Irving & Anor and Tatupa & Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr and Ms Irving (the Applicants) sought orders for sole parental responsibility and for the child, M, to live with them. The First Respondent was the child's mother, Ms Tatupa, and the Second Respondent was the child's father, who did not participate in the proceedings. The dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the child, M, born in December 2011.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the requirement under section 65G of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) for parties to attend a conference with a Family Consultant could be dispensed with when making a consent parenting order in favour of non-parents. The Court also considered the circumstances justifying such a dispensation.

Collier J reasoned that section 65G(2) of the Act permits the Court to dispense with the Family Consultant conference if satisfied that circumstances justify it. In this instance, the Applicants had lodged an application for adoption with the Department of Family and Community Services in New South Wales. Furthermore, the need for the child to obtain a passport or other travel documents due to employment obtained outside Australia was a pressing concern. The Court was satisfied that these circumstances justified dispensing with the Family Consultant conference, noting that such an order would likely facilitate the adoption process and the acquisition of necessary travel documents.

The Court made orders granting the Applicants sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with them. It was also ordered that the child spend time with the First Respondent as agreed between the Applicants and the First Respondent.