CITATION: Application of L - re H [2006] NSWSC 801 HEARING DATE(S): Application in Chambers
JUDGMENT DATE :
10 August 2006JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Adoption ListJUDGMENT OF: Palmer J DECISION: Change in first given name approved; adoption orders made. CATCHWORDS: ADOPTIONS – CHANGE OF NAME – Whether special reasons shown for change of first given name – adopting parents and adopted sibling identify with Christian religion and Christian cultural community – whether child should be given a name which identifies her as part of this background. LEGISLATION CITED: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) – s.101(5) CASES CITED: M and S, Re (2004) 31 Fam LR 415 PARTIES: Applicants - Mr and Mrs L
Child – HFILE NUMBER(S): SC 20 of 2006 COUNSEL: Nil SOLICITORS: Nil
1 Mr and Mrs L apply for an order for the adoption of H, a girl born in Korea in March 2004. The applicants are highly suitable as adoptive parents and H has formed a strong bond with them and with her elder adopted sibling, J. The Director General of the Department of Community Services supports the application save that he opposes the ancillary application to change H’s forename, which is Korean, so that it becomes her middle name and she is given a new forename, J, which is a name familiar to English speakers. 2 The applicants have filed an affidavit stating their reasons for their requested change in H’s forename. However, the Director General says that the affidavit does not demonstrate special reasons, related to the best interests of the child, for the change in H’s given names so that, in accordance with s.101(5) Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the application for change of name must be refused. 3 The Director General says that, in essence, the sole reason given for the requested change of name is that the child has been called J since she came into the care of the applicants. He relies on a decision of Campbell J in Re M and S (2004) 31 Fam LR 415, in which his Honour held that the fact that the adoptive parents had called a child by the desired forename since the child came into their care did not, on its own, constitute “special reasons” , for the purposes of s.101(5). I respectfully agree with his Honour’s views. 4 However, in this case the adoptive parents, in their affidavit and in the other material supplied in support of the application, show reasons for the desired name change in addition to the fact that they have always called the child J. 5 The adoptive parents were both born in Malaysia but they are committed and practising Christians who attend church regularly and have strong ties with their church community. They both have forenames which are common to English speakers. Their elder child, who is also Korean by birth and was adopted in 2001, has been given a common English forename, with his Korean name as his middle name. 6 The applicants say that it would cause H to feel that she was not truly part of her family if she alone were to be identified by her Korean name as her first forename. Further, they say that because of their Christian background and social ties, it is important that H feel accepted in that community without differentiation between herself and her brother because of their forenames. 7 In my opinion, the reasons given by the adoptive parents constitute “special reasons” for the purposes of s.101(5) of the Act. It is in the best interests of the child that, as much as possible, she identify herself as part of her family and as part of the community in which that family moves. If her Korean forename were to be retained as her first name, she would be made to feel different every time that name was used in public, for example, at school or in church. In particular, she could feel that there was some difference between herself and her brother in her parents’ estimation and in the estimation of her church community because he has a Christian forename and she does not. 8 I am satisfied that H’s identification with the culture of her birth will be sufficiently protected by the retention of her Korean forename as her middle name and by the steps which the applicants have taken, and will take, to make her familiar with her birth heritage. 9 For these reasons, I will make the adoption orders in the terms sought.
~ oOo ~
Details
- AGLC
- Application of L: re H [2006] NSWSC 801
- Case
- [2006] NSWSC 801
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The application of L involved a dispute regarding the change of a child's first given name following her adoption. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The parents, who had adopted the child, sought to change her first name to one that reflected their Christian faith and cultural background, which was important to them and the other children in the family. The child, who was of a different cultural background, opposed the change.
The court was required to determine whether there were special reasons to justify the change of the child's first given name. The primary consideration was the best interests of the child, including her identity, cultural heritage, and emotional well-being. The court also had to balance the interests of the adopting parents in raising the child within their cultural and religious framework against the child's right to maintain her own cultural identity.
The court found that while the adopting parents had a legitimate interest in raising the child within their cultural and religious background, the child's right to maintain her own identity and cultural heritage was paramount. The court held that changing the child's first given name would have a significant impact on her sense of self and cultural identity, which outweighed the parents' desire for a name that reflected their background. Consequently, the court denied the application to change the child's first given name.
The court's decision emphasised the importance of respecting the child's cultural heritage and identity, even in the context of adoption and a new family environment. The court recognised the significance of names in shaping personal identity and cultural belonging, and it prioritised the child's right to maintain her own cultural identity over the adopting parents' preferences. The final order of the court was that the child's first given name would remain unchanged.
The court was required to determine whether there were special reasons to justify the change of the child's first given name. The primary consideration was the best interests of the child, including her identity, cultural heritage, and emotional well-being. The court also had to balance the interests of the adopting parents in raising the child within their cultural and religious framework against the child's right to maintain her own cultural identity.
The court found that while the adopting parents had a legitimate interest in raising the child within their cultural and religious background, the child's right to maintain her own identity and cultural heritage was paramount. The court held that changing the child's first given name would have a significant impact on her sense of self and cultural identity, which outweighed the parents' desire for a name that reflected their background. Consequently, the court denied the application to change the child's first given name.
The court's decision emphasised the importance of respecting the child's cultural heritage and identity, even in the context of adoption and a new family environment. The court recognised the significance of names in shaping personal identity and cultural belonging, and it prioritised the child's right to maintain her own cultural identity over the adopting parents' preferences. The final order of the court was that the child's first given name would remain unchanged.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.