Faraj & Latif
Case
•
[2021] FCCA 1807
•6 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Faraj & Latif [2021] FCCA 1807
[2021] FCCA 1807
6 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Faraj & Latif*, heard by O'Shannessy J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the applicant mother, Ms Faraj, sought orders to change the surname of her child, X, from Latif to Faraj. The dispute arose in the context of prior family law proceedings concerning the child's upbringing and parental responsibility, following the separation of the child's parents, who were born in different countries. The father, Mr Latif, had returned to his country of origin and had limited communication with the child since 2012.
The court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the child, X, to have their surname changed to Faraj, which is the surname of the mother's current husband and the name used by the mother and her new family. A further issue was whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of the father, who had not attended previous hearings. The court considered the principles governing undefended hearings and the court's power to make orders in such circumstances, referencing relevant rules and case law concerning the just and timely resolution of proceedings.
O'Shannessy J reasoned that the mother's application was effectively seeking to give practical effect to an earlier order granting her sole parental responsibility for the child. The judge found that changing the child's surname to Faraj was in the child's best interests, noting that this would not alter the child's paternity but would align the child's recorded name with the mother's current family unit. The court also determined that the proceedings could validly proceed as an undefended hearing, given the father's prior non-participation.
The court declared that it was in the best interests of the child X to be known as X. Consequently, the mother was authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Victoria to change the child's registered name from X to X. The court directed that a sealed copy of the order be served on the Registrar, requesting them to give effect to the application. All other extant applications in the matter were dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the child, X, to have their surname changed to Faraj, which is the surname of the mother's current husband and the name used by the mother and her new family. A further issue was whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of the father, who had not attended previous hearings. The court considered the principles governing undefended hearings and the court's power to make orders in such circumstances, referencing relevant rules and case law concerning the just and timely resolution of proceedings.
O'Shannessy J reasoned that the mother's application was effectively seeking to give practical effect to an earlier order granting her sole parental responsibility for the child. The judge found that changing the child's surname to Faraj was in the child's best interests, noting that this would not alter the child's paternity but would align the child's recorded name with the mother's current family unit. The court also determined that the proceedings could validly proceed as an undefended hearing, given the father's prior non-participation.
The court declared that it was in the best interests of the child X to be known as X. Consequently, the mother was authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Victoria to change the child's registered name from X to X. The court directed that a sealed copy of the order be served on the Registrar, requesting them to give effect to the application. All other extant applications in the matter were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Faraj & Latif [2021] FCCA 1807
Cases Citing This Decision
0