Medical Practitioner
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of NSW
Catchwords: Posthumous Sperm Donation, Rights of Executors and Administrators, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges: R A Hulme J
Background: What right does a woman have to take sperm from the body of her deceased partner so that she may conceive a child? Ms Jocelyn Edwards seeks a declaration that she, as the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards, is entitled to possession of sperm that was extracted from his body shortly after his death. Although there is no direct evidence, the clear and only inference is that she desires to have a child with the aid of assisted reproductive treatment.
[Legal Issue]Ms Edwards argued that, as the administrator of her late husband's estate in relation to the disposal of his body, she has a right to possession of any part thereof and no other party has a superior right.
The Attorney General however argued that there is a right of property, but the right of an executor or administrator to possession of the deceased's body is limited to fulfilling the duty to ensure prompt and decent burial or cremation.
[Court Orders]The Court made the order that Ms Jocelyn Edwards is entitled to possession of the sperm recovered from the body of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards.
Catchwords: Posthumous Sperm Donation, Rights of Executors and Administrators, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges: R A Hulme J
Background: What right does a woman have to take sperm from the body of her deceased partner so that she may conceive a child? Ms Jocelyn Edwards seeks a declaration that she, as the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards, is entitled to possession of sperm that was extracted from his body shortly after his death. Although there is no direct evidence, the clear and only inference is that she desires to have a child with the aid of assisted reproductive treatment.
[Legal Issue]Ms Edwards argued that, as the administrator of her late husband's estate in relation to the disposal of his body, she has a right to possession of any part thereof and no other party has a superior right.
The Attorney General however argued that there is a right of property, but the right of an executor or administrator to possession of the deceased's body is limited to fulfilling the duty to ensure prompt and decent burial or cremation.
[Court Orders]The Court made the order that Ms Jocelyn Edwards is entitled to possession of the sperm recovered from the body of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychological, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bennett J
Background: This is a case of an Anglo-Australian father and a Chinese-born mother. There was a high level of parental conflict during and after the breakdown of the relationship. After separation, the mother and father lived in separate states. They had two children aged 11 and 9. The father had then re-partnered. In dispute over 'contact with the children' after separation, the mother made allegations of child sexual abuse against the father. She also made allegations of physical violence by the father against her and the children. These allegations were found to be baseless, contrived and pre-meditated by the Court. The mother also engaged in behaviour intended to incite hatred in the children against the father. This alienation proceeded to a degree where the children did not want t
[Legal Issue]Despite the findings of the Court against the mother, the Court had to address how it was going to deal with the intense "antipathy" that the children felt towards their father, to the point where they threatened self-harm if they were forced to see him.
The Court found the children to be “articulate, forthright and self-assured adolescents.” In that context, the threat of self-harm if made to spend time with the father must be given sufficient weight as a likely outcome if contact with the father was forced onto the children.
The Court concluded that imposing a “solution” on the children without deference to their views would at least compromise their development and, possibly, inspire the threatened self-harm.
[Court Orders]His Honour ordered equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the Judge ordered a "post orders program", as recommended by the supervising family consultant with a view to the girls, being reunited with their father as soon as practicable. (this program subsequently failed: re: Wang & Dennison (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 1251)
The judge also requested that a family consultant be nominated to supervise compliance with t
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychological, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bennett J
Background: This is a case of an Anglo-Australian father and a Chinese-born mother. There was a high level of parental conflict during and after the breakdown of the relationship. After separation, the mother and father lived in separate states. They had two children aged 11 and 9. The father had then re-partnered. In dispute over 'contact with the children' after separation, the mother made allegations of child sexual abuse against the father. She also made allegations of physical violence by the father against her and the children. These allegations were found to be baseless, contrived and pre-meditated by the Court. The mother also engaged in behaviour intended to incite hatred in the children against the father. This alienation proceeded to a degree where the children did not want t
[Legal Issue]Despite the findings of the Court against the mother, the Court had to address how it was going to deal with the intense "antipathy" that the children felt towards their father, to the point where they threatened self-harm if they were forced to see him.
The Court found the children to be “articulate, forthright and self-assured adolescents.” In that context, the threat of self-harm if made to spend time with the father must be given sufficient weight as a likely outcome if contact with the father was forced onto the children.
The Court concluded that imposing a “solution” on the children without deference to their views would at least compromise their development and, possibly, inspire the threatened self-harm.
[Court Orders]His Honour ordered equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the Judge ordered a "post orders program", as recommended by the supervising family consultant with a view to the girls, being reunited with their father as soon as practicable. (this program subsequently failed: re: Wang & Dennison (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 1251)
The judge also requested that a family consultant be nominated to supervise compliance with t
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Victoria
Catchwords: Assisted Suicide, Elderly, Euthanasia
Judges: Harper J
Background: Mrs Nestorowycz tried to kill herself and her husband who was suffering from dementia and diabetes and living in a nursing home. She was found to have been suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time and said to have had reduced capacity to make appropriate decisions.
[Legal Issue]As indicated by the Judge:
"At the time you committed these acts, you knew what you were doing. As you told the consultant psychiatrist Dr Lester Walton, you believed that you had inflicted a fatal wound on your husband, and intended that he would die. You held the same intention for yourself. But, as Dr Walton also records in his report of 3 June 2008, you believed that your husband was suffering by being kept in a nursing home. He had pleaded with you often over the eight years since his initial admission to take him home. His pleas caused you a great deal of distress because you wanted to have his wish fulfilled, but it could not be. So, feeling very sorry for him, you decided (as you told Dr Walton) to end his life and yours. You continued:
I didn’t do it out of hatred or becau
[Court Orders]Charged with: Attempted Murder. Could have been sentenced up to 25 years prison.
However received 2 years and 9 months wholly suspended sentence
Catchwords: Assisted Suicide, Elderly, Euthanasia
Judges: Harper J
Background: Mrs Nestorowycz tried to kill herself and her husband who was suffering from dementia and diabetes and living in a nursing home. She was found to have been suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time and said to have had reduced capacity to make appropriate decisions.
[Legal Issue]As indicated by the Judge:
"At the time you committed these acts, you knew what you were doing. As you told the consultant psychiatrist Dr Lester Walton, you believed that you had inflicted a fatal wound on your husband, and intended that he would die. You held the same intention for yourself. But, as Dr Walton also records in his report of 3 June 2008, you believed that your husband was suffering by being kept in a nursing home. He had pleaded with you often over the eight years since his initial admission to take him home. His pleas caused you a great deal of distress because you wanted to have his wish fulfilled, but it could not be. So, feeling very sorry for him, you decided (as you told Dr Walton) to end his life and yours. You continued:
I didn’t do it out of hatred or becau
[Court Orders]Charged with: Attempted Murder. Could have been sentenced up to 25 years prison.
However received 2 years and 9 months wholly suspended sentence