Lewis & Stone - [2025] FedCFamC2F 594

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Lewis & Stone [2025] FedCFamC2F 594

File number: MLC 15941 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment: 12 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Children - interim parenting orders sought - where the child conceived through artificial conception procedure - where applicant and respondent are listed on the birth certificate - where the respondent seeks declarations that the parties were not in a de facto relationship as contemplated by section 60H of the Family Law Act and seeks to rebut the presumption of parentage under section 69R of the Act - where the Court cannot determine at an interim hearing whether the parties were in a de facto relationship or whether the presumption in section 69R is rebutted - where the presumption of parentage under section 69R should be taken to operate in an interim hearing - best interests considerations applied - where Court found not in the best interests of the child to spend time with the Applicant.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA, 60CC, 60H, 69R, 90RD

Cases cited:
Franklyn v Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256

Frontera & Gibbons [2015] FamCA 701

Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212

Sofia & Treacy [2022] FedCFamC1F 777

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 26

Date of hearing: 7 May 2025

Place: Melbourne

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Horsfall, Southern Legal Group

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Mellas

Solicitor for the Respondent: Lakey Law Pty Ltd
ORDERS

MLC 15941 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS LEWIS
Applicant

AND:
MS STONE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant’s application for interim orders to spend time with the child X born in 2023 as set out in her Amended Application filed 1 May 2025, and Outline of Case filed 2 May 2025, be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BLAKE:

This matter concerns the interim parenting arrangements for X born in 2023 (‘child’). Ms Lewis (‘Applicant’) seeks orders that she be permitted to spend professionally supervised time with the child…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lewis & Stone

Details

AGLC: Lewis & Stone [2025] FedCFamC2F 594
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 594
Decision Date: 12 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Lewis commenced proceedings against Ms Stone in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia seeking interim parenting orders for her to spend time with her daughter, X, who was conceived through an artificial conception procedure. Both parties are listed on X's birth certificate. Ms Stone opposed the application and sought declarations that she and Ms Lewis were not in a de facto relationship as defined by section 60H of the Family Law Act, and to rebut the presumption of parentage under section 69R. The Court had to determine whether the presumption of parentage under section 69R could be rebutted and whether the parties were in a de facto relationship at an interim hearing. The Court found that these questions could not be determined at an interim hearing.

The Court found that the presumption of parentage under section 69R should operate in an interim hearing and applied the best interests considerations of the child as set out in section 60CC of the Family Law Act. The Court considered various factors, including the child's need for stability and the impact of the relationship between the parties on the child. The Court found that it was not in the best interests of the child to spend time with Ms Lewis.

The Court dismissed Ms Lewis's application for interim parenting orders, finding it was not in the child's best interests for her to spend time with Ms Lewis. The Court's decision was based on the best interests of the child and the presumption of parentage under section 69R of the Family Law Act. The Court did not determine whether the parties were in a de facto relationship or whether the presumption of parentage under section 69R could be rebutted. The Court noted that these matters could be addressed in future proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 15941 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS LEWIS

Applicant

AND:

MS STONE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Applicant’s application for interim orders to spend time with the child X born in 2023 as set out in her Amended Application filed 1 May 2025, and Outline of Case filed 2 May 2025, be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	MLC 15941 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE BLAKE
Date of judgment:	12 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Children - interim parenting orders sought - where the child conceived through artificial conception procedure - where applicant and respondent are listed on the birth certificate - where the respondent seeks declarations that the parties were not in a de facto relationship as contemplated by section 60H of the Family Law Act and seeks to rebut the presumption of parentage under section 69R of the Act - where the Court cannot determine at an interim hearing whether the parties were in a de facto relationship or whether the presumption in section 69R is rebutted - where the presumption of parentage under section 69R should be taken to operate in an interim hearing - best interests considerations applied - where Court found not in the best interests of the child to spend time with the Applicant.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA, 60CC, 60H, 69R, 90RD
Cases cited:	Franklyn v Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256 Frontera & Gibbons [2015] FamCA 701 Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212 Sofia & Treacy [2022] FedCFamC1F 777
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	26
Date of hearing:	7 May 2025
Place:	Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Horsfall, Southern Legal Group
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Mellas
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Lakey Law Pty Ltd

MLC 15941 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS LEWIS Applicant
AND:	MS STONE Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MAY 2025