Norrie and Norrie and Anor (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 2273

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORRIE & NORRIE & ANOR (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2273

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Children – parenting orders – parental responsibility – sole parental responsibility – best interests of the child – application by adult sister for parenting orders in respect of younger brother – child aged 15 years – Australian passport – issue of Australian passport – international travel – permission for child to travel internationally.

Legislation:

Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), s.11

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 61DA, 65Y

Cases cited:
Norrie & Norrie [2015] FCCA 311

Applicant: MS NORRIE

First Respondent: MR NORRIE

Second Respondent: MR THOM

File Number: SYC 7073 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: 5 August 2015

Date of Last Submission: 5 August 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 5 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Seric

Solicitors for the Applicant: Legal Aid NSW

First Respondent: No appearance

Second Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

1. All earlier parenting Orders are discharged.

2. The Applicant Ms Norrie is to have sole parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2000 for all matters concerning the care, welfare and development of the child including all matters involving the child’s schooling, medical and dental decisions and where the child is to live.

3. The Applicant is to have the sole responsibility for permitting the child X (a male) born (omitted) 2000 to travel out of Australia to a place outside Australia in accordance with s.65Y(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975.

4. The child X (a male) born (omitted) 2000 is permitted to travel internationally as provided by s. 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 and for this purpose the Applicant is permitted to apply for the issue of an Australian passport to the said child X under the provisions of s.11(4)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Norrie & Norrie & Anor (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 7073 of 2014

MS NORRIE

Applicant

And

MR NORRIE

First Respondent

MR THOM

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an Application by the adult half-sister of a boy called X for orders that she should have sole parental responsibility for her younger half-brother in order that she can make the necessary arrangements for his care, welfare and development. X was born on (omitted) 2000 and is now 15 years of age.

Background 

1. The circumstances are unusual, in that the child’s father does not live in Australia, and has no contact with the child. It appears that he never has had.  Regrettably, the child’s mother suffers and appears to have suffered for some time from a mental illness.  The mental illness prevents her from caring for X’s welfare herself.

2. Fortunately for this boy, he has two people who have selflessly taken on the responsibility of his upbringing.  One of them is his godmother.  She is the one who looks after his day-to-day arrangements; food, accommodation, clothing, shelter, all of the things that he needs for his daily life.  However, the reason why the Applicant, his half-sister, is the other person who wishes to play a role in this child’s life is that someone needs to exercise parental responsibility for all the legal and administrative matters that need to be done for this child.

3. The godmother, with the best will in the world, does not speak, read or write English and the Applicant believes that the godmother does not realise how important it is for X to have someone legally able to sign and authorise official decisions about his future until he turns 18.  She, the godmother, has trusted the Applicant in the past to sort out any paperwork and the Applicant, who is an intelligent young woman and a university student, has taken on that role for her brother willingly.

4. It is, of course, to her credit that she has done so.  It is more to her credit that she understands the need for someone to exercise parental responsibility. Someone needs to make the decision about medical procedures, education, even international travel and it is the Applicant who has put herself forward as the person who is concerned with this child’s care, welfare and development so that she can do just that.

5. I considered these issues in some detail on 9^th February 2015 when I made interim orders (Norrie & Norrie[1]).  I ruled then that the Applicant was a person who was concerned with this child’s care, welfare and development and I made certain interim orders that involved informing the Respondent mother of these proceedings and to take all the necessary steps to get this matter to a hearing.

   [1] [2015] FCCA 311

6. The Mother has not attended Court and has not filed any documents.  Nor has the Respondent Father, as it appears that he remains living in (country omitted) and has no knowledge of these proceedings.

Conclusions 

1. There is a clear need and it is in this child’s interests for the Applicant, his adult sister, to be the person to have sole parental responsibility for him and to make all relevant decisions for his care, welfare and development.  I have considered the matters in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including s.60B, s.60CA, s.60CC, s.61DA and s.65DAA.

2. It appears to me that the Applicant should have sole responsibility for giving consent and making arrangements for the issue of a passport for the child, X.  She should also have the sole responsibility for decisions relating to the child’s international travel.  I will order that the child, X, born (omitted) 2000 is permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia without the prior consent of the First or the Second Respondents. This should permit the Applicant to apply for a passport for him.

3. I believe that these orders are in the child’s best interests.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Scarlett

Associate: 

Date:  28 August 2015