Green-Wilson & Bishop - [2014] FamCA 1031

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GREEN-WILSON & BISHOP

[2014] FamCA 1031

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – surrogacy agreement – where applicants seek parenting orders and declaration as to parentage.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic)

B v J (1996) FLC 92-716
Brianna v Brianna (2010) FLC 93-437
Fisher-Oakley & Kittur [2014] FamCA 123
Mason & Mason and Anor [2013] FamCA 424
Re Mark: an application relating to parental responsibilities (2003) FLC 93-173
Re Patrick: an application concerning contact (2002) FLC 93-096.

APPLICANTS:

Mr Z Green-Wilson
&
Mr X Green-Wilson

RESPONDENTS:

Ms Bishop

&
Mr Bishop

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

10359

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

6 November 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Johns J

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Boers Associates

RESPONDENTS:

No appearance

Orders

1.That pursuant to s 69VA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) it is declared that Mr X Green-Wilson is a parent, namely the father of the child Y Green-Wilson born … August 2013.
2.That Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson have equal shared parental responsibility for the care, welfare and development of the child.
3.That the child live with Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson.
4.That within 30 days the first and second-named applicants cause a copy of these orders to be translated into Hindi and that a copy of these orders together with the translation be personally served upon the first respondent and the second respondent.
5.That the first respondent and the second respondent have leave to make any application with respect to paragraph 1 of these orders within 60 days of personal service of these orders and the Hindi translation of the same.
6.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.
7.That all extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Green-Wilson & Bishop has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10359 of 2013

Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson

Applicants

And

Ms Bishop & Mr Bishop

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Late in August 2013 the baby Y Green-Wilson (“the child”) arrived in Australia from New Dehli, India. This is an application filed on 27 November 2013 by Mr Z Green-Wilson, the first named applicant and his de facto partner Mr X Green-Wilson, the second named applicant in relation to the child. The applicants seek orders that they have equal shared parental responsibility for the child and that she live with them. In addition the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Green-Wilson & Bishop

Details

AGLC: Green-Wilson & Bishop [2014] FamCA 1031
Case: [2014] FamCA 1031
Decision Date: 6 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Green-Wilson & Bishop*, Johns J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the parentage and future care arrangements for a child. The dispute involved Mr X Green-Wilson, Mr Z Green-Wilson, and two respondents, concerning the child Y Green-Wilson.

The court was required to determine whether Mr X Green-Wilson was a parent of the child, and to make orders regarding the parental responsibility and living arrangements for Y Green-Wilson. The court also had to consider the implications of service of the orders, particularly in relation to a translation into Hindi, and the ability of the respondents to make future applications.

Johns J declared, pursuant to s 69VA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), that Mr X Green-Wilson is the father of the child. The court then ordered that Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson have equal shared parental responsibility for the child's care, welfare, and development. The child was ordered to live with both Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson. The court further directed that within 30 days, a Hindi translation of the orders be prepared and personally served on the respondents, who were granted leave to make further applications concerning the parentage declaration within 60 days of such service. All other extant applications were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That pursuant to s 69VA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) it is declared that Mr X Green-Wilson is a parent, namely the father of the child Y Green-Wilson born … August 2013.

2. That Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson have equal shared parental responsibility for the care, welfare and development of the child.

3. That the child live with Mr Z Green-Wilson and Mr X Green-Wilson.

4. That within 30 days the first and second-named applicants cause a copy of these orders to be translated into Hindi and that a copy of these orders together with the translation be personally served upon the first respondent and the second respondent.

5. That the first respondent and the second respondent have leave to make any application with respect to paragraph 1 of these orders within 60 days of personal service of these orders and the Hindi translation of the same.

6. 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.

7. That all extant applications 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.