MONEIM & MONEIM - [2013] FMCAfam 246

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MONEIM & MONEIM

[2013] FMCAfam 246

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – discreet issue as to whether change to child’s Christian names is appropriate – use of different names within different households – order permitting additional Christian name to be registered – parental responsibility – previous final order as to equal shared parental responsibility – no change of circumstance justifying re-litigation of the issue.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.65D, 68B

Flanagan v Hancock [2000] FamCA 150
Fooks v McCarthy [1993] FamCA 117; [1994] FLC 92-450
Elkin and Cheney [2008] FMCAfam 1361
Freeman and Freeman (1987) FLC 91-857
Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
Miller and Harrington [2008] FAMCAFC 150
Marsden v Winch, [2009] FamCAFC 152
SPS and PLS [2008] FAMCAFC 16

Applicant:

MS MONEIM

Respondent:

MR MONEIM

File Number:

WOC 65 of 2008

Judgment of:

Foster FM

Hearing date:

25 February 2013

Date of Last Submission:

8 March 2013

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

28 March 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Maurice

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Helen Volk Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Good Legal

ORDERS

The Mother MS MONEIM be authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales that the Child registered as [X] MONEIM born [in] 2005 be now registered as [X] [Y] MONEIM.
Pursuant to section 28(5) of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), the Registrar register the Child’s name in the form specified in Order 1 herein.
The Court forward a sealed copy of this Order to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales.
All other applications before the Court are dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 65 of 2008

MS MONEIM

Applicant

And

MR MONEIM

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

These are parenting proceedings commenced by the applicant mother by application filed on 14 February 2012.
The mother in that application sought orders that in summary provide as follows:
a)That the name of the child [X] Moneim be changed to [Y] [X] Moneim and that he be henceforth known as and referred to as [Y].
b)This order acts as the authority of both parents for the mother to do all things necessary and sign all necessary documents without the need for the signature or consent of the father to change the child’s name to [Y] [X] Moneim with all government and non-government agencies,
c)That order one of orders made on 29 October 2009 be discharged and substituted with:
i)That the mother in consultation with the father have sole parental responsibility for making decisions pertaining to the long term care, welfare and development of the children of the marriage namely [Y] [X] Moneim born [in] 2005 and [Z] born [in] 2007.
ii)For the purposes of order one the mother shall notify the father of any issues…

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 MONEIM & MONEIM

Details

AGLC: MONEIM & MONEIM [2013] FMCAfam 246
Case: [2013] FMCAfam 246
Decision Date: 28 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moneim & Moneim involves a dispute between the parents over the registration of their child's name. The mother sought to have the child's name changed from [X] Moneim to [X] [Y] Moneim. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the mother, Ms Moneim, applied for an order to amend the child's registered name. The father opposed the application.

The court had to determine whether it was in the child's best interest to have their name changed as requested by the mother. The judge considered the implications of the name change on the child's identity and the potential for confusion or harm resulting from the change. The court also assessed the wishes of both parents and the child, if applicable.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the name change was in the child's best interests. The judge considered the mother's explanation for the desired change, the lack of opposition from the father, and the potential benefits of the name change for the child's sense of identity and connection with their family. The court authorised the mother to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales to amend the child's name as requested. The court also ordered the Registrar to register the child's name in the form specified in the order and directed that a sealed copy of the order be forwarded to the Registrar. All other applications before the court were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Mother MS MONEIM be authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales that the Child registered as [X] MONEIM born [in] 2005 be now registered as [X] [Y] MONEIM.

Pursuant to section 28(5) of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), the Registrar register the Child’s name in the form specified in Order 1 herein.

The Court forward a sealed copy of this Order to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales.

All other applications before the Court are dismissed.

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.