Lamb & Anor and Shaw

The applicants, Ms Lamb and Mr Sorensen, sought orders concerning their child born via an altruistic surrogacy arrangement with the respondent, Ms Shaw, who is the child's genetic mother and the applicants' cousin. The dispute arose from a breakdown in the relationship between the parties during the pregnancy. The applicants sought equal shared parental responsibility and for the child to live with them, with contact with Ms Shaw to be at their discretion. Ms Shaw consented to the applicants having equal shared parental responsibility and the child living with them, but sought time with the child, including occasional overnights. The court was required to determine whether the child should spend time with Ms Shaw, considering the benefit of a meaningful relationship against the risk of harm to the child due to the hostile conflict between the parties.

The court also considered the applicants' request for a declaration of parentage under s 69VA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). However, the respondent conceded that such a declaration could not be made. The court found itself bound by existing authority, specifically *Bernieres & Dhopal*, which established that s 60HB of the *Family Law Act* covers the field for parentage in surrogacy arrangements, leaving the determination of parentage to relevant State law, which the federal law will recognise. The court noted that the relevant Queensland legislation presumes the birth mother to be the mother and the sperm donor to be the father, but without rights or liabilities unless a parentage order is made. Consequently, the court was unable to make the declaration of parentage sought by the applicants.

In relation to the child's birth registration, the court was satisfied that the child's name should be changed to that selected by the genetic parents and that the genetic father should be recorded on the birth certificate. However, the court was not satisfied that the birth mother should be coerced into recording the genetic mother as a parent on the birth certificate. The court also declined to grant an injunction restraining the respondent from publishing information about the proceedings, finding that s 121 of the *Family Law Act* already provided sufficient prohibition and that there were no special circumstances warranting an additional order.

By consent, the court ordered that Ms Lamb and Mr Sorensen have equal shared parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with them. The child is to spend no time with Ms Shaw except as determined by the applicants at their sole discretion. The child is to be known as C, and the parties are to take steps to amend the child's birth registration to reflect this name change and Mr Sorensen as the father. The court also made orders regarding the child's passport and restrained Ms Shaw from applying for one. The applicants were ordered not to denigrate Ms Shaw in the presence of the child.