Re: Grosvenor

In *Re: Grosvenor*, Forrest J considered an application by the applicants to register certain orders made by a Court in North Carolina, United States of America, concerning their child. The dispute arose from the registration of an overseas child order, where the child's birth was facilitated by a surrogacy agreement and the applicant father was the biological parent. The court was required to determine whether the order constituted an "overseas child order" for the purposes of the *Family Law Act* and whether the applicants were "proceeding to" Australia.

The court's reasoning focused on the provisions of the *Family Law Act* concerning the registration and effect of overseas child orders. Sections 70G, 70H, and 70J of the Act were central to the determination. Section 70G permits the registration of overseas child orders, other than excluded orders, in Australian courts. Section 70H stipulates that a registered overseas child order has the same force and effect as if it were an order made by the Australian court. Section 70J outlines the limitations on an Australian court's jurisdiction when an overseas child order is registered, requiring consent or a finding that the child's welfare necessitates the exercise of jurisdiction. The court applied these provisions to the facts, considering the definitions of "overseas child order" and "overseas jurisdiction" within the Act.

Forrest J ordered that the orders made by the North Carolina Court be registered with the Australian court. Furthermore, the court made orders to protect the identity of the applicants, the child, and the gestational carrier, stipulating that no person would be permitted to search the court file without first obtaining leave from a Judge of the Court. Only anonymised reasons for judgment and orders were to be released to non-parties.