Faizan and Kitman & Anor

The applicant, the biological mother of the child, sought orders for the child to live with her and for her to have sole parental responsibility, with no time spent with the respondents, who were the child's primary carers but not biological parents. The circumstances surrounding the child's placement with the respondents were disputed, and the respondents had raised concerns about the applicant's risk to the child.

The court was required to determine the parenting orders for the child, including who the child should live with and who should have parental responsibility. Additionally, the court needed to address the issue of contact between the child and the respondents, and the respondents' alleged risk of psychological harm to the child. The court also considered the applicant's request for the child to spend no time with the respondents and for the respondents to be restrained from communicating with the child.

The court made orders by consent that the child live with the applicant and that the applicant have sole parental responsibility. The court also ordered that the child spend no time with the respondents and that the respondents be permitted to forward a card through the Independent Children’s Lawyer confirming their support for the child living with the applicant, but otherwise have no communication with the child. Further orders by consent included a declaration that the first respondent is not the child's biological father, amendments to the child's birth certificate to remove the first respondent's name and register the child with the applicant's surname, and prohibitions against the respondents approaching or contacting the applicant or the child. The court also authorised the applicant to apply for a passport for the child and to provide copies of various documents to relevant professionals and agencies.

The court also ordered the respondents to delete photographs of the child from their social media accounts and any accounts registered in the child's name. The second respondent was also ordered to delete specific images of the applicant. The respondents were directed to provide the child's immunization records and a list of medical professionals to the applicant. The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged, and all extant applications were dismissed. The court noted that the applicant would take advice regarding the timing of the child's name change and that the respondents would provide a supportive card and belongings to the applicant.