HABIB & FARAHANI

In the matter of *Habib & Farahani*, Foster J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the applicants, who were not the biological parents of the child, for parental responsibility and for the child to live with them. The applicants and the child were on bridging visas. The applicants had informally adopted the child in their country of origin. The child's biological father was deceased, and the biological mother had not seen the child for over eight years, resided in the child's country of origin, and was not participating in the proceedings. The child had a meaningful relationship with the applicants, and a single expert believed the child would face cultural stigma if returned to her country of origin due to the adoption.

The court was required to determine whether it was in the child's best interests to live with the applicants and for them to have parental responsibility, and whether to grant the applicants leave to adopt the child. The court also considered the legal implications of an adoption order under the *Adoption Act 2000* (NSW), specifically how it would affect existing parenting orders and parental responsibility. The court noted that the applicants were registered as parents on the child's birth certificate from Country C, although the method of obtaining this registration was unknown.

Foster J reasoned that the determination of the child's best interests was to be made in accordance with the considerations set out in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Having regard to the evidence, including the meaningful relationship between the applicants and the child, the risks the child might face if returned to her country of origin, and the applicants' care for the child, the court found that it was in the child's best interests for the applicants to have parental responsibility and for the child to live with them. The court also found it appropriate to grant the applicants leave to adopt the child, noting that while the necessity for such leave might be illusory given the circumstances, it was required to ensure the child's best interests were met, particularly concerning her uncertain status in Australia. The court acknowledged that any parenting orders made would survive the adoption orders.