Stoney & Bretton
[2022] FedCFamC1F 440
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Stoney & Bretton [2022] FedCFamC1F 440
File number(s): BRC 10158 of 2021 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 25 May 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final consent orders made for the child to live with the Applicant and for the Applicant to have sole parental responsibility for the child Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 4 Date of hearing: 25 May 2022 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Page Provan The Respondent: Litigant in person ORDERS
BRC 10158 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS STONEY
Applicant
AND: MS BRETTON
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 MAY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the Applicant have sole parental responsibility for the care, welfare and development of the child X born in 2020 (“the child”) in every respect including as to major long term issues and day-to-day care of the child.
2.That the child live with the Applicant.
3.That the child shall spend time with the Respondent as agreed between the parties.
4.That the Applicant is permitted to take the child to a place outside the Commonwealth of Australian and the following shall apply:
(a)The Applicant be permitted to apply for an Australian passport or other Australian travel document as defined in the Australian Passport Act 2005 (Cth) (“the Passport Act”) for the child and to retain such travel document; and
(b)For the purposes of section 11 of the Passport Act as amended and these Orders:
(i)the child is permitted to have an Australian travel document as defined in the Passports Act;
(ii)the child is permitted to travel internationally with the Applicant; and
(iii)By this Order, the Respondent consents to the child travelling with the Applicant outside the Commonwealth of Australia at any time and for an Australian passport or other Australian travel document as defined in the Passport Act to issue in the name of the child and for such Australian travel document to be retained by the Applicant.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Stoney & Bretton has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BAUMANN J:
In view of the very voluminous evidence provided by both the Applicant and the biological mother, I see no need for the expense of a family report. I am satisfied that the Respondent mother’s partner or former partner, Mr B, would be well aware of the events leading up to the change of care arrangements for the child, X after his birth in 2020.
There is no evidence that he sought to assert any right of paternity. There is no suggestion, for example, that he has been assessed as a liable parent for child support purposes. In all those circumstances, I am comfortable in not regarding him being involved in the proceedings as being a requirement. Ultimately, this becomes, as so often are parenting cases, an issue of what is in the best interests of the child.
As I have already indicated to the Respondent mother who joins the Court today, one could not think of a more generous and loving gift by a loving sister than that which she has granted to the Applicant, her sister Ms Stoney, who is sadly unable to have her own children. I see no reason to not make the order because there might be alternatives available through different adoption laws in different States. The option that has been accepted by the parties in this case as a suitable option with the limitations, as I have indicated, that in a sense as a parenting order it would be a matter that could be reviewed in time, but this is a case where that is not likely to occur.
So in all those circumstances, I make the order that is being sought by the Applicant to which the Respondent consents, which appears at the commencement of these Reasons, being satisfied the Orders are in the best interests of the child X.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 28 June 2022
0
0
0