MURPHY & GRAHAM

This case concerned parenting orders sought by Ms Murphy, the non-biological mother, in relation to a child, [X], aged three years and eight months at the time of the hearing. Ms Graham, the biological mother, opposed the application. The dispute arose following the separation of the parties, who had been in a same-sex relationship. Issues arose regarding the identity of the donor of the genetic material used for artificial insemination, consent to the artificial conception procedure, and whether Ms Graham's inclusion on the child's birth certificate was obtained by coercion. The court was required to determine whether the presumption of parentage under section 69R of the *Family Law Act 1975* was rebutted, whether a meaningful relationship between Ms Murphy and [X] was possible, and ultimately, what orders were in the best interests of the child.

The court's reasoning focused on the best interests of [X]. While acknowledging the potential for distress for the child during separation from her mother, the court found that this could be managed through a phased introduction of time with Ms Murphy, starting in familiar environments like kindergarten and progressing to longer periods. The court was not persuaded by arguments that Ms Graham's well-being would be significantly impacted to the detriment of the child, distinguishing the present case from others where such concerns had led to different outcomes. The court emphasised that decisions regarding [X]'s best interests were paramount, superseding the personal interests of either parent.

The court made declarations pursuant to section 60H(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* that [X] was the child of both Ms Graham and Ms Murphy. The orders stipulated that [X] would live with Ms Graham and that Ms Graham would have sole parental responsibility for long-term issues, with a requirement to provide Ms Murphy with 28 days' written notice of any proposed decisions concerning [X]'s education, upbringing, health, name, or significant changes to living arrangements, inviting Ms Murphy's input. Both parties were granted sole parental responsibility for day-to-day care decisions whilst [X] was in their respective care. The orders detailed an extensive schedule for [X] to spend time and communicate with Ms Murphy, including specific arrangements for kindergarten, regular weekly contact, alternate weekends, holidays, and telephone communication. The court also imposed restraints on both parties regarding denigration of the other, discussing proceedings with [X], and showing [X] legal documents. Further orders addressed the notification of emergencies, access to medical and school records, attendance at school functions, notification of address changes, the use of a communication book, and mutual consultation before enrolling [X] in activities that might conflict with the other party's time. Finally, both parties were ordered to complete a parenting course.