biological parent
1: Farnell & Anor and Chanbua [2016] FCWA 17 – (The Baby Gammy Surrogacy Saga) | April 14, 2016
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Western Australia
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, Biological Father, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Child of a marriage, Evidence, Parentage, Parental, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Perjury, Surrogacy
Judges: Thackray CJ
Background: A baby with Down syndrome at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute was held by the Family Court of Western Australia not to have been abandoned in Thailand by his Australian parents. This case involved twin children, Gammy, and his sister, Pipah, born in Thailand to a surrogate mother (“the surrogate”) using a Western Australian man’s sperm (“the father”) and an anonymous donor’s eggs. The father returned to Australia with Pipah, but not Gammy. It was claimed by the surrogate that the father had abandoned Gammy in Thailand because Gammy had Down Syndrome. The surrogate issued proceedings in Western Australia seeking the return to her of Pipah to live with her. The father opposed the Application and wanted Pipah to stay living with him. The father had previous conv
[Legal Issue]With whom a child lives – The applicants entered into surrogacy arrangement with the respondent birth mother – Twins born in Thailand as a result – The girl was brought to Western Australia to live with the applicants, while the boy remained in Thailand with the birth mother – The applicants seek an order for the girl to continue living with them – The birth mother seeks an order for the girl to live with her in Thailand – The male applicant is a convicted sex offender but expert evidence indicates that there is a low risk of him abusing the girl – This risk must be weighed against the high risk of harm to the girl if she is removed from her current home
[Court Orders]Orders for the girl to live with the applicants and for them to have parental responsibility – No orders requiring the applicants to allow the birth mother to spend time with or communicate with the girl – Applicants required to send some of the girl's schoolwork to the birth mother – Formal findings made that the applicants did not abandon the boy and did not try to access his trust fund.
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, Biological Father, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Child of a marriage, Evidence, Parentage, Parental, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Perjury, Surrogacy
Judges: Thackray CJ
Background: A baby with Down syndrome at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute was held by the Family Court of Western Australia not to have been abandoned in Thailand by his Australian parents. This case involved twin children, Gammy, and his sister, Pipah, born in Thailand to a surrogate mother (“the surrogate”) using a Western Australian man’s sperm (“the father”) and an anonymous donor’s eggs. The father returned to Australia with Pipah, but not Gammy. It was claimed by the surrogate that the father had abandoned Gammy in Thailand because Gammy had Down Syndrome. The surrogate issued proceedings in Western Australia seeking the return to her of Pipah to live with her. The father opposed the Application and wanted Pipah to stay living with him. The father had previous conv
[Legal Issue]With whom a child lives – The applicants entered into surrogacy arrangement with the respondent birth mother – Twins born in Thailand as a result – The girl was brought to Western Australia to live with the applicants, while the boy remained in Thailand with the birth mother – The applicants seek an order for the girl to continue living with them – The birth mother seeks an order for the girl to live with her in Thailand – The male applicant is a convicted sex offender but expert evidence indicates that there is a low risk of him abusing the girl – This risk must be weighed against the high risk of harm to the girl if she is removed from her current home
[Court Orders]Orders for the girl to live with the applicants and for them to have parental responsibility – No orders requiring the applicants to allow the birth mother to spend time with or communicate with the girl – Applicants required to send some of the girl's schoolwork to the birth mother – Formal findings made that the applicants did not abandon the boy and did not try to access his trust fund.
2: Groth & Banks [2013] FamCA 430 | June 11, 2013
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Biological Father, In Vitro Fertilisation, Mitochondrial Transfer, Sperm Donation
Judges: Cronin J
Background: The parties in this dispute lived together as a couple for six months before breaking up in 2002. After separation, they remained friends and the man agreed to donate sperm so that the woman could undergo IVF treatment. The man had also signed a document acknowledging that he had no legal claim to any child born of his sperm donation. However, the man did attend the birth of the child and visited the child regularly, effectively bonding with the child as father and son. This was the case until the relationship between the man and his former partner deteriorated in late 2011, after he revealed that he had a new girlfriend. The woman had since prevented the man from seeing the child. As a result of this, the man launched legal proceedings seeking to re-establish contact with his son, a
[Legal Issue]The woman argued that according to the Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic), there is an irrebuttable presumption that the party donating the sperm that results in an IVF pregnancy is not legally considered the father of the child.
The judge however found that this legislation was irrelevant, as it relied on the sperm donor being effectively "unknown" or "anonymous", where in this case the man had developed a meaningful parental bond with the child.
Even if the legislation was relevant, the man would still comply with the definition of “parent” under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the judge argued, and concluded that despite any potential conflict between the State and Commonwealth legislation, that the Commonwealth law would still prevail, as per Section 109 of the Constitution.
[Court Orders]IT IS ORDERED
(1) That the applicant and the respondent have equal shared parental responsibility concerning the major long-term decisions for the child.
(2) That the child live with the mother with routine stays with his father, encompassing every second weekend and a few hours every Wednesday, once the child reaches school age.
Catchwords: Biological Father, In Vitro Fertilisation, Mitochondrial Transfer, Sperm Donation
Judges: Cronin J
Background: The parties in this dispute lived together as a couple for six months before breaking up in 2002. After separation, they remained friends and the man agreed to donate sperm so that the woman could undergo IVF treatment. The man had also signed a document acknowledging that he had no legal claim to any child born of his sperm donation. However, the man did attend the birth of the child and visited the child regularly, effectively bonding with the child as father and son. This was the case until the relationship between the man and his former partner deteriorated in late 2011, after he revealed that he had a new girlfriend. The woman had since prevented the man from seeing the child. As a result of this, the man launched legal proceedings seeking to re-establish contact with his son, a
[Legal Issue]The woman argued that according to the Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic), there is an irrebuttable presumption that the party donating the sperm that results in an IVF pregnancy is not legally considered the father of the child.
The judge however found that this legislation was irrelevant, as it relied on the sperm donor being effectively "unknown" or "anonymous", where in this case the man had developed a meaningful parental bond with the child.
Even if the legislation was relevant, the man would still comply with the definition of “parent” under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the judge argued, and concluded that despite any potential conflict between the State and Commonwealth legislation, that the Commonwealth law would still prevail, as per Section 109 of the Constitution.
[Court Orders]IT IS ORDERED
(1) That the applicant and the respondent have equal shared parental responsibility concerning the major long-term decisions for the child.
(2) That the child live with the mother with routine stays with his father, encompassing every second weekend and a few hours every Wednesday, once the child reaches school age.
3: Simpson & Brockmann [2010] FamCAFC 37 | March 3, 2010
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.