Masson & Parsons & Anor

The case of *Masson & Parsons & Anor* involved a dispute over parental responsibility and residence for two children, B and C. The applicant, Robert Masson, was the biological father of the elder child and had a strong attachment to the younger child, who was conceived via an artificial insemination program using his genetic material. The respondents, Susan and Margaret Parsons, sought to have exclusive parental responsibility for the children. Communication between the parties had significantly deteriorated due to the conflict.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included who constituted a legal parent for the elder child, particularly in the context of artificial insemination and the intention of the parties at the time of conception. The court also needed to consider whether the respondents were in a de facto relationship at the time of the artificial conception procedure, as this was relevant to legislative requirements for "other intended parent" status. Furthermore, the court had to assess the children's best interests regarding parental responsibility, residence, and the potential relocation of the children to New Zealand, considering the children's relationships with all parties involved.

Cleary J reasoned that while the biological relationships were not in dispute, the applicant's intention to father a child using his genetic material was a crucial factor in determining legal parentage under the relevant legislation. The court found insufficient evidence to establish a de facto relationship between the respondents. Regarding parental responsibility, the court concluded that shared parental responsibility between all three parties would expose the children to damaging conflict. Consequently, the court ordered that the respondents have equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, with an obligation to consult and keep the applicant informed. The court also determined that the children's residence should be with the respondents in Australia, finding that relocation to New Zealand would negatively impact the children's relationships with the applicant and his family.

The court ordered the discharge of all prior parenting orders. The respondents were granted equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with specific obligations to notify and consider the applicant's views. Day-to-day decisions were allocated to the party with whom the children were residing at the time. The children were ordered to live with the respondents in Australia, and the respondents were restrained from relocating the children to New Zealand without the applicant's consent. The court also made detailed orders regarding the children's time with the applicant, including provisions for school holidays and special occasions, as well as orders concerning communication, travel, and specific issues such as medical information and school involvement. Applications for declarations under s 60H and s 69VA of the Family Law Act 1975 were dismissed.