The Adoption of Mary (a pseudonym) and Michael (a pseudonym) (No 2)

I published an earlier judgment in this matter on 27 February 2023. [1] I will use the same abbreviations and pseudonyms here.

To give effect to that judgment, I have since ordered that:

I was not then satisfied that the Secretary had complied with his obligation under s 33(1) of the Act to “ensure” that a person approved in accordance with s 195 of the Act was “consulted about the placement” of Mary and Michael, nor with the requirement in s 33(2) to ensure that the placement of Mary and Michael with the Prospective Adoptive Parents had been made “in consultation with a local, community-based and relevant Aboriginal organisation”.

As to s 33(1), I recorded in my 27 February 2023 judgment that the Secretary accepted that the requirements of that subsection were not then satisfied. I noted that the Secretary had engaged Ms Smith to undertake a consultation and that Ms Smith’s report was expected by the end of the month.

Ms Smith’s report was to hand on 5 March 2023. Ms Smith expressed the view that none of restoration, guardianship or the allocation of parental responsibility to the Prospective Adoptive Parents, nor the maintenance of the status quo was a preferable or viable option to the making of an adoption order.

Ms Smith reported:

Ms Smith further reported:

I am, in those circumstances, satisfied that the Secretary has now complied with the requirements of s 33(1) of the Act.

As to the requirements of s 33(2) of the Act, since my judgment of 27 February 2023, the Secretary has engaged in communications with a local, community-based and relevant Aboriginal organisation. During that consultation, there was an “exchange of views” concerning the placement for adoption of Mary and Michael with the Prospective Adoptive Parents.

That organisation stated:

I accept the Secretary’s submission that he has now complied with his obligation under s 33(2) of the Act.

It is therefore not necessary here to consider the question of what course the Court should follow if not persuaded of such compliance.