoffrey Paternity Report was discussed, as well as next steps in, and the timing of, the adoption process. Hana maintained the view that Kirpal is the birth father of Katharine.

On 20 November 2025, Ms Moy and Hana held a pre-adoption counselling session via telephone. The focus of this session was the sharing of information after an adoption order is made. Preparations were also made for Hana to participate in registered counselling as she continued toward providing consent for Katharine’s proposed adoption. Paternity was also further discussed. Hana did not provide any new information about Kirpal.

On 26 November 2025, Hana completed registered counselling with DCJ carer support worker (and registered counsellor) Elizabeth Lamb.

On 3 December 2025, in accordance with the provisions set out in s 53 of the Act and cl 34 of the Adoption Regulation 2015 (NSW), Hana signed the instrument of consent to Katharine’s adoption.

On 4 December 2025, Ms Molteno served the notice of expiry of the revocation period on Hana via email.

On 5 December 2025, Hana replied to the email, confirming that she had received the notice of expiry of the revocation period. Hana’s consent to Katharine’s adoption expires on 2 January 2026. At the time of writing, Hana has not revoked her consent to Katharine’s adoption.

Katharine has not yet been placed for adoption. No application has yet been made for Katharine’s adoption. Katharine is a child “awaiting adoption” (see the heading to s 75 of the Act, which is taken not to be a part of the Act, but is a useful expression to adopt).

Katharine continues to reside with Clara and Patrick in their home in New South Wales. Clara sends Hana photographs of Katharine almost daily, for which Hana is very grateful. It is intended that Katharine remains in the care of Clara and Patrick until she is matched with a proposed adoptive parent or parents.

I cannot dispense with the birth father’s consent unless I am satisfied that reasonable inquiries have been made to locate or identify him. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the Secretary has made reasonable inquiries to locate and identify Katharine’s birth father. Those inquiries are outlined below.

On 29 July 2025, David was identified as a possible father by Hana. At the time of Katharine’s birth, David was residing in Fiji.

On 30 July 2025, Ms Molteno emailed David a copy of the MWI on adoption.

On 31 July 2025, Ms Molteno contacted David via telephone and email. David had many questions and agreed to participate in DNA paternity testing (including travelling to Australia to provide a DNA sample).

On 6 August 2025, Ms Moy and David had a conversation via telephone and David confirmed he had arrived in Australia, that he was staying in Victoria, and that he wanted to participate in DNA paternity testing. David also provided further information regarding his relationship with Hana.

On 8 August 2025, Ms Moy spoke again with David. Arrangements were confirmed for David to provide a DNA sample in Victoria on 11 August 2025.

On 11 August 2025, David confirmed by text message to Ms Moy that he had provided his DNA sample as planned.

On 21 August 2025, the DCJ received the David Paternity Report which indicated that David could not be Katharine’s birth father.

On 26 August 2025, Ms Moy spoke with David to explain the results in the David Paternity Report.

On 18 September 2025, Hana named Geoffrey as a possible father for Katharine and Ms Moy sent a text message to Geoffrey.

On 19 September 2025, Ms Moy contacted Geoffrey via telephone. An interpreter was used during this (and other following) conversations given that English is not Geoffrey’s first language. During this telephone call, Geoffrey acknowledged having a relationship with Hana within a timeframe which meant he could possibly be Katharine’s birth father. Geoffrey provided Ms Moy with his contact details and agreed to participate in DNA paternity testing.

On 22 September 2025, Geoffrey confirmed via text message to Ms Moy that he had received the instructions that Ms Moy had emailed to him. Ms Moy then continued to support Geoffrey (mainly via text message) as he prepared to participate in DNA paternity testing. Further phone calls of this nature also occurred on 25 September 2025, 29 September 2025 and 8 October 2025. These exchanges included Geoffrey being provided with the MWI on adoption.

On 9 October 2025, Geoffrey advised Ms Moy via text message that his appointment to provide his DNA sample was scheduled for 15 October 2025.

On 31 October 2025, the DCJ received the Geoffrey Paternity Report which indicated that Geoffrey could not be Katharine’s birth father.

On 5 November 2025, Ms Moy had a phone call with Geoffrey to explain the results of the Geoffrey Paternity Report.

On 2 September 2025, Hana identified Kirpal as a possible father for Katharine.

On 9 September 2025, Ms Moy sent a text message to Kirpal. Kirpal did not respond to that text message.

On 16 September 2025, Ms Moy contacted Kirpal via telephone. That call went to voicemail, but Kirpal immediately returned the call. During this conversation, Kirpal attempted to deny he had been in a relationship with Hana and asserted that nothing had happened between them. Kirpal then agreed to a further phone call the following day.

On 17 September 2025, a further conversation between Ms Moy and Kirpal took place. During this conversation, Kirpal initially denied that he could be the father of Katharine but then agreed that he might possibly be her father. Kirpal expressed concern for his marriage to another woman. Kirpal indicated that he would be willing to participate in DNA paternity testing, but he then refused to provide any of his personal details to allow for the testing to be arranged. Kirpal then stated, “I can’t deal with all this, this is all too much for me”. Ms Moy explained to Kirpal that she had an obligation to continue to reach out to him and this might include sending him mail to, or visiting, his home address. Kirpal then ended the call.

On 17 September 2025, Ms Moy performed a search of the DCJ database, with no successful match found for Kirpal.

On 22 September 2025, Ms Moy attempted to contact Kirpal via telephone. The call was unanswered and there was no option to leave a message. A follow up text message was also sent which explained the importance of him undergoing DNA paternity testing as soon as possible “as there are legislative timeframes in relation to making lifelong decisions for the care of [Katharine]”. Within that text message, Ms Moy repeated that she has an obligation to continue to reach out to Kirpal and that she would maintain his privacy.

On 23 September 2025, Ms Moy and Ms Donnelly of the DCJ sent a request for information to the Department of Home Affairs in relation to Kirpal. This request was not actioned by the Department of Home Affairs as the DCJ was not aware of Kirpal’s date of birth.

On 29 September 2025, Ms Moy sent a further text message to Kirpal. There was no response to this text message.

On 9 October 2025, Ms Moy and Ms Donnelly attempted to contact Kirpal via telephone. The call was unanswered and a voicemail was left. No response to this voicemail was received.

On 16 October 2025, Ms Molteno attempted to contact Kirpal through his Facebook profile.

On 28 October 2025, Ms Molteno informed Ms Moy that Kirpal had blocked her on Facebook and she was unable to gather any further information from his Facebook profile.

On 29 October 2025, Ms Moy sent a further text message to Kirpal that again went unanswered.

On 6 November 2025, Ms Moy again attempted to contact Kirpal via telephone. The call was unanswered. Ms Moy followed up with a text message. Kirpal did not respond to that text message.

On 10 November 2025, Ms Moy again attempted to contact Kirpal via telephone. The call was unanswered. Ms Moy followed up with a text message. Kirpal did not respond to that text message.

On 18 November 2025, Ms Moy performed a search of the Australian Electoral Commission Roll in relation to Kirpal and noted one potential match with a residential address.

On 19 November 2025, Ms Moy performed a search of the record of the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages in relation to Kirpal. No successful match was located.

On 20 November 2025, Ms Moy sent a letter via both express and registered post addressed to Kirpal to a residential address in New South Wales, which had been identified by her search of the Australian Electoral Commission Roll.

On 25 November 2025, Kirpal contacted Ms Moy via telephone in response to the letter that was sent to his address on 20 November 2025. During this telephone call, Kirpal focused mainly on himself, his feelings and his own wellbeing, with little concern for either of Hana or Katharine. During this call:

In summary, it is clear from the inquiries above that the Secretary has made reasonable inquiries to locate and identify Katharine’s birth father, including through repeated, varied and consistent attempts to do so.

It is also evident that neither David nor Geoffrey is Katharine’s birth father. Kirpal has clearly and repeatedly indicated that he is not able or willing to participate in DNA paternity testing to confirm whether he is Katharine’s birth father. Kirpal has also confirmed that he does not wish to engage in the adoption process and wants no involvement in Katharine’s care whatsoever. On this basis, the Secretary seeks the orders outlined below to dispense with Kirpal’s consent.

Section 75(1) of the Act provides that the Secretary has parental responsibility for a child after general consent to the adoption of the child has been given by every person whose consent is required under the Act or the requirement for consent has been dispensed with.

Section 75(4) of the Act states that s 75(1) does not apply to a child unless and until:

As Katharine is not yet placed with proposed adoptive parents, interim orders cannot be sought under s 84 of the Act: Re Alice [2021] NSWSC 700; Re “K” and “M” (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1244.

As mentioned above, the extended TCA commenced on 1 November 2025 and will expire on 1 February 2026. In accordance with s 152(1)(c)(ii) of the Care Act, the extended TCA cannot be extended.

Unless I make an order dispensing with Katharine’s birth father’s consent prior to 1 February 2026, the Secretary will cease to have care responsibility under the extended TCA and will lose the ability to make arrangements for Katharine’s short-term and long-term care.

That is because of the expiration of the extended TCA, and because the Secretary could only acquire parental responsibility for Katharine under s 75 of the Act if consent to Katharine’s adoption was given by all requisite persons (which is not the case here, as Katharine’s father, whoever he is, has not given consent) or if such consent has been dispensed with.

Accordingly, the Secretary seeks an order dispensing with the requirement for the birth father’s consent, such that the terms of s 75(1)(b) of the Act will be satisfied and the Secretary will have parental responsibility for Katharine.

Dispensing with the consent of a parent is a serious step and not to be done lightly: Adoption of RCC and RZA [2015] NSWSC 813, Brereton J at [17].

If satisfied that a consent dispense order should be made, the court may do so before an application for adoption has been made: s 70(1)(a) of the Act; see also Re C and the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) [2014] NSWSC 1007, Kunc J at [40].

Section 67 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a consent dispense order may be made, providing:

The court may dispense with the consent of a birth parent under s 67(1)(a) of the Act if satisfied that the birth parent cannot be found or located after reasonable inquiry, but not unless it is also satisfied that to do so would be in the child’s best interests. What “reasonable” inquiries entails is fact specific and it is to be considered from the perspective of both the applicant and the person whose consent is required: Re K and the Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 858, White J at [22]; Re Dyk and the Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 1045, Brereton J at [17]; Re KN and the Adoption Act 2000 [2005] NSWSC 896, Campbell J at [14].

In circumstances where the birth father cannot be found or identified after reasonable inquiry, notice of the application for a consent dispense order is not required: s 72(2)(a) of the Act.

I am satisfied that reasonable inquiries have been made to find or identify Katharine’s birth father. I have outlined those inquiries earlier in this judgment.

Two of the three individuals identified by Hana as the possible birth father of Katharine have undergone DNA paternity testing and both were determined not to be Katharine’s birth father.

The third man identified, Kirpal, refuses to engage with the DCJ or undertake DNA paternity testing. Kirpal has made it quite plain that he is either incapable or unwilling to participate in the process of determining whether he is Katharine’s birth father and that, in any event, “he does not wish to be involved”. Without Kirpal’s cooperation, there are no further inquiries that can made to identify him as the birth father of Katharine.

Hana informed the DCJ that those three individuals were the only intimate relationships she had since coming to Australia and to date Hana has not named any other potential birth fathers for Katharine.

In these circumstances, it would appear the DCJ has not only made reasonable inquiries but has exhausted all possible lines of inquiry.

I accept that the Secretary has made reasonable efforts to locate and identify Katharine’s birth father. I am satisfied that the birth father’s consent can be dispensed with under s 67(1)(a) of the Act as Katharine’s birth father cannot be found or identified after reasonable inquiry. For the same reasons, I accept that the Secretary is not required to serve notice of the application for a consent dispense order on Katharine’s birth father: s 72(2)(a) of the Act.

Most importantly, I am satisfied that it is clearly in Katharine’s best interests to dispense with her birth father’s consent in accordance with s 8(2) of the Act.

Katharine has been living in a short-term pre-adoptive placement since her discharge from hospital on 1 August 2025. It is in Katharine’s best interests to be placed with proposed adoptive parents as soon as possible, and the placement matching process will commence following resolution of the issue of the birth father’s consent.

Dispensing with the birth father’s consent ensures that Katharine is “free for adoption” before making an adoption placement: Re C, Kunc J at [40]. It also prioritises Katharine’s welfare, minimising the risks of unnecessary delay and potential uncertainty about either the placement of Katharine for adoption or, eventually, the making of an adoption order: Re LJC (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 264, Darke J at [7]–[8].

Katharine’s best interests are the paramount consideration in making any decision about her adoption. This is not an issue that should be allowed to linger to her possible detriment.

Katharine should not be subjected any further uncertainty on account of confirming the identity of her birth father. Katharine deserves a more certain outcome. Thankfully, the law provides her with that outcome.

For the reasons set out above, I propose to make the following order: