GUS & DUCKETT

This matter concerned an application by Ms Gus (the wife) against Mr Duckett (the husband) in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on two young adopted children, N and T, born in July and August 2010 respectively. The wife sought orders for sole parental responsibility and that the children live with her, enabling her to return to Australia with them. The husband, while not actively opposing the orders, sought to adjourn the proceedings to investigate the validity of the adoption, which he alleged was part of an illegal child smuggling scheme.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it had jurisdiction to make parenting orders concerning the children, given the husband's allegations regarding the adoption's legality and his desire to overturn it, and whether it was in the children's best interests to grant the wife sole parental responsibility and allow them to live with her. The court also considered the husband's request for an adjournment to pursue legal avenues in Greece to set aside the adoption orders.

Justice Macmillan determined that the Family Court possessed jurisdiction to make parenting orders under Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), as the children were adopted, and an adopted child is included in the definition of a child for the purposes of the Act. The court held that, until set aside by a competent court, the Greek adoption orders were to be regarded as valid for the purposes of proceedings in the Family Court. The judge found that the husband, by his own evidence and submissions, clearly did not wish to have any involvement in the children's upbringing, making shared parental responsibility impractical and not in the children's best interests. The paramount consideration was the welfare of the children, and the court was not swayed by the husband's allegations of illegality or his desire for an adjournment, noting that the children had lived with the wife since birth and she was effectively stranded in Greece.

The court ordered that the wife have sole parental responsibility for the children and that they live with her. This decision was made on the basis that it was in the children's best interests, notwithstanding the husband's concerns about potential child support liabilities or the ongoing investigation into the adoption's legality. The court noted that if the adoption were overturned, the husband would have no child support obligations, but until then, he retained parental responsibilities.