Step-Parent Adoption Leave Under s 60G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): When Do Best Interests, Parentage Presumptions, and the New 2021 Court Structure Align to Permit State Adoption Proceedings?

Introduction (Mandatory Fixed Text) Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Tomney & Bartells [2021] FedCFamC1F 332 (BRC 10057 of 2021), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)

Presiding Judge: Carew J

Cause of Action: Application for leave to commence adoption proceedings under s 60G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), linked to prerequisites under the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld)

Judgment Date: 17 December 2021

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Step-parent adoption leave

Keyword 3: Best interests threshold

Keyword 4: Parentage presumption

Keyword 5: Court transfer after 1 September 2021 reforms

Keyword 6: s 60G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Background (No Result Revealed Here)

Two children, Child X (born 2010) and Child Y (born 2012), lived in the day-to-day care of their mother and her spouse, the step-father, for many years. The step-father had assumed the practical role of a parent in the household. The biological father lived interstate, had paid child support, and had intermittent contact with the children.

The legal and emotional issue was not simply whether the step-father acted like a parent in real life. The key legal question was whether the family could take the next formal step: moving from a lived reality of parenting into a legally recognised adoption pathway under Queensland law, which first required a federal family law gateway order granting leave to commence adoption proceedings.

All parties were self-represented, and the hearing occurred by telephone. Even though the case involved the welfare of children, the litigation was shaped by a structural legal complication: a major jurisdictional reallocation of adoption leave applications between the two divisions of the newly reconfigured federal family courts after 1 September 2021.

Core Disputes and Claims

Core dispute: Whether the Applicants should be granted leave pursuant to s 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to commence State-based adoption proceedings for Child X and Child Y, having regard to the statutory best interests framework and the legal consequences of adoption for parental responsibility, status, and ongoing obligations.

Applicants’ relief sought:
1. An order granting leave under s 60G to commence adoption proceedings in respect of Child X and Child Y.
2. A procedural order adding the mother as a co-applicant to ensure the adoption pathway could lawfully proceed without unintentionally terminating her parental responsibility contrary to the family’s intent.

Respondent’s position and relief sought:
1. Opposition was not advanced on the merits of the adoption leave application; the Respondent supported the adoption process.
2. The Respondent sought dismissal of aspects of the Applicants’ case advanced in response material, which the Court ultimately treated as a discrete procedural issue.

The practical human dispute beneath the legal framing: how to give the children a settled legal identity that matched the household reality, while also managing the biological father’s place in the children’s lives, including their relationship with half-siblings.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The origin story in this case is best understood as a long arc of ordinary family life gradually colliding with legal formality.

The mother and the Respondent had been in a relationship over several years, described by both as intermittent. Child X and Child Y were born during that broader period. Later, the mother formed a stable relationship with the step-father. The step-father joined the household in 2013 and became the consistent daily caregiver alongside the mother. Over time, the couple married (in 2019) and had additional children together, forming a larger blended family household.

For many years, the children experienced a stable routine: the same home base, local schooling, and a consistent father-figure in the step-father. In a legal sense, however, their status remained tethered to the biological father’s parental relationship, regardless of how little or how much day-to-day parenting he performed.

The decisive moment was not a single dramatic incident. It was the gradual realisation that the children’s identity, sense of belonging, and administrative life did not neatly match their legal status. The children learned relatively late that the step-father was not their biological father. After that disclosure, the biological father made contact and met with the children on several occasions, introducing them to his wife and other children (the children’s half-siblings). Contact then ceased after a period.

Against that background, the household’s focus shifted from informal parenting to formal stability. The step-father’s desire to adopt was framed as an affirmation of the children’s lived family reality: a single family name in the home, a unified legal identity, and a clear parental responsibility structure if anything happened to the mother. The mother’s own health issues during the preceding year sharpened the stakes: legal clarity can become urgent when life becomes unpredictable.

The litigation emerged because Queensland adoption law requires a specific federal family law gateway step before adoption proceedings can begin. The family could not simply “choose” adoption; they first had to satisfy a federal statutory test about leave, which is anchored in children’s best interests and the consequences of adoption.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicants’ Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Household history and stability
   • Evidence that the Applicants had lived together since 2013, had married in 2019, and had formed a stable family unit with additional children.
   • Evidence that the step-father had acted as the children’s father-figure since 2013 and had provided practical care and financial support.
2. Children’s identity and expressed wishes as reported by the Applicants
   • Evidence that the children wished to be adopted by the step-father and to be known by the household surname used by their mother and brothers.
   • Evidence describing the children as happy and well cared for in the Applicants’ home, attending a local school.
3. Welfare concerns and family resilience
   • Evidence of the mother’s serious health issues over the preceding 12 months, and the step-father’s support through that period.
   • Evidence that Child X had behavioural issues being investigated, with concerns raised about neurodevelopmental and mental health factors, which heightened the importance of stable caregiving.
4. The legal structure of adoption leave
   • Reliance on s 60G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as the gateway to commencing adoption proceedings under Queensland law.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Support for the step-father’s parenting role
   • The Respondent gave evidence acknowledging the step-father’s strong relationship with the children and spoke positively of him.
2. Limited but meaningful contact and half-sibling connections
   • Evidence that the Respondent had met the children and facilitated their introduction to his wife and other children, with a stated intention to continue occasional contact so the children could maintain relationships with half-siblings.
3. Child support context and potential future application
   • Evidence that child support had been paid, and an intention to seek relief from child support obligations if adoption proceeded, reflecting the legal consequence that adoption can restructure parental status and obligations.

Core Dispute Points (As the Court Had to Determine Them)

1. Standing: Are the Applicants within the category of prescribed adopting parent(s) permitted to seek leave?
2. Jurisdiction and transfer: Which federal division has original jurisdiction to determine s 60G leave after 1 September 2021, and how can the matter proceed without adjournment?
3. Best interests: Would granting leave be in the children’s best interests, having regard to the statutory framework and the legal consequences of adoption?
4. Parentage and evidentiary sufficiency (especially for Child X): Can the Court be satisfied about parentage status in a way that supports the adoption leave framework, including presumptions of parentage?
5. Procedural integrity: Should the mother be added as a co-applicant to avoid unintended termination of her parental responsibility if adoption is granted?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Although the judgment is ex tempore and the recorded reasons are concise, the case still illuminates how affidavit-style evidence and sworn oral evidence function strategically in family law applications.

In applications like this, each party’s sworn account does more than recount facts. It constructs a narrative designed to satisfy a statutory test. The Applicants’ case required them to demonstrate stability, caregiving continuity, and why the adoption pathway aligned with the children’s best interests. The Respondent’s case, while supportive, still had to address identity, contact, and parental status.

How the Applicants Used Sworn Material to Build a Persuasive Legal Statement

1. Converting lived experience into legally relevant facts
   The Applicants’ central task was to translate ordinary family life into the categories a court must evaluate: duration of care, quality of attachment, schooling stability, and future welfare.

2. Managing welfare risk without sensationalism
   The Applicants raised Child X’s behavioural and possible neurodevelopmental issues not as a weapon, but as context: children with additional needs often benefit from stable and coordinated parental responsibility.

3. Framing adoption as consolidation, not erasure
   A sophisticated affidavit strategy in step-parent adoption matters is to avoid framing the biological parent as irrelevant. Instead, the Applicants framed adoption as aligning legal identity with day-to-day care, while acknowledging the Respondent’s place and the half-sibling connection.

How the Respondent’s Sworn Evidence Operated

The Respondent’s sworn evidence did two things simultaneously:
1. It supported adoption leave by affirming the step-father’s parenting role and the children’s positive view of him.
2. It preserved relational dignity by expressing an intent to maintain occasional contact, particularly for half-sibling ties.

This dual approach matters. Courts assessing best interests are attentive to whether a proposed legal change supports the child’s relational world, rather than creating a brittle, all-or-nothing outcome.

Comparing Expressions of the Same Fact: Where Untruths Often Hide, and Where This Case Was Different

In many family law disputes, parties describe the same event differently to tilt the best interests calculus. Here, the unusual feature was convergence rather than divergence:
– Both sides accepted the step-father’s caregiving role.
– Both sides accepted the relationship history between the mother and Respondent.
– Both sides accepted the practical reality of the children’s current home.

The risk in such a case is not fabricated facts; it is legal missteps: standing errors, missing parties, or misunderstanding of jurisdiction after reforms.

Strategic Intent Behind the Judge’s Procedural Directions Regarding Affidavits and Party Structure

The Court’s key procedural intervention was to add the mother as a co-applicant. This was not cosmetic. It was a structural safeguard.

In family law, parenting status is not a matter of sentiment; it is a legal bundle of responsibility. Adoption can extinguish a person’s parental responsibility in law. The Court addressed this consequence directly by ensuring the adoption pathway could proceed in a way consistent with the family’s intent and the statute’s operation.

Chapter 5: Court Orders (Procedural Arrangements Before and At the Hearing)

This case demonstrates a practical judicial approach to keeping self-represented parties on track while also complying with jurisdictional boundaries.

Key procedural arrangements and directions included:
1. Granting leave for the mother to be added as an Applicant, ensuring proper party alignment for the adoption pathway.
2. Granting leave for the Applicants to amend the orders sought to reflect the mother’s inclusion as a person to whom leave to commence adoption proceedings would be granted.
3. Managing the post-1 September 2021 jurisdictional shift by utilising transfer mechanisms between Division 1 and Division 2 to allow the already-listed hearing to proceed without adjournment.
4. Determining the Respondent’s requested relief in response material, ultimately dismissing the Respondent’s sought orders in that respect.

While specific dates for earlier procedural steps are not central here, the essential point is that the Court used its statutory transfer powers to maintain continuity and avoid unnecessary delay for children and self-represented parties.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing in this matter was conducted by telephone with all parties self-represented. That setting tends to change the texture of courtroom advocacy: the judge often has to do more active case management, clarify legal issues, and ensure that the evidence is connected to the statutory test.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

1. Jurisdiction first, merits second
   The Court addressed a threshold issue before stepping into best interests: where jurisdiction sat after the 1 September 2021 reforms. The Court identified that adoption leave jurisdiction had moved to Division 2, but a transfer mechanism was available so the matter could proceed seamlessly.

2. Party structure as a best interests safeguard
   The Court then turned to whether the mother needed to be added as a co-applicant. This was treated as a necessary legal alignment step, not a mere formality.

3. Parentage precision
   A critical evidentiary moment concerned parentage for Child X. The Respondent paid child support for both children, but the Court did not treat that as conclusive proof of parentage. Instead, the Court assessed what could be determined on the material and applied the statutory presumption of parentage based on cohabitation timing.

Core Evidence Confrontation: The Decisive Issues

Even in a cooperative case, the decisive confrontation is between:
– What the parties believe to be true, and
– What the statute requires the Court to be satisfied about.

The Court’s reasoning addressed these pressure points:
1. Whether the Applicants were prescribed adopting parents within the meaning of the Act.
2. Whether granting leave would be in the children’s best interests, considering the statutory framework and the consequences of adoption.
3. Whether parentage could be approached with legal care, particularly for Child X.
4. Whether the matter could proceed without delay despite jurisdictional changes.

Judicial Reasoning (With Judicial Original Quotation Principle)

Context: The Court’s determinative focus was the best interests threshold for leave under s 60G, assessed against the reality that all key participants supported the adoption pathway.

“In circumstances where all parties involved and from what I am told, the children, support the adoption process I am satisfied that it is in their best interests to grant leave…”

Why this was determinative: The Court applied the best interests lens as the controlling criterion for s 60G leave. When the evidence supported household stability, the step-father’s long-term parenting role, and there was no contest from the biological father, the Court determined that granting leave was consistent with the children’s welfare, enabling the State adoption process to proceed.

Context: The Court also made clear that child support administrative outcomes do not automatically establish parentage for the Court’s purposes, requiring careful attention to statutory pathways.

“A decision by the Registrar is not sufficient for me to make such a finding…”

Why this mattered: It shows disciplined legal method. Even where everyone informally assumes parentage, the Court still distinguishes administrative assessments from judicial findings, and then uses the correct statutory presumption framework where available.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made the following orders:

1. Leave was granted for the mother to be added as an Applicant in the proceedings.
2. Leave was granted to the Applicants to amend the orders sought to include the mother as a person to whom leave to commence adoption proceedings would be granted.
3. Pursuant to s 60G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Applicants were granted leave to commence adoption proceedings in respect of Child X (born 2010) and Child Y (born 2012).
4. The orders sought by the Respondent in response material filed 30 September 2021 were dismissed.

The practical effect: The Applicants cleared the federal gateway condition, allowing them to commence adoption proceedings under Queensland law. The judgment did not itself make an adoption order; it authorised the commencement of the adoption process in the appropriate State forum.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

This chapter disassembles the Court’s reasoning using a Five-Link Structure: Statutory Provisions → Evidence Chain → Judicial Original Quotation → Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure, while obeying the required internal order:
(Special Analysis → Judgment Points → Legal Basis → Evidence Chain → Judicial Original Quotation → Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure).

Special Analysis (Precedent Significance and Unusual Aspects)

1. The case is a procedural gateway judgment with high practical importance
   Many people assume adoption is simply a State matter. This judgment demonstrates the layered Australian system: State adoption regimes can require a federal family law gateway step before proceedings can even begin. The significance is practical rather than doctrinal: it shows the correct pathway, the correct court division after reforms, and the correct approach to party structure.

2. The post-1 September 2021 federal court reforms were not merely a rebranding exercise
   The Court explicitly explained that Division 1 and Division 2 are separate courts and that adoption leave jurisdiction shifted to Division 2. This matters because families and practitioners can lose months if an application is filed in the wrong division or if a hearing is vacated unnecessarily. The jurisprudential value is the Court’s clear articulation of how transfer provisions can be used to avoid delay.

3. The Court modelled disciplined restraint on parentage findings
   Even in a cooperative case, the Court refused to treat child support assessment as definitive proof of parentage. That protects the integrity of legal status determinations and prevents a silent slide from administrative decision to judicial fact.

Judgment Points (Noteworthy Judicial Comments and Practical Takeaways)

1. Victory Point 1: The Court treated best interests as the controlling gateway criterion, not a rhetorical flourish
   The Court did not drift into generalities. It identified that s 60G requires the Court to consider whether granting leave would be in the child’s best interests. The case demonstrates that, in adoption leave applications, the Court’s task is not to decide whether adoption is emotionally understandable, but whether it is legally appropriate to allow the adoption process to begin.

2. Victory Point 2: The mother’s joinder was essential to avoid unintended legal harm
   Adoption can restructure parental responsibility. The Court identified that if the mother were not a co-applicant and adoption were granted, her parental responsibility could end. The Court’s approach was protective and logically consistent: it aligned party structure with the intended legal consequence of the adoption pathway.

3. Victory Point 3: Parentage was dealt with using the correct statutory route, not assumption
   For Child X, the Respondent’s name did not appear on the birth certificate, and the Court was not prepared to infer parentage merely from child support payments. Instead, the Court applied the presumption of parentage based on cohabitation timing, which is a legally orthodox and evidence-sensitive method.

4. Victory Point 4: The Court demonstrated “procedural kindness” without sacrificing legal rigour
   The parties were self-represented and appeared by telephone. The Court kept the process moving by using transfer provisions rather than adjournment, illustrating how a court can be accessible while still strictly lawful.

5. Victory Point 5: The Court acknowledged relational complexity without making it determinative
   The Respondent intended occasional contact to maintain half-sibling relationships. The Court did not treat that as a barrier. Instead, it focused on the leave gateway and the children’s welfare within the current stable household, leaving the State adoption process to undertake further scrutiny as required.

6. Victory Point 6: The Court recognised that adoption can affect child support obligations but did not let finances drive welfare analysis
   The Respondent indicated he would seek relief from child support obligations if adoption proceeded. The Court recorded this context but anchored its determination in best interests, not financial convenience.

7. Victory Point 7: The Court treated legislative architecture as part of best interests in practice
   A child’s best interests are not served by procedural dead-ends or unnecessary delay. By addressing court structure reforms and ensuring the matter did not need to be adjourned, the Court advanced the welfare purpose of timely decision-making.

8. Victory Point 8: The Court’s reasoning shows how small factual anchors carry large legal consequences
   The years of cohabitation (relationship history), the date ranges relevant to presumptions of parentage, and the existence of a stable household were the factual anchors supporting the legal outcome.

Legal Basis (Statutory Provisions Relied Upon to Resolve Evidentiary Contradictions and Determine Outcome)

1. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

– s 60G: Leave to commence adoption proceedings (gateway provision requiring best interests consideration).
– ss 60CB–60CG: Statutory best interests principles and how a court determines best interests (referred to via the note under s 60G).
– s 61E: Consequence that parental responsibility can end upon adoption, relevant to why the mother must be included as a co-applicant in the leave framework.
– s 69Q: Presumption of parentage based on cohabitation timing.
– s 69S: Circumstances where the Court may be satisfied of parentage based on prior orders that could only have been made if the person was a parent (raised to illustrate why administrative child support decisions are not automatically sufficient).

1. Adoption Act 2009 (Qld)

– s 92: The Queensland statutory prerequisite that leave under s 60G is required before an adoption application can be made, and the age-related parameters for an adoption application pathway.

1. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and consequential/transitional legislation

– Provisions establishing Division 1 and Division 2 and confirming their continuing separate existence.
– Transitional provisions applying the jurisdictional shift to pending matters.
– Transfer provisions enabling the case to proceed without adjournment through transfer between the two divisions.

1. Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)

– s 29: Administrative requirement for the Registrar to be satisfied a person is a parent before a child support assessment is determined, noted as context but not equated with a judicial finding of parentage.

Evidence Chain (Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions)

1. Standing and household reality
   Evidence: Long-term cohabitation of the Applicants since 2013, marriage in 2019, shared household with additional children, step-father’s long-term caregiving and financial support.
   Law: s 60G leave can only be sought by prescribed adopting parents and must be assessed through best interests.
   Resulting logical link: The Applicants were positioned as the step-father and mother in a stable household capable of meeting the gateway requirement.

2. Children’s welfare stability
   Evidence: Local schooling, reported wellbeing in the household, strong attachment to the step-father, and expressed desire to be adopted and share the household surname.
   Law: Best interests evaluation under the statutory framework referenced via s 60G note.
   Resulting logical link: The evidence supported a conclusion that leave would not destabilise the children, and instead would allow a pathway toward legal stability.

3. Managing legal consequences for parental responsibility
   Evidence: The mother’s role as biological mother and primary caregiver.
   Law: s 61E effect of adoption on parental responsibility.
   Resulting logical link: Joinder of the mother was required so the legal consequence of adoption would not accidentally strip her parental status contrary to the intended family structure.

4. Parentage for Child X
   Evidence: Respondent’s name absent from birth certificate; child support paid for Child X; sworn evidence of cohabitation during the relevant statutory conception window.
   Law: s 69Q presumption of parentage; rejection of administrative child support assessment as sufficient proof for judicial finding; reference to s 69S limits.
   Resulting logical link: The Court anchored parentage through the correct presumption rather than administrative inference.

5. Consent and cooperative posture
   Evidence: Respondent spoke highly of step-father and supported adoption process; intent for occasional contact for half-sibling relationship.
   Law: Best interests remains the controlling test, but absence of contest reduced litigation risk factors and supported a conclusion that leave could be granted without welfare alarm signals.

Judicial Original Quotation (Classic and Authoritative Dicta With Immediate Analysis)

Context: The Court’s careful separation of administrative child support context from judicial parentage findings.

“As a child support assessment has been made in this case it would seem that the Registrar was so satisfied… A decision by the Registrar is not sufficient for me to make such a finding…”

Immediate analysis: This passage is determinative because it illustrates the Court’s method. The Court did not collapse administrative satisfaction into judicial certainty. Instead, it required a legally orthodox foundation, and where direct proof was incomplete, it relied on a statutory presumption supported by sworn evidence.

Context: The Court’s ultimate best interests conclusion under the s 60G gateway.

“In circumstances where all parties involved and from what I am told, the children, support the adoption process I am satisfied that it is in their best interests to grant leave…”

Immediate analysis: This is the ratio in functional terms: the Court granted leave because the evidence supported a welfare conclusion that commencing adoption proceedings aligned with the children’s best interests, particularly within a stable caregiving household and with the biological father supporting the pathway.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

This case is unusual because it was not a classic adversarial win-lose contest on the core welfare question. The Respondent did not meaningfully contest the grant of leave. The “failure” was confined to the Respondent’s additional orders sought in response material, which the Court dismissed.

Why that aspect failed in a practical sense:
1. The Respondent’s sought orders were not necessary to resolve the statutory gateway question under s 60G.
2. The Court had already structured the proceeding to address the legally essential matters: party joinder, leave, and jurisdictional transfer.
3. In a cooperative adoption leave context, the Court prioritised the statutory pathway and children’s welfare rather than collateral disputes.

Reference to Comparable Authorities (Comparable Principles and Ratio Summaries)

1. M and M (1988) 166 CLR 69
   Core ratio relevance: The High Court recognised that children’s best interests are the paramount consideration in parenting determinations, and the inquiry must be anchored in the child’s welfare rather than adult entitlement. In adoption leave settings, this supports the principle that the gateway decision must be welfare-driven and evidence-based.

2. Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495
   Core ratio relevance: The case underscores the importance of jurisdictional limits and statutory pathways in family law proceedings. The relevance here is methodological: correct court power and correct statutory source must be identified before substantive relief is granted.

3. Re Evelyn (No 2) (1998) 23 Fam LR 420
   Core ratio relevance: The case is often cited for careful judicial scrutiny of arrangements affecting a child’s identity and long-term welfare, including the need to examine practical reality and likely future consequences. In step-parent adoption contexts, the guiding idea is that identity stability is evaluated through welfare consequences, not adult preferences alone.

(These comparable authorities are provided as research signposts. Their application tends to depend on the procedural posture, the jurisdiction, and the specific statutory gateway being considered.)

Implications (Self-Agency Focus: Warm, Empowering, Practical)

1. Your family story matters, but the Court speaks in evidence
   If you want a legal outcome that matches your lived reality, your first act of self-protection is documentation. Keep school records, caregiving patterns, medical histories, and consistent accounts of who performs parenting tasks. Courts do not reward drama; they reward clarity.

2. Do not confuse agreement with legal readiness
   Even when everyone agrees, the law still demands correct steps: correct parties, correct court, correct statutory gateway. Self-agency means treating the process like a staircase. Skipping a step can send you back to the start.

3. Identity stability is a welfare issue, not a cosmetic preference
   When children want a consistent family name and a settled legal identity, that can be part of their sense of safety and belonging. The strongest cases show how that stability supports daily life and long-term wellbeing.

4. Administrative outcomes are not always judicial facts
   A child support assessment may suggest parentage, but it may not be enough for a court finding in a different context. Self-agency means understanding which decisions prove what, and preparing the right form of proof.

5. Delay is not neutral in children’s matters
   Time passes differently for children. A delayed pathway can become lost opportunity. Taking early steps, seeking procedural accuracy, and asking for transfer mechanisms where available can be a form of care.

Q&A Session

Q1: If everyone agrees to adoption, why is there still a court process?

Because adoption is not simply a private agreement; it permanently restructures legal parentage and parental responsibility. The law therefore requires a controlled pathway. In Queensland, a federal family law leave order under s 60G is a prerequisite before State adoption proceedings can begin. Agreement helps, but it does not replace statutory safeguards.

Q2: Does paying child support prove someone is legally a parent for all purposes?

Not necessarily. A child support assessment requires the Registrar to be satisfied about parentage through specified means, but a court may still require a separate and legally orthodox basis to make a finding of parentage for another purpose. This judgment highlights that courts can distinguish administrative satisfaction from judicial determination, and then rely on statutory presumptions where supported by evidence.

Q3: Why did the mother have to be added as an Applicant if she already supported the adoption?

Because adoption can terminate parental responsibility in law. If the mother were not properly included in the leave structure and the adoption were granted, the statute’s operation could produce an unintended consequence. Adding the mother as a co-applicant aligned the legal pathway with the intended parenting structure and ensured procedural integrity.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Family Law – Children – Step-parent adoption gateway application (leave to commence adoption proceedings) with jurisdictional transfer issue post-1 September 2021 reforms

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (gateway leave decision under s 60G enabling commencement of State adoption proceedings)

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Instruction: Based on the case type, the corresponding core legal test standards are displayed step by step. These are for reference only, tend to be determined by the particular evidence and jurisdictional setting, and must be applied to the specific facts of each matter.

Because this case sits within Family Law (children) and relates to a step-parent adoption pathway, the most relevant category is:

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Even though the relief here concerns adoption leave rather than property settlement, a key concept in the case is the Applicants’ relationship status and household formation, including marriage and earlier cohabitation.

Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA)

When a court assesses whether persons have a de facto relationship under s 4AA Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), it examines the relationship as a whole. No single factor is determinative; the weight given to any factor tends to depend on the evidence and context.

The nine statutory considerations commonly examined are:

1. Duration of the relationship
   • The court considers how long the relationship has existed. Duration tends to be assessed alongside stability and continuity, not merely calendar time.
2. Nature and extent of common residence
   • Whether the parties lived together, how consistently, and whether the living arrangement was integrated or intermittent. Evidence can include leases, mortgage statements, correspondence addresses, and witness accounts.
3. Whether a sexual relationship exists
   • The court may consider whether a sexual relationship existed, but it is not required. Courts recognise that relationships may be committed and domestic without a sexual component, including due to health, age, or cultural reasons.
4. Degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support
   • Evidence can include shared bank accounts, joint liabilities, pooled income, payment of household expenses, and financial decision-making patterns.
5. Ownership, use and acquisition of property
   • Whether property was purchased jointly, how assets were used, whose name appears on titles, and whether the property arrangements reflected a shared domestic life.
6. Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
   • This includes whether the relationship appeared committed and future-oriented, such as planning, shared responsibilities, and prioritising each other’s welfare.
7. The care and support of children
   • Whether the parties care for children together, share parental responsibilities, and present as a family unit. Evidence may include schooling arrangements, medical decision-making, and daily caregiving routines.
8. Reputation and public aspects of the relationship
   • How the relationship is perceived by friends, family, workplaces, and the community. Evidence may include invitations, social media (used carefully and lawfully), and witness statements.
9. Registration of the relationship
   • If the relationship was registered under relevant State or Territory law, that may be significant evidence. Absence of registration does not preclude a de facto finding.

Practical warning: A de facto relationship finding tends to turn on the “composite picture” derived from evidence across these factors. A party who can only prove one factor strongly, while leaving the others vague, tends to face a relatively higher risk of an adverse finding.

Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process

In family law property matters, courts commonly apply a structured approach. This is included here because many families involved in parenting disputes later face property issues, and self-agency often requires early understanding of the full legal landscape.

Step 1: Identification and Valuation
– Identify all assets, liabilities, and financial resources, then value them.
– Evidence includes bank statements, property valuations, superannuation statements, loan balances, and business financials.

Step 2: Assessment of Contributions
– Financial contributions: initial, during relationship, post-separation.
– Non-financial contributions: renovations, unpaid work in a business.
– Contributions to welfare of family: homemaking and parenting.

Step 3: Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) factors)
– Age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and standard of living.
– These factors can shift the percentage division to address future disparity.

Step 4: Just and Equitable
– Final check: is the proposed outcome fair in all circumstances?
– Courts tend to require a rational explanation for why a division is just and equitable, not merely a numerical split.

Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975)

Where a court determines best interests in parenting matters, it considers:

Primary considerations:
1. The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, including exposure to abuse, neglect, or family violence. Protection from harm is given greater weight.

Additional considerations include:
– The views of the child (depending on maturity and circumstances).
– The capacity of parents to provide for the child’s needs.
– Practicalities and expense of time arrangements.
– Any family violence orders and related evidence.
– The nature of the child’s relationships with parents and other significant persons.
– Any other fact the court considers relevant to best interests.

Practical warning: Even where parties agree, courts tend to test whether the proposed arrangement genuinely protects the child’s welfare, particularly where there are indicators of vulnerability or instability.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Execution Instruction: In family-related disputes, equity and common law doctrines can sometimes provide alternative pathways when statutory avenues are limited. The following are not automatic entitlements and tend to depend on strong, consistent evidence.

Because this matter is primarily children and adoption gateway relief, equity is less central than in property disputes. However, families in blended households often face property and reliance issues over time. The following alternative paths are therefore relevant for self-agency planning.

Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
– Did one party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property or long-term security, such as a promise of ownership or support?
– Did the other party act in detrimental reliance, such as investing labour or money, giving up employment, or relocating?
– Would it be unconscionable to allow the promisor to resile from the promise?

Result reference: Even without a written contract, equity may estop the other party from departing from the representation where reliance and unconscionability are established.

Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
– Has one party received a benefit at the other’s expense, such as labour, funds, or improvements to property?
– Is it against conscience for the benefited party to retain the benefit without recognising the contributor’s interest?

Result reference: The Court may order restitution or declare a beneficial interest through a constructive trust, depending on evidence and equitable principle.

Procedural Fairness (where a decision-maker is involved):
– In adoption-related administrative contexts, where government agencies or decision-makers exercise discretion, procedural fairness issues can arise.
– Was there an opportunity to be heard?
– Was there an apprehension of bias?
– Were reasons given in a manner that permits meaningful response?

Result reference: Where procedural fairness is denied, a decision may be vulnerable to review, depending on the statutory framework.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Execution Instruction: Reveal the hard thresholds and identify exceptional channels. These do not guarantee an outcome; they tend to be evaluated case-by-case.

Regular thresholds relevant to step-parent adoption pathways (as reflected in this judgment’s statutory discussion):
– Child age parameters for adoption process timing: the child must meet minimum age requirements and the adoption must be capable of completion before adulthood under the relevant State statute.
– Correct statutory gateway: in Queensland, leave under s 60G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is a prerequisite to commence adoption proceedings.
– Correct court division and jurisdiction after 1 September 2021: adoption leave jurisdiction moved to Division 2, but transfer mechanisms may be available.

Exceptional channels:
– Transfer mechanisms between Division 1 and Division 2 may avoid adjournment where matters were already filed or listed in the previous structure, depending on legislative transitional provisions and judicial administration.
– Parentage uncertainty can sometimes be addressed through statutory presumptions, but presumptions can be displaced, and parties should be prepared for additional evidence or testing.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a pathway simply because the process seems fragmented across jurisdictions. Where children’s welfare is at stake, courts often have tools to manage procedural complexity. Self-agency means asking early: which court, which division, which statute, which prerequisite?

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation angle:
– This case is useful in submissions or advice concerning the correct procedural pathway for step-parent adoption leave under s 60G, the necessity of joining the biological parent in the correct procedural posture, and the management of jurisdictional transfer issues after 1 September 2021.

Citation method:
– As positive support: Where your matter involves a step-parent seeking to commence State adoption proceedings and the parties support the pathway, this authority can support the proposition that s 60G leave turns on best interests supported by evidence of stability and caregiving.
– As a distinguishing reference: If the opposing party relies on this case, you should identify differences such as contested parentage, contested best interests, allegations of harm, or lack of stable household evidence, which may mean the welfare conclusion in your matter tends to require a different evaluation.

Anonymisation rule:
– Do not use real names of parties in public commentary on family law proceedings. Use procedural titles such as Applicant / Respondent, and comply with Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) publication restrictions.

Conclusion

This judgment shows that self-agency in family law is not merely about having a strong story. It is about translating that story into the right court, the right statutory gateway, the right evidence chain, and the right procedural structure—so the law can safely recognise what children already live every day.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Tomney & Bartells [2021] FedCFamC1F 332), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.