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.     

Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Responsibility, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsupervised contact with Child, With whom a child lives with, With whom a child spends time with
Judges:  Bell J

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     

Court or Tribunal: Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Catchwords: Child Support, Percentage of Care
Judges:  Anonymous Member

Background: Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm are the parents of Linda, born 2001, and Melissa, born 2003. They have advised that they separated in September 2011. Registration of assessment for child support payments for both children was accepted on 12 September 2011 by the Child Support Agency (the Agency). At that time Ms Malcolm advised that they were separated but living under the one roof. The Agency however recorded Ms Malcolm as having 100% of the care of both the children at that time and wrote to Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm on 17 September 2011 advising of the acceptance of the registration and the percentage of care determined. On 23 September 2011 Mr Malcolm, as the parent liable to pay child support under the assessment, lodged an objection to the assesment that Ms Malcolm had 100% 
 
  [Legal Issue]The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the Child Support Agency’s decision that each of Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm had 50% of the care of their daughters Linda and Melissa from 12 September 2011 was correct and, if not, what the correct care percentage should be.   [Court Orders]On 8 February 2012 the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review. This means the application for review is unsuccessful and that the assessment by the objections officer that each of Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm should be taken to have 50% care of their children will stand.     

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of NSW
Catchwords: Adoption, Adoption Order, Change of Name, Children
Judges:  Brereton J

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of NSW
Catchwords: Parens Patriae
Judges:  McCallum J

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     

Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Amicus Curiae, Children, Medical, Parental Responsibility, Premature Infants, Special Medical Procedure
Judges:  Young J

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]The judge concluded that any treatment decision was up to baby D’s parents in conjunction with the doctors, and that no criminal sanctions would apply if death came as a result. As a result, Baby D’s parents are permitted to authorise the removal of the child's ventilation tube, leading to the child's death.     

Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Communication, Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Responsibility, Parenting Orders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child lives with
Judges:  Cleary J

Background: The parties began a relationship when Ms Green was 12 and Mr Hann was 16 years old. They married in 1993. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in 2004 when the children were aged about 3 ½ years and 18 months old respectively. The children then lived with their mother and spent regular time with their father, including overnight time. Contact between the children and their father proceeded without incident until 2009. However in 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.  
 
  [Legal Issue]In 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father. The Court has found that this behaviour was encouraged by the mother, who had formed an unhealthy dependence on the children. As a result, the Court found that there should be a change of residence, from the mother to the father.    [Court Orders]there should be a change of residence; there should be a period of time when there is limited supervised time with the mother to enable them to settle down in the father’s household and to begin to understand all the changes in their lives; the children’s behaviour, especially C’s, needs ongoing therapeutic intervention. I find that the mother would not facilitate this but the father and his extended family will; communication between the parties may improve after the mother takes     

Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Equal Parenting Time, Equal Shared Parental Responsibility, Interim Parenting Orders, Parenting Orders, Shared Parenting, Sole Parental Responsibility, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges:  Boland JBryant CJFinn J

Background: The parties were married in July 1996 and although there was a separation in December 1999 they finally separated in late May 2006. While there was some dispute as to the circumstances of the separation, the facts allowed the judge at first instance to find that the appellant father chose to leave the matrimonial home and bring the marriage to an end. Thereafter there was some dispute as to what happened in relation to the care of the children. Collier J recorded that the respondent mother asserted that after a period of time the parties reached an agreement and the appellant father commenced spending time with the children on each alternate weekend. The appellant father’s case was that the respondent mother removed the children from him and made it very difficult for him to have 
 
  [Legal Issue]This is an appeal by the father against a decision for interim orders. In this case the Judge in the previous decision did not apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, as stipulated in the family law act, nor did he consider what was in the child's best interests, as listed in the primary and additional considerations in the family law act. Instead the Judge applied the principle previously determined in Cowling v Cowling [1998] FamCA 19, commonly referred to as the "Status Quo". The principle of Status Quo determined that if a child was in a well-settled environment, the child's arrangements should not be altered. As such, the Judge determined that in interim hearings, the Status Quo should be the prevailing principle, not what was determined to be in the    [Court Orders]The Full Court of the Family Court determined that the appeal was successful, and that: (1) The presumption that an order for equal shared parental responsibility will be in the child’s best interests still applies in interim cases, even if neither party asks for such an order. (2) Where that presumption is applied, the Court must still, at an interim hearing, consider the practicality of the child spending equal time with each of the parents under Section 65AA of the Act. (3) Even wh