Lorre & Anor and Gronow & Anor - [2010] FamCA 417

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LORRE AND ANOR & GRONOW AND ANOR

[2010] FamCA 417

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 61DA(1), 61DA(4)

Simpson & Brockman [2010] FamCAFC 37

FIRST APPLICANT:

Ms Lorre

SECOND APPLICANT:

Mr Farre

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Gronow

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Gronow

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

649

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

11 May 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Faulks DCJ

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST & SECOND

APPLICANTS:

Mr J. Naumann

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST & SECOND

APPLICANTS:

Walsh & Blair Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Self-represented litigants

Orders

Ms Lorre (also known by her married name as Ms Farre) and Mr Farre will have equal shared parental responsibility for M born on … November 2009.
M will live with Ms Lorre and Mr Farre.
There will be no order formally in relation to the time that M may spend with Ms Gronow or Mr Gronow or both of them.
Mr Farre and Ms Lorre be permitted to sign any application necessary for a passport for M and all requirements for the consent of Ms Gronow and Mr Gronow be dispensed with.
For the purposes of giving effect to this order Mr Farre and Ms Lorre may provide to the appropriate officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, Passport Operations, Passports Branch a sealed copy of these orders.
Otherwise this matter is removed from the pending cases inventory and all extant applications are finalised.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Lorre and Anor & Gronow and Anor is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 649 of 2010

MS LORRE AND MR FARRE

First & Second Applicants

And

MS GRONOW & M GRONOW

First & Second Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, the orders I am being asked to make are orders under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) which relate to matters pertaining to children. Under s 61DA(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), I am required to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child, in this case M, for her parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for her.
That presumption is rebuttable, in particular and relevantly in these circumstances, under s 61DA(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), if the Court is satisfied that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. To say that in this situation M’s parenthood, in terms of the complicated definitions of that word “parent” under the pieces of legislation that govern the circumstances of her conception and birth, is a comparative understatement. Irrespective of whether or not Mr and Mrs Gronow might, under the terms of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) constitute M’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lorre & Anor and Gronow & Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] FamCA 417
Decision Date: 11 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of New South Wales considered a dispute between Ms Lorre and Mr Farre (the applicants) and Ms Gronow and Mr Gronow (the respondents) concerning parental responsibility for a child, M.

The court was required to determine the arrangements for M's living situation, the time M would spend with the respondents, and whether the applicants should be permitted to obtain a passport for M without the respondents' consent.

The court ordered that M would have equal shared parental responsibility between Ms Lorre and Mr Farre, and that M would live with them. No formal orders were made regarding the time M would spend with Ms Gronow or Mr Gronow. Crucially, the court permitted Ms Lorre and Mr Farre to sign any necessary passport application for M, dispensing with the requirement for the respondents' consent, and allowed a sealed copy of the orders to be provided to the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade for this purpose. The matter was then removed from the court's pending cases inventory.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ms Lorre (also known by her married name as Ms Farre) and Mr Farre will have equal shared parental responsibility for M born on … November 2009.

M will live with Ms Lorre and Mr Farre.

There will be no order formally in relation to the time that M may spend with Ms Gronow or Mr Gronow or both of them.

Mr Farre and Ms Lorre be permitted to sign any application necessary for a passport for M and all requirements for the consent of Ms Gronow and Mr Gronow be dispensed with.

For the purposes of giving effect to this order Mr Farre and Ms Lorre may provide to the appropriate officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, Passport Operations, Passports Branch a sealed copy of these orders.

Otherwise this matter is removed from the pending cases inventory and all extant applications are finalised.

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.