Alfarsi
[2025] FedCFamC1F 406
•16 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Alfarsi [2025] FedCFamC1F 406
File number(s): CAC 715 of 2025 Judgment of: BRASCH J Date of judgment: 16 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where application is brought by the maternal grandmother –Where the mother has passed away – Where there is no father registered on birth certificate – Where nothing known about father – Where major long-term decisions needed – Where no current child protection concerns from relevant entities if child lives with applicant – Final Orders made Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII, ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 64B, 65D, 65DAB Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 34 Date of hearing: 16 June 2025 Place: Brisbane (via Microsoft Teams) The Applicant: Litigant in Person ORDERS
CAC 715 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS ALFARSI
Applicant
ORDER MADE BY:
BRASCH J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:
Parenting arrangements
1.That the child X born in 2021 (“the child”) live with the applicant MS ALFARSI born in 1956.
2.That pursuant to s 61D of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), parental responsibility be conferred on the applicant for all major long-term decision related to the child, including:
(a)The child’s education (both current and future);
(b)The child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)The child’s health;
(d)Requesting that Medicare issue a card/s for the child and claiming Medicare benefits for the child;
(e)Requesting a copy of the child’s birth certificate and dealing with the Office of Births, Deaths and Marriages;
(f)Dealing with NDIS and making any applications required; and
(g)Dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Passport Offices and visa providers.
3.That upon making any major long-term decision related to the child, the applicant will inform the maternal grandfather, Mr E, by email.
4.That the applicant has responsibility for all day-to-day decisions with respect to the child.
5.That the child spend time with her maternal family, including the maternal grandfather Mr E, at all times as agreed between the applicant and those family members.
Accessing services
6.That pursuant to s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the applicant is granted leave to publish a copy of these orders to all service providers for the child, including but not limited to the child’s school, treating medical practitioners, any other doctors, therapists, counsellors, government departments, health insurer, passport and visa providers, or, for securing any financial support for the child.
7.That these orders are authority for the applicant to schedule and consent to treatment, therapy, schooling, programs, services and the like for the child, and to give and receive such information from service providers as a parent would ordinarily receive.
Passports
8.That pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the applicant is permitted to take the child overseas.
9.That pursuant to s 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the applicant is hereby authorised to execute all documents necessary to obtain an Australian Passport and travel documents for and on behalf of X born in 2021.
Slip rule
10.That in the event any wording in these orders constrains or otherwise fetters the applicant’s ability to deal with service providers for the child, she has liberty to approach chambers (with an affidavit)(via …@fcfcoa.gov.au) under r 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) setting out the problem with the wording (and attaching any relevant documents from the service provider) and proposing relevant amendment/s.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in “Parenting Orders – obligations, consequences and who can help” and these particulars are included in these orders.
B.Although he is not a party and did not file any material in these proceedings, the maternal grandfather, Mr E appeared before the Court today and did not oppose the making of these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BRASCH J
The applicant in this parenting matter is the maternal grandmother, Ms Alfarsi, born in 1956 (“the applicant”). There is no respondent to the application, for reasons which I will explain in due course. The child is X born in 2021. She will be four this year. X’s mother, Ms B was born in 1983 and died in what were initially unknown circumstances in early 2025 (“Ms B”).
When the matter was first before the court, the evidence was that the ACT Coroner's Court was looking into Ms B’s cause of death. The applicant now tells me that the Coroner has concluded Ms B died from a drug overdose.
The material received from the departments of child safety (however so named) in the ACT, Victoria and New South Wales and from the police in those three states reveal that that is not a surprising outcome, given Ms B's difficulties as set out in those records. I have discussed those records with Ms Alfarsi and also Mr E [the maternal grandfather].
A respondent and others in X’s life
X's birth certificate lists the father as unknown. There is no evidence before me to suggest who the father may be, or where he might be found. There is no evidence before me that the father has had any involvement in X’s life.
However, I have had the benefit of Mr E, the maternal grandfather and the applicant's former husband joining the Teams link today. He is an important male link for X. Indeed, X and Ms B lived with him for some time in the ACT, but it was ultimately decided that X would live with the maternal grandmother after Ms B died.
To her credit, the maternal grandmother has moved from Victoria to New South Wales, so X will be near her uncle and his partner, who have two little children, D, aged 3 years and F, aged 2 years old. That is a family connection for X with children of similar ages to her – she will be four years old this year and will be close by those children, effectively in a sibship.
But that does not discount the importance of the role that Mr E has in X's life. He lives in Canberra, and there was some evidence before me that even though X and Ms B lived with him for a period, and whilst he is certainly able to offer some support to the applicant, he could not take up full-time care of a little girl.
In any event, he supports the maternal grandmother in her application today. I have an email before me to that effect, and he has confirmed as much today.
In the meantime, the maternal grandmother has accessed counselling from the ACT Coroner's Court and is doing the best she can to help X understand the loss in her life.
Material and procedure
I have taken the applicant and Mr E through the updated s 67ZBD material received from Child Safety in the ACT, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice and Victorian Police and Child Safety.
The only report of any moment was one I discussed with Ms Alfarsi on the first return, which set out a range of prenatal concerns with the mother when pregnant with X. It included things such as she presented as substance affected.
But since the matter was first before me and I made orders, there are no updating reports or information from any of those entities; they had “nil records” since initial reports.
The applicant filed her Initiating Application in early 2025 and has put on two affidavits: at the time of Initiating Application and approximately three weeks later.
The matter was first before me in early 2025 and orders were made giving the maternal grandfather the opportunity to become a party if he wished and seek orders.
He did not do that, but these two people have managed to navigate their way through their own divorce, and I will make orders with the consent of the maternal grandmother that she let Mr E know when she makes any major long-term decisions for X. There is an order already in place that X spend time with her maternal family, including the maternal grandfather, Mr E, at all times agreed between the applicant and those family members.
Legal principles
Section 60CG of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the court to include in the order any safeguards that it thinks necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
It is plain to me, on the strength of the now six reports from relevant departments that the maternal grandmother will take whatever steps are necessary to promote X’s safety.
The fact that Ms Alfarsi brought this application so she could get supports for X and ultimately deal with schools, speaks to her making decisions that are in X's best interests. Similarly, Mr E's attitude to the matter clearly says to me that he sees X’s safety as a priority.
Section 65D(1) of the Act provides that this court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper, subject to 65DAB, which is irrelevant here. A “parenting order” is defined in s 64B of the Act.
Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII and that is:
The objects of this Part are:
(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and
(b)to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.
Section 60CA of the Act provides that a child's best interests are a paramount consideration in making a parenting order. Section 60CC(1) of the Act says:
(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must:
(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and
(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child—also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).
This subsection also refers to other provisions, but the provisions in s 60CC(4) of the Act do not apply here. As for s 60CC(1)(b) and (3), on the evidence before me, X is not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child.
I now turn to the s 60CC(2) factors, the first of those is what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm) of the child or any person who will have parental responsibility. There is no evidence before me whatsoever that X is in any kind of risk in the maternal grandmother's care, or indeed, if she spends time with the maternal grandfather.
I am confident that both [grandparents] will take steps to promote X’s safety, which includes the two of them working as amicably as they can for her.
Section 60CC(2)(b) concerns any views expressed by the child. X is too young to express a view as to where she would like to live or with whom. That might happen in a decade's time when instead of turning four, she is 14 and has a view, as is the want of many teenagers. But at this point, this is not a views case. She is too young to express a view. She would be struggling, no doubt, with the absence of her mother in her life.
Subsection 60CC(c) and (d) go hand in hand: the development, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of a child, and, the capacity of each person who is in her orbit to meet those needs. I have already concluded that the fact that the maternal grandmother has brought this application, says to me that she has capacity to meet X's needs.
One of the points of the Critical Incident List is to get children the services and support they need, and to have a non-parent to make major long-term decisions so the child gets what she needs. I have no doubt as she grows and develops that her two grandparents will both have the capacity to provide for her needs as they emerge.
I am satisfied to make an order that the maternal grandmother continues to have major long‑term decision making responsibility, but will be making a subsequent order by consent that she will let the maternal grandfather know when she has made any of those major long-term decisions.
Again, I highlight what I said to said to Mr E and Ms Alfarsi when we were discussing the matter - the decision making is for major long-term decisions. For example, what religion, if any, will she practice? Does she need NDIS applications made for her? Does she need surgery, but most people tend to be guided by what doctors have to say. And the one that will loom is school - what school will she go to? I do not want the applicant and Mr E to think they have to engage on nitty gritty day-to-day issues.
The next subsection in the Act, s 60CC(2)(e) is a sad one; the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents. With X’s mother's loss early this year, that is something now that is not available to her.
But I have absolutely no doubt that Mr E and the applicant will do their best to give X a memory of her mother and a positive memory. X does not need to know about her mother's difficulties until and unless it becomes important for her to know, but I cannot see that at any time in the future.
Rather, I am satisfied that both the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother will do their best to have a warm, positive memory for X of her mother.
The last factor is anything else that is relevant to the matter; s 60CC(2)(f). What I do consider relevant is to get Ms Alfarsi, who has her own grief, and Mr E, who has his own grief, in and out of this court system as quickly as X’s best interests allow.
For all of those reasons, I intend to make the orders I discussed with the applicant and also Mr E during the hearing this afternoon. That also includes making a slip rule order, so if the particular wording in an order is causing a problem [for X’s service providers], then the applicant can file an affidavit, via Chambers, setting out the problem with the words and suggesting a solution.
I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Brasch. Associate:
Dated: 19 June 2025
0
0
1