Callinan J
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Discretion to Admit Evidence, Evidence, Recorded conversations
Judges: McClelland J
Background: This is a case where the applicant mother secretly recorded the respondent father making threats of violence against the children. Counsel for the Applicant mother sought to tender these voice recordings and transcripts of these conversations, made without the father's consent, to the hearing. The recordings and transcript were only provided to the father's legal representatives less than a week prior to the commencement of the hearing. This did not comply with the pre-trial directions for the filing of evidence.
[Legal Issue]The Court found that the audio recordings fall within the exception contained in sub-section 7(3)(b) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), as the recordings were reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of the mother. The Court also exercised its discretion to admit the audio recordings and transcripts into evidence. A certificate was issued to the mother pursuant to section 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
[Court Orders]The bulk of the audio recordings and the transcript of the audio recordings between the parties were accepted as evidence in the proceedings.
Catchwords: Discretion to Admit Evidence, Evidence, Recorded conversations
Judges: McClelland J
Background: This is a case where the applicant mother secretly recorded the respondent father making threats of violence against the children. Counsel for the Applicant mother sought to tender these voice recordings and transcripts of these conversations, made without the father's consent, to the hearing. The recordings and transcript were only provided to the father's legal representatives less than a week prior to the commencement of the hearing. This did not comply with the pre-trial directions for the filing of evidence.
[Legal Issue]The Court found that the audio recordings fall within the exception contained in sub-section 7(3)(b) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), as the recordings were reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of the mother. The Court also exercised its discretion to admit the audio recordings and transcripts into evidence. A certificate was issued to the mother pursuant to section 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
[Court Orders]The bulk of the audio recordings and the transcript of the audio recordings between the parties were accepted as evidence in the proceedings.
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges: Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J
Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.
[Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother.
The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child.
The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.
[Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent).
The appeal was dismissed.
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges: Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J
Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.
[Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother.
The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child.
The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.
[Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent).
The appeal was dismissed.