The Adoption of Johanna (a pseudonym) (No 2)

The Principal Officer of Anglicare Community Services seeks an order that a child, who I will refer to as “Johanna” (not her real name), be adopted by a couple to whom I will refer as the “Proposed Adoptive Parents”.

Johanna is 18 years of age. She was born in a refugee camp in Africa and arrived in Australia with her mother, who I will call “Emma” (not her real name) in 2006. Emma was born in an African nation. Emma has remained in Australia since 2006 and is now a permanent resident. Johanna’s father is believed to have died in 2012.

Johanna has 11 siblings, two of whom are living independently, one of whose whereabouts is not known and eight of whom are in out of home care.

Johanna has lived with the Proposed Adoptive Parents since April 2008, at which time she was two years of age.

On 12 January 2009, the Children’s Court of New South Wales made final orders providing for Johanna to be placed under the parental responsibility of the relevant Minister until she attains the age of 18 years, pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW).

Johanna was granted Australian Citizenship in March 2011.

Johanna has a significant number of medical diagnoses which limit her capacity to understand and consider complex information and questions. These diagnoses include cerebral palsy, intellectual impairment and global developmental delay. Johanna has been assessed as having a developmental age of 12 months. She has a diagnosis of developmental encephalopathy, meaning she has severe and significant developmental delays. She is physically immobile and has no speech.

On 14 June 2023, I made an order, on the application of the Principal Officer, pursuant to s 69(1) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (the “Act”), dispensing with the requirement that Johanna consent to her proposed adoption. [1]

There is no doubt about the care that Johanna is receiving from the Proposed Adoptive Parents. They have an intimate knowledge of Johanna’s significant needs.

Emma recognises this to be so.

Thus, in an affidavit she made on 28 September 2023, she said:

In relation to Emma’s stated wish that Johanna be placed with Johanna’s aunt, the evidence shows that Johanna’s aunt is well intentioned and does hope to support Emma by caring for Johanna. However, the information made available to the author of the report required by s 91 of the Act, who I will call “Ms Hampson” (not her real name), indicates that the aunt does not have a robust and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of caring for Johanna.

Emma has expressed concern that an adoption order would relinquish Johanna’s direct links “to our family and her … culture”.

However, the evidence shows that the Proposed Adoptive Parents are taking steps to educate Johanna, to the extent that this is possible, about her culture.

As Ms Dart, who appeared for the plaintiff, submitted, now that Johanna is 18, the only alternative to making an adoption order would be a Guardianship Order. There is in place such an order for a period of 12 months.

However, such an order lacks the permanency of an adoption order and allows for other persons to seek guardianship and financial management of Johanna in the future. As Ms Dart submitted:

As Ms Dart further submitted:

In that regard, Ms Dart drew attention to the following observations made by Ms Hampson:

Because Johanna is now 18, Emma’s consent to the adoption is not required and a consent dispense order is not necessary.

I am satisfied, based on these matters, that Johanna’s best interests require that I make an adoption order and that the making of such an order is clearly preferable to any other course that could be lawfully taken in relation to her care.

I propose to make an order in the terms of par 5 of the Summons. The plaintiff should bring in short minutes of order.