RODEN & MONTIEL

In *Roden & Montiel*, heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Harland considered an application for parenting orders brought by an applicant who was the biological father of a child conceived via artificial insemination. The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing that the applicant, as a sperm donor, lacked the legal standing to seek parenting orders. The applicant sought orders for regular time with the child, including overnights and special days, asserting he had been involved in the child's life since birth and was considered "Dad" by the child.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, a known sperm donor, had standing to apply for parenting orders under section 65C(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) as a "person concerned with the care, welfare or development of the child." This required the court to determine if the applicant's relationship with and involvement in the child's life met the threshold for standing, notwithstanding that he was not a legal parent under Victorian law, specifically section 15 of the *Status of Children Act 1974* (Vic), which was a prescribed law for the purposes of section 60H of the *Family Law Act*.

Judge Harland reasoned that while the applicant was not a legal parent, section 65C(c) of the *Family Law Act* provided a broader category of applicants. Applying a two-step approach, the court first considered whether the applicant was a person concerned with the child's care, welfare, or development. Drawing on case law such as *Re Patrick* and *Aldridge & Keaton*, the court found that the applicant's extensive involvement in the child's life since birth, including being known as "Dad," spending regular time with the child, and the parties' mutual understanding (albeit with differing perceptions) of his role, satisfied this threshold. The court noted that the specific facts of each case are crucial in determining standing under section 65C(c).

The court declared that the applicant had standing pursuant to section 65C of the *Family Law Act*. Consequently, the court made interim orders for the applicant to spend time with the child every third Friday from 12:30 pm to 3:30 pm. The proceeding was adjourned for a mention hearing, and all parties were directed to comply with relevant practice directions.