CHADDOCK & BOMER

[2019] FamCA 973

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHADDOCK & BOMER [2019] FamCA 973

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Change of Name

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1997 (ACT) s 19 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 s 4
APPLICANTS:	Ms Chaddock & Mr Chaddock

RESPONDENT: Mr Bomer

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1922 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 12 December 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 12 December 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANTS: Capon & Hubert Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. The Family Court of Australia exercising the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory approves the change of name of X Bomer, born … 2003 to X Chaddock and the name of Y Bomer, born … 2005 to Y Chaddock.

2. It is requested that the registrar-general of the Australian Capital Territory give effect to this approval pursuant to s 19 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1997 (ACT).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Chaddock & Bomer has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1922 of 2019

Ms Chaddock and Mr Chaddock

Applicant

And

Mr Bomer

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On the previous occasion that this matter was before the Court proposed orders were handed up on behalf of the joint Applicants, Ms Chaddock and Mr Chaddock and the Respondent, Mr Bomer.  Mr Bomer was at that point represented by a legal practitioner, the matter being mentioned on behalf of that legal practitioner by the legal practitioner for the Chaddocks.  On that occasion proposed orders were tendered to the Court which were agreed to by each of the parties being the two Applicants, that is the Mother and her partner, and the Respondent, being the Father.  Those proposed orders included orders that vested parental responsibility in the two Applicants removing it from the Father.

2. What was also proposed at that point was that there be a change in name of the children, X and Y to Chaddock rather than Bomer.  That was a term agreed to by the Father and sought by the Applicants under circumstances where the Applicants have raised X and Y since they were infants.  X and Y have expressed a preference for the change in name. 

3. Those overarching circumstances are sufficient to mean that the change of name is in X and Y's best interests, that conclusion being supported by the agreement of each of the parties to such a course of action and the children's view that such an action should take place. 

4. That satisfaction is the satisfaction that would be required of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (“the ACT”) to approve a proposed name change.  The Supreme Court of the ACT is given jurisdiction to approve name changes pursuant to s 19 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1997 (ACT).  Where the Supreme Court gives that approval following an application made a child's parent, then an application may be made for a change of the child's name to the registrar-general of the ACT. 

5. The parties have sought that this Court exercise the jurisdiction that is vested in the Supreme Court pursuant to s 4 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 which vests the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Territory in the Family Court of Australia.  Application has been made at this Court at first instance and I propose to exercise that jurisdiction, it being appropriate for the resolution of all disputed matters between the parties for me to do so.  Having met the threshold requirement contained in s 19 for the Supreme Court to approve a proposed name change I propose to also approve that change as being in the children's best interests. 

6. The effect of such an approval means that pursuant to s 19 to of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1997 (ACT) an application for change in a child’s name may be made by one parent to the registrar-general of the ACT.  Exercise of the power would constitute approval of the proposed change of name.  That is a step that cannot take place unless the Court is satisfied that the registrar-general has been notified of the application.  By an affidavit of Mr B filed in this Court on 12 November 2019 I conclude that the registrar-general has been placed on notice of these proceedings.  Accordingly, it is open for me to give that approval of the proposed change of name. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 16 December 2019.

Associate:

Date:  18 December 2019