PORRITT & DUNFORD - [2019] FCCA 1146

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PORRITT & DUNFORD

[2019] FCCA 1146

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – change of name for 5½ year old – where father wants child to retain his surname – where mother seeking her surname be hyphenated and included in the child’s surname – Held child’s surname to be hyphenated and reflect surnames of father and mother.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60CC, 64B, 106A, Pt VII

Cases cited:

Beach & Semmler (1979) FCWA 1
Chapman & Palmer (1978) FLC 905-10
Fooks (1993) FamCA 117
Lysons & Lysons (2019) FamCAFC 29
Giessruf & Giessruf (2004) FamCA 848
Mahony & McKenzie (1993) FamCA 78
Reagan & Orton (2016) FamCA 330
Reynolds & Sherman (2016) FamCAFC 240

Applicant:

MR PORRITT

Respondent:

MS DUNFORD

File Number:

BRC 6297 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge L.Turner

Hearing date:

28 November 2018

Date of Last Submission:

28 November 2018

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

23 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Horsley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

New Way Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Pendergast

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Watson St Claire Family Law

FINAL PARENTING ORDERS

From the date hereof the child [X] Porritt born … 2013 be hereby known as [X] Porritt-Dunford.
Within seven days from the date hereof each party shall do all such things and sign all such documents as are necessary to change the child’s surname with Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry.
Should the father fail to sign documents in order to give effect to Order (1) a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia upon proof on affidavit of such failure is appointed pursuant to section 106A Family Law Act 1975 to execute any required documents on behalf of the father to give full force and effect to this order.
That upon the issue of the birth certificate reflecting the name change of the child to [X] Porritt-Dunford, the parties will take all steps necessary to ensure that the child’s name is reflected on all legal records including schooling and medical records.
That forthwith the parties shall ensure that in all circumstances the child is known as and referred to as [X] Porritt-Dunford.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 6297 of 2017

MR PORRITT

Applicant

And

MS DUNFORD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

In November 2018 the parties reached final orders by consent on a property division after a long de facto relationship and final parenting orders on the majority of issues for the child [X] aged 5½.

Issue

The remaining issue requiring determination is [X]’s surname.

Evidence

In considering this issue, the parties (who are both legally represented) agreed this issue could be determined on the papers, with each side providing written submissions.
Therefore in considering this issue regard has been had to:-
a)The material as marked on the court file.
b)The family…

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 PORRITT & DUNFORD

Details

AGLC: PORRITT & DUNFORD [2019] FCCA 1146
Case: [2019] FCCA 1146
Decision Date: 23 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Porritt & Dunford* concerned an application by the mother for a change to the surname of the parties' five-and-a-half-year-old child. The father opposed the application, seeking that the child retain his surname. The mother sought that the child's surname be hyphenated, incorporating both the father's and her own surnames. The matter came before L. Turner J.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it was in the best interests of the child for their surname to be changed to a hyphenated version reflecting both parents' surnames, or to retain the father's surname as it currently was. This required the court to weigh the competing interests of the parents against the paramount consideration of the child's welfare.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant principles of family law concerning children's surnames, which prioritise the best interests of the child. L. Turner J reasoned that a hyphenated surname would acknowledge and reflect the identity and heritage of both parents, thereby promoting a sense of connection and belonging for the child. The court found that this approach would serve the child's best interests by fostering a positive relationship with both parents and their respective family backgrounds.

The court ordered that the child's surname be hyphenated, incorporating the surnames of both the father and the mother.

Orders