Edmore & Anor and Bala

[2011] FamCA 731

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDMORE AND ANOR & BALA [2011] FamCA 731

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN - SURROGACY - parenting orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

1st APPLICANT: Mr Edmore

2nd APPLICANT: Mr Wilkie

RESPONDENT: Ms Bala

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3981 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 5 September 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 5 September 2011

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANTS: Mr Berry, Berry Family Law

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. That the applicants Mr Edmore and Mr Wilkie have equal shared parental responsibility for the child R Edmore-Wilkie born on … September 2010.

2. That the child live with the applicants.

3. That all outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed.

4. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Edmore and Anor & Bala is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 3981 of 2011

Mr Edmore and Mr Wilkie

Applicants

And

Ms Bala

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed on 12 May 2011 by Mr Wilkie and Mr Edmore who have brought into Australia a child who is named R Edmore-Wilkie.  The child was born in September 2010 pursuant to a commercial surrogacy arrangement in India.  The Commonwealth of Australia imposed no restrictions on the applicants bringing the child into Australia.  I previously granted an application in respect of twins who were born under the same arrangement to the same applicants and I see no reason why I ought not grant the application that Mr Edmore and Mr Wilkie have equal shared parental responsibility for the child and that he live with them.

2. All of the evidence points to the fact that this child is going to be brought up in a very happy and secure environment with many of the benefits that I suspect he would not have had had be been born and raised in India.  The unusual feature of this particular application is that it has been served on the respondent who I suspect, from looking at the signature, has very little knowledge of what this is really all about.  But having regard to the fact that my concern is that she has at least been made aware of the application justifies proceeding in her absence.  The expression “gestational parent” or “gestational mother” seems to me to really belie the fact that she is the mother of this child in some biological senses, but she has not appeared and nothing has been filed on her behalf.  I am satisfied as to service.  I am satisfied that all of the criteria in section 60B and section 60CC have been fulfilled and there is no reason why I should not grant the application.

ORDERS DELIVERED

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 5 September 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  20 September 2011