Sofia & Treacy

In the matter of *Sofia & Treacy*, heard by Bennett J, the applicant, Sofia, sought declarations regarding parentage and amendments to a child's birth certificate, alleging a de facto marital relationship with the respondent, Ms. Treacy, at the time of the child's birth via assisted conception. Sofia also sought orders for the return of personal property and repayment of money. Ms. Treacy denied the existence of a de facto relationship and Sofia's claim to father status, and initially sought summary dismissal of Sofia's application, though this was later discontinued.

The court was required to determine whether certain parts of Sofia's application should be dismissed summarily, and to make orders regarding the future conduct of the proceedings, including the need for psychiatric assessments and the participation of the parties in Family Dispute Resolution (FDR). The court also considered ancillary property claims and the respondent's assertions regarding the possession of specific items.

Bennett J dismissed specific paragraphs of the application and reply pursuant to section 45A(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, finding them to be without merit or otherwise appropriate for summary dismissal. The court ordered that both parties undergo a psychiatric assessment, with the Independent Children's Lawyer to seek funding from Victoria Legal Aid. Furthermore, the parties were directed to attend a confidential FDR conference, with the matter to be referred to the Executive Director of Dispute Resolution for allocation. The court also noted the respondent's position regarding certain items of property and confirmed her reliance on specific affidavits, granting the applicant liberty to respond.

The court made orders for the dismissal of certain parts of the application and reply, the psychiatric assessments, and the FDR conference. The matter was to be placed in the list of cases awaiting allocation to a judicial docket, with liberty for the Independent Children's Lawyer to seek an adjournment of the FDR conference if necessary. The court also noted that the respondent mother did not wish to pursue her application for summary dismissal and clarified the possession of certain items of memorabilia.