Clarence & Crisp

The appeal in Clarence & Crisp involved the birth mother of a child, who was conceived using the egg of another woman, the respondent. The primary dispute was whether the parties were in a de facto relationship at the time of the child’s conception, and if so, whether the respondent was to be recognised as a parent of the child. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the initial decision found in favour of the respondent, leading to the appellant’s appeal against this determination.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the interpretation and application of the statutory tests for determining the existence of a de facto relationship, as well as the comparison between the tests applicable to married couples and those for de facto couples. Central to the appeal was the question of whether the relationship between the parties had continued to exist at the time of conception, despite the respondent moving out of the shared home. The court was tasked with assessing whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the relationship subsisted and that the respondent was a parent under the Family Law Act.

The court found that the existence of a de facto relationship is a question of fact that requires a holistic assessment of all circumstances surrounding the relationship. The court held that the relevant inquiry was not whether the parties had separated when the respondent left the home, but whether the relationship continued at the time of the child’s conception. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in their assessment of the relationship, and therefore dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the respondent was affirmed as a parent of the child. The court also ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs associated with the appeal.