The Adoption of Matthew Bell

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:

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:

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 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.

There are several formal requirements or pre-conditions necessary to enliven this court’s jurisdiction to make an adoption order under the Act. I will address each of these formal requirements in turn. The more substantive matters about which I must be satisfied before making an adoption order pursuant to s 90 of the Act are considered in the following section of this judgment.

Section 23 of the Act provides:

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:

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:

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:

I am satisfied that all of the formal requirements of an adoption application have been met.

In respect of adoption orders generally, s 90(1) of the Act stipulates that the court must not make an adoption order in relation to a child unless it is satisfied as to certain matters. Section 90(1) of the Act relevantly states:

Section 90(2) of the Act provides:

Section 90(3) of the Act provides:

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]:

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:

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:

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].

Having considered all the evidence before me, I have no doubt that the best interests of Matthew are best served by his adoption by Anne and Charlie. In reaching this determination, I have had regard to each of the matters contained in s 8(2) of the Act, which I will briefly address in turn.

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:

In his letter, Gilbert stated:

In his letter, Jim stated:

Matthew plainly feels a strong sense of belonging with Anne, Charlie and their children, and his sense of belonging and familial unity is clearly reciprocated.

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:

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 opposes Matthew’s adoption and wishes to have Matthew return to her care and for him to live with her in Vietnam. At the final hearing, Ms Leis submitted that (T6–7):

Thomas supports Matthew’s adoption and has spoken positively about the care of Anne and Charlie for Matthew, stating “I’m happy with where he is, no issues with that” and “they are a very happy, loving family, Matthew has a large number of siblings and seems very happy and well adjusted”. Thomas has acknowledged that Matthew’s adoption by Anne and Charlie is “what’s best for Matthew”. While Thomas has stated “I’d be happy to consent”, Thomas has not given formal consent to Matthew’s adoption in favour of Anne and Charlie.

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 have dealt with the alternatives to the making of an adoption order below in assessing whether adoption is clearly preferable in the best interests of Matthew.

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:

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.

The same can be said for an order allocating parental responsibility to Anne and Charlie. While achieving some of the functional aims served by an adoption order, an order allocating long-term parental responsibility for Matthew to Anne and Charlie (a guardianship order) lacks the symbolic and expressive value of a formal adoption order. A parental responsibility order, insofar as it would expire when Matthew attains 18 years of age, lacks the permanence and sense of ongoing belonging afforded by an adoption order. Such shortcomings were remarked upon in A Child Proposed for Adoption [2019] NSWSC 1653, by Slattery J at [165] as follows:

For these reasons, together with those outlined in my consideration of whether adoption is in the best interests of Matthew, I am persuaded that the interests of Matthew are best served by an adoption order in favour of Anne and Charlie, and that this course is clearly preferable to the alternatives to adoption.

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:

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:

Under s 72(1) of the Act, the court must not make a consent dispense order unless the person whose consent is sought to be dispensed with has received at least 14 days’ notice of that application. Dispensing with the consent of a parent is a serious step and not to be done lightly: Adoption of RCC and RZA, Brereton J at [17].

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 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.

Section 101 of the Act provides as follows:

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:

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.

Section 46 of the Act provides as follows:

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:

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:

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: