LAGEMAN and JESSOP

[2022] FCWA 74

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: LAGEMAN and JESSOP [2022] FCWA 74

CORAM: DUNCANSON J

HEARD: 4 APRIL 2022

DELIVERED : Ex tempore

FILE NO/S: [Redacted]

BETWEEN: MS LAGEMAN

Applicant

AND

MS JESSOP

First Respondent

AND

MR LAGEMAN

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - change of name - child's Aboriginal culture

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA) s 66C

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Lititgant
First Respondent	:	Ms K Russell
Second Respondent	:	No Appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
First Respondent	:	Aboriginal Legal Service - Perth
Second Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Reynolds & Sherman (2015) FLC 93-659.

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lageman and Jessop has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 243(8)(g) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

1[Child A] is 15 years of age. She is the subject of proceedings between the mother, [Ms Jessop] and the paternal grandmother, [Ms Lageman]. Child A's father, [Mr Lageman] has not participated in these proceedings.

BACKGROUND

2The mother and father commenced a relationship in 2006. Child A was born [in] 2007. The mother and the father separated in 2008.

3The mother is an Aboriginal woman of [Region A]. Child A lives in [Town A] with the mother and Child A's younger brother and sister. The paternal grandmother also lives in Town A.

4Child A spends no time with the father who is understood to be living [interstate]. In 2015 and 2017 the Department of Communities informed the mother that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that Child A was likely to have been significantly harmed by the father.

5The paternal grandmother commenced these proceedings when she filed an initiating application on 31 May 2019. She sought orders providing that Child A spend time with her, including weekends and during school holidays.

6Most recently on 21 March 2022 final parenting orders were made. Those orders provide as follows:

1The First Respondent, [MS JESSOP], have sole parental responsibility for the child, [CHILD A], born [in] 2007.

2The child live with the First Respondent.

3The Second Respondent, [MR LAGEMAN], be restrained by injunction from communicating with or attempting to communicate with the child, from coming within 50 metres of her or from removing her from the care of the First Respondent, her school or any other person.

4Without admission as to need, the Applicant, [MS LAGEMAN] be restrained by injunction from the following:

(a)Passing messages or correspondence from the Second Respondent to the child;

(b)Causing or allowing the child to spend time with, have communication with or come into contact with the Second Respondent; and

(c) Causing or allowing any photographs of [Child A] to be sent to the Second Respondent;

upon the First Respondent becoming aware of any breach of this order, she may immediately suspend any time between the paternal grandmother and [Child A].

5The Applicant spend time with the child as agreed with the First Respondent.

Issue of Passports

6The First Respondent be permitted to do all things necessary to facilitate the issue of a passport for the said child without the consent of the Second Respondent, [MR LAGEMAN] and the need to give his consent be dispensed with.

7Subject to any other requirements of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, a passport be issued to the said child to enable her to leave the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of holidays.

8The costs associated with the issue of a passport for the child referred to in the preceding orders herein be met by the First Respondent.

7An order was made that the proceedings be dismissed except in relation to an order sought by the mother for a change of Child A's name. Specifically, the mother seeks an order as follows:

The mother be permitted to do all acts and things necessary for the child's name to be changed to [CHILD A LAGEMAN JESSOP].

THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN RELATION TO CHANGE OF NAME

8The legal principles in relation to a change of name were considered by the Full Court in Reynolds & Sherman (2015) FLC 93-659. The Full Court referred to earlier cases and discussed the principles therein.

9The Full Court said an order in relation to a child's name is a parenting order and the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. Matters therefore to be taken into account are the relevant factors in s 66C of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) and also the matters which I summarise as follows:

•The short and long-term effects of a change in the child's name;

•Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if the child's name is different to that of a parent with whom the child lives;

•Any confusion of identity which might arise for the child if the child's name is changed or not changed;

•The effect any change in the name may have on the relationship between the child and the other parent;

•The effect of frequent or random changes of name;

•The time the child is spending with the other parent; and

•The degree of identification the child has with each of the child's parents.

The mother's position

10The mother's position is set out in her affidavit affirmed 14 December 2021. The mother explains she seeks simply to add her surname, the name [Jessop] to Child A's name.

11The mother deposes Child A does not have a relationship with the father by reason of the history. She deposes that Jessop is an important name in [Region A], and Child A would be easily identified as a descendant of [a Matriarch sharing that name] which would place her within her maternal family and within the Town A people. The mother is of the view that the change of Child A's name would assist Child A to "move on emotionally and assist her in her identity".

12The mother also deposes that Child A would like to have her name changed to Jessop and at school she has used the name Jessop.

The paternal grandmother's position

13Child A spends time with the paternal grandmother as agreed with the mother. The paternal grandmother does not oppose the change of name and said if it is what Child A wants, then she agrees to it.

DISCUSSION

14Upon the mother's evidence there are likely to be positive effects upon Child A of a change of name in that it will help her move on from the difficulties she experienced in her younger years, including in relation to the father.

15Child A is 15 years of age and lives with her mother and her younger siblings who have the name Jessop. It has the potential to embarrass Child A if she is required to use a different name to her family.

16It is unlikely to cause any confusion of identity to Child A because adding the name Jessop is consistent with other family members.

17There have been no other changes of name.

18Child A identifies with the mother and her Aboriginal heritage which is very important to her. Child A spends no time with the father and has no relationship with him. She has not seen him since 2017 and therefore the change of name could not impact on their relationship. Child A has [European]/Australian heritage through her father. She learns about her European heritage through the paternal grandmother.

19Child A has a meaningful relationship with the mother and is at not at risk of harm in her care.

20As to Child A's views, in March 2021, the Family Consultant reported Child A said she would like to have a hyphenated name incorporating both her paternal and maternal names, and this would make her feel closer to her extended family. Child A also told the Consultant she had not given a lot of thought to it and would understand if the Court suggested she wait. The mother explained that Child A was anxious and shy at the time of her meeting with the Family Consultant and she explained Child A has since said she would like to use the name Jessop. I take into account Child A is using the name Jessop at school and at [Service A] which would suggest that the change accords with her wishes.

21The mother has made the decisions for Child A about major long‑term issues. The father has not done so and is not part of Child A's life. Child A's Aboriginal culture is important and an order that her name be changed, as sought, promotes her right to enjoy her Aboriginal culture including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share the culture.

CONCLUSION

22Having considered the above matters, I am satisfied that the change of name as proposed by the mother is in Child A's best interests.

ORDERS

IT IS DECLARED THAT AND the Court having found that it is in the best interests of the child, [CHILD A LAGEMAN], born [in] 2007, that her name be changed and that the said child henceforth be known as [CHILD A LAGEMAN JESSOP].

IT IS ORDERED THAT:-

1The Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Western Australia, do effect the required change to the said child's birth registration pursuant to this order.

2All subpoenaed documents be returned to source.

3The said proceedings shall otherwise be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Family Court of Western Australia.

CL

Judicial Support Officer

17 MAY 2022