2
2 I am grateful to the curatrices for their balanced, comprehensive and helpful
report, which they delivered on 28 August 2026. In that report, the curatrices
substantially confirm, albeit in much more detail than is set out in the founding
affidavit, GG’s version as to the care he and his family are providing S. I am
satisfied that GG should be awarded the parental rights he claims, and that it
is in S’s best interests to remain in his care.
3 The curatrices’ report confirms that GG and his wife intend to commence
proceedings to adopt S. The curatrices also confirm, having interviewed EYC,
that EYC is content to relinquish her parental rights. They confirm that the
decision to do so was not made spontaneously, but after sustained thought,
and after a realistic evaluation her capacity to provide S with the care and
stability S needs. However, the curatrices are also conscious that EYC, having
recently left prison, may, once her situation has stabilised, wish to revisit her
decision. EYC has given no indication that she might one day do this, and
appears to be planning a future without S. Nevertheless, the curatrices are
understandably reluctant to recommend that EYC’s parental rights be
terminated once and for all.
4 The curatrices suggest three possibilities for determining S’s future in their
report. The first is a reference to the Children’s Court for further investigation.
The second is directing EYC and GG to engage on the possibility of entering
into an agreement delineating shared parental rights and responsibilities. The
third is the suspension of EYC’s parental rights and responsibilities. This holds
out the possibility that EYC may in future apply to resume the exercise of those
rights.
3
5 I do not think that further investigation at this stage would assist the parties,
or, more importantly, that it would be in S’s best interests. GG and his family
have been looking after S for as long as S can remember. S is happy and
settled with them. There is no suggestion that GG is not a fit parent. He has
proved his fitness to the curatrices and to me. EYC’s attitude is, and will for
the foreseeable future remain, that she is unwilling and unable to be the
mother S needs. S is only dimly aware, if she is aware at all, of any possibility
that she will spend her childhood with anyone other than GG and his family.
6 EYC’s attitude also, in my view, rules out the possibility of a shared parenting
arrangement being agreed. EYC does not wish to exercise any of her rights
or responsibilities as a parent. There is no point in asking her to negotiate an
agreement to do so.
7 However, I share the curatrices’ reluctance to terminate EYC’s parental rights
once and for all. It seems to me that, given GG and his wife’s plans to adopt
S, the sensible course would be to suspend EYC’s parental rights and
responsibilities pending the finalisation of that process. The effect of such an
order would be that EYC will be at liberty to apply to resume exercising
parental rights and responsibilities over S at any time before GG and his wife
formally adopt S. If EYC’s attitude, that she has no wish to retain such rights
and responsibilities, remains unchanged, the adoption will permanently end
any possibility of their resumption. But EYC will have the time and the
opportunity during the adoption process, and having hopefully, over time,
developed a degree of security and stability that her life presently lacks, to
decide whether a permanent severance from S is what she really wants.