Vatua and Vatua

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr S Vatua and Ms T Vatua (the applicants) sought orders for parental responsibility and for a child, B, born in 2007, to live with them. The biological parents of B, Mr V Vatua and Ms F Vatua (the respondents), agreed with the proposed orders. The proceedings were brought by the applicants, who are the uncle and aunt of B, and the respondents are B's biological parents residing in Country C.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to make parenting orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) given the child's nationality and the existence of a guardianship order from a court in Country C. The court also had to consider the paramount consideration of the child's best interests when deciding whether to grant the orders sought, particularly in light of the unusual circumstances involving international legal orders and immigration processes.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the court had jurisdiction under section 69E(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* as the child was present in Australia on the day the application was filed. The court found that the applicants met the criteria under section 65C to apply for parenting orders, supported by their familial connection, demonstrated interest in the child, and the existing Country C guardianship order. Applying section 65D(1), the court determined that it could make such parenting orders as it considered proper, noting that the consent of the respondents meant presumptions regarding parental responsibility did not apply. The court considered the best interests of the child under section 60CC, acknowledging the applicants' capacity to provide a better lifestyle and their commitment to maintaining cultural traditions, while also noting the potential for a distance relationship with the child's biological parents and siblings in Country C.

The court made orders granting the applicants parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with them. The court also ordered that particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravention be set out in an attached Fact Sheet, and that all outstanding proceedings be dismissed. The court further directed that the reasons for its decision be published and that the Minister be notified of the orders and reasons.