TINASHE

The dispute before Gill J in the Family Court of Australia concerned parenting orders for a child, X, born in 2016. The primary party was Ms Tinashe, and the court also considered the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer. The central issue revolved around determining the proper parties to the application and, consequently, who held parental responsibility for X.

The court was required to interpret the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 60H(2), in relation to State and Territory laws that might define parentage. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Act, through its Regulations, could prescribe State and Territory laws that excluded individuals from being considered parents. A further legal question was whether the ordinary meaning of "parent" excluded a mere donor of genetic material, and if so, how the circumstances of such donation were relevant to the assessment of parentage.

Gill J reasoned that section 60H(2) of the *Family Law Act* did not authorise Regulations to pick up State and Territory laws that determined who was not a parent. The court found that the ordinary meaning of "parent" did not necessarily exclude a mere donor of genetic material, and that the specific circumstances of the donation were relevant to the assessment of parentage. Ultimately, the court determined that Ms Tinashe was the sole proper party to the application, other than the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court made orders that Ms Tinashe has sole parental responsibility for X, and that X shall live with Ms Tinashe. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged in 14 days, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was requested to advise the relevant ACT Department of these orders.