Key Takeaways
- Leave to Adopt Granted: The Court granted leave under section 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the stepmother to commence adoption proceedings of her husband’s child, whom she had cared for since 2014.
- Biological Mother Consented: The child’s biological mother, who had not been involved in the child’s life since 2014, supported the adoption and provided written consent, strengthening the application.
- Child’s Best Interests Prioritised: The Court found that adoption would provide greater legal and emotional stability than alternative orders, aligning with the child’s best interests.
- Long-Term Parental Role Recognised: The stepmother’s decade-long caregiving role was central to the Court’s decision, affirming her status as a de facto parent under Queensland’s Adoption Act 2009.
- Compliance with State and Federal Laws: The applicants met all eligibility requirements under Queensland adoption legislation, and the Court highlighted the importance of navigating both state and federal legal frameworks in such cases.
Iliescu & Kubo [2024] FedCFamC1F 852
Introduction
The case of Iliescu & Kubo [2024] FedCFamC1F 852 concerns an application made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) by a father and his wife, the stepmother of the child, seeking leave to commence adoption proceedings. The Court had to determine whether granting leave for the stepmother’s adoption of the child aligned with the child’s best interests, considering the legal, emotional, and social implications. This case underscores the intersection of state and federal laws, parental rights, and the overarching principle of child welfare in family law. The Court examined the role of the stepmother as a de facto parent, her longstanding caregiving relationship with the child, and the necessity of formalising legal ties to provide greater security and stability. The biological mother’s consent was also a significant factor, as she had not been involved in the child’s life for an extended period but still retained legal parental status. Additionally, the Court carefully weighed the impact on extended family relationships, ensuring that the child’s emotional bonds with both biological and adoptive families were preserved while prioritising long-term well-being.
Background
The applicants, Mr. and Ms. Iliescu, applied under section 60G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to obtain leave to initiate adoption proceedings for the child, X, who was born in 2011. The child’s biological mother, Ms. Kubo, provided her consent to the application. The case was originally filed in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia but was later transferred to Division 1 under section 149 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
Evidence presented in court established that X had lived in the full-time care of the father since May 2014. The stepmother, Ms. Iliescu, had been a parental figure to X since 2014, and they had resided together as a family unit since 2015. The applicants married in 2020, and X had developed strong familial bonds with both the stepmother and her extended family. Additionally, evidence suggested that the biological mother had not had contact with the child since December 2014 but continued to have a positive relationship with the applicants and supported the adoption application.
Key Legal Issues and Questions for the Court
The Court was required to consider:
- Best Interests of the Child: Whether granting leave for the adoption proceedings was in the best interests of the child under section 60G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), considering the child’s long-term stability, emotional well-being, and existing familial relationships.
- Compliance with Adoption Criteria: Whether the applicants met the eligibility requirements under section 92 of the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld), particularly regarding the age of the child and the necessity of obtaining court leave before adoption proceedings.
- Step-Parent Eligibility: Whether the stepmother qualified as a ‘prescribed adopting parent’ under the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld), based on her long-term caregiving role and parental responsibilities.
- Adoption vs. Alternative Orders: Whether an adoption order, rather than alternative family law orders such as parental responsibility or guardianship, would provide greater legal and emotional stability for the child.
Case Authorities and Cited Precedents
- Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36; (2015) FLC 93-637 – This case provided guidance on assessing the best interests of the child and the weight given to existing familial relationships.
Link: Full Case
Court’s Findings
Justice Hogan’s ruling in favour of granting leave was based on the following determinations:
- Legislative Compliance: The applicants met the eligibility requirements under section 92 of the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld), including X’s age, residency, and the necessity of obtaining leave under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) before adoption could proceed.
- Consent of the Biological Mother: The biological mother’s voluntary consent to the adoption provided strong support for the application.
- Long-Term Parental Relationship: The stepmother had been a significant parental figure in X’s life since 2014 and had assumed full parental responsibilities for a decade.
- Emotional and Psychological Benefits: Adoption would provide legal certainty and formal recognition of the family structure, reinforcing X’s sense of belonging and security.
- Best Interests of the Child: The Court concluded that an adoption order would be more beneficial to X than alternative parenting orders, ensuring long-term stability and the continuation of an existing strong familial bond.
As a result, the Court granted leave for the adoption proceedings to commence.
Legal Implications and Precedent Summary
The decision in Iliescu & Kubo [2024] establishes significant legal precedents for step-parent adoption cases in Australia. It reinforces the primacy of the child’s best interests, ensuring that adoption applications are assessed with a focus on long-term stability and well-being. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of balancing state and federal adoption laws, requiring compliance with both the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and state-based adoption legislation. While biological parental consent is not always mandatory, the Court acknowledged that obtaining consent from both biological parents significantly strengthens an adoption application. Finally, the case underscores the recognition of de facto parental roles, with long-term caregiving and demonstrated parental responsibility being key considerations in the Court’s assessment of step-parent adoption.
Keywords
- Family law
- Step-parent adoption
- Best interests of the child
- Parental responsibility
- Family Law Act 1975
- Adoption Act 2009
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Conclusion and Call to Action
The case of Iliescu & Kubo [2024] underscores the importance of legal stability and parental recognition in family law matters. For individuals considering step-parent adoption, understanding the legal prerequisites and procedural requirements is crucial.
If you need assistance with step-parent adoption or other family law matters, Pentana Stanton Lawyers can provide expert legal guidance tailored to your circumstances.
Contact us today to discuss your case with our experienced family law team.
