Elkin and Cheney

Case [2008] FMCAfam 1361


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ELKIN & CHENEY [2008] FMCAfam 1361
FAMILY LAW – Child aged seven – mother has Tanzanian background – father has Cypriot background – parties never lived together – parties have poor relationship – child born in France – father’s identity not registered on birth certificate – parties in dispute regarding child’s given name – child registered as “[E]” as first given name – mother seeks this name – father asserts child identifies as “[G]” and is known by him and his family as such – matters considered – best interests.
Family Law Act 1975, ss.68LA

Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1
Fooks v McCarthy (1994) FLC 92-450
Chapman & Palmer (1978) FLC 90-510

Beach & Stemmler (1979) FLC 90-692

Applicant: MR ELKIN (formerly known as Mr Loder)
Respondent: MS CHENEY (also known as Ms Maltby)
File Number: ADC 5093 of 2007
Judgment of: Brown FM
Hearing date: 8 December 2008
Date of Last Submission: 8 December 2008
Delivered at: Adelaide
Delivered on: 15 December 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In Person
Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Mr T Stephen
Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Legal Services Commission

ORDERS

  1. That for all purposes relating to his education and medical treatment and other issues arising to him from the application of the Australian Passports Act 2005, the Social Security Act 1991, the Health Insurance Act 1973 and all matters relating to taxation and other social security entitlements the child herein be known as [E.G.N.Elkin-Maltby].

  2. All other applications herein be otherwise dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADC 5093 of 2007

MR ELKIN (formerly known as Mr Loder)

Applicant

And

MS CHENEY (also known as Ms Maltby)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. Mr Elkin “the father” was born in 1960 in South Australia.  His parents were both born in Cyprus.  In the past, the father has changed his surname to “Loder”.

  2. The father has also, from time to time, adopted the given name of [T].  In part, no doubt, these changes came about for ease of reference.  However, since October of last year, he has resumed the name set out above, which appears on his original birth certificate. 

  3. Ms Cheney “the mother” was born in Tanzania in 1970.  Cheney is a surname the mother has assumed through marriage.  Her original surname is Maltby. 

  4. The parties met in Adelaide, in late 2000, and had a brief relationship.  The mother has a child, [X], who lives with her father, in France.  The mother has spent regular periods of time, living in France, in the past. 

  5. The mother fell pregnant to the father in December 2000.  The parties have never lived together and terminated their relationship in January of 2001.  The mother returned to France in July 2001. 

  6. The mother was…

Continue reading Elkin and Cheney

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Elkin and Cheney [2008] FMCAfam 1361
Case
[2008] FMCAfam 1361
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Elkin and Cheney involves a complex dispute regarding the naming of a child born in Australia to an Australian mother and an American father. The legal battle was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The parents, who had separated before the child's birth, could not agree on a name for their child, which created difficulties in various administrative and legal matters, including education, medical treatment, and social security entitlements.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the court had the authority to intervene in the naming of a child and, if so, what name should be assigned to the child for the purposes outlined in the application. The court needed to determine if there were any overriding considerations that should inform the choice of name and whether it was appropriate to grant a name that was not agreed upon by both parents.

In reaching its decision, the court noted the practical difficulties that an unresolved name dispute could cause for the child, particularly in navigating legal and administrative processes. It acknowledged the importance of stability and consistency in a child's identity, which is often reflected in their name. The court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to intervene in such matters and that it was in the child's best interest to assign a specific name for the purposes of the application. The chosen name, [E.G.N.Elkin-Maltby], was seen as a compromise that incorporated elements from both parents' surnames. Other applications made by the parties were dismissed as they were not directly related to the naming issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That for all purposes relating to his education and medical treatment and other issues arising to him from the application of the Australian Passports Act 2005, the Social Security Act 1991, the Health Insurance Act 1973 and all matters relating to taxation and other social security entitlements the child herein be known as [E.G.N.Elkin-Maltby].

2.

All other applications herein be otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.