Wry and Marney and Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Wry (Applicant) and Ms Marney and Mr Reno (Respondents) sought consent orders regarding the future arrangements for a child, identified as "B". The Independent Children's Lawyer also participated in the proceedings. The court, presided over by Murphy J, was presented with a Family Report prepared by Ms D, which contained significant information regarding the child's cultural background and family connections.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine whether the proposed consent orders were in the best interests of the child, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering various factors, including the child's relationships with her family, the capacity of the parties to promote time and relationships with other family groupings, parental responsibilities, and crucially, the promotion of the child's Aboriginal culture. The court also had to consider any issues of abuse raised in the proceedings, as defined by the Act.

Murphy J's reasoning emphasised the importance of agreement between parties who care for a child, noting that this often leads to the best outcomes. The court acknowledged its limitations in understanding Indigenous cultures but highlighted the centrality of kinship and dispute resolution through discussion within those cultures. The Family Report was instrumental in the court's decision, providing detailed insights into the child's strong connections to both her maternal and paternal family groupings, and the commitment of these families to her upbringing as a proud Indigenous woman. The court found that the report addressed matters of cultural significance to the E people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people more generally, and that these, along with other considerations such as continuity of care and attachment, supported the proposed orders. The court was satisfied that the consent orders, which were supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer, appropriately dealt with any issues of abuse and were in the child's best interests.

By consent, the court ordered that the Minutes of Consent be sealed and attached to the orders, and that all extant applications be dismissed. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged six months from the date of the orders. The court also ordered that particulars of the obligations created by the orders, the consequences of contravention, and details of assistance available to parties be set out in an attached Fact Sheet, as required by sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Act. The court congratulated the parties on their courage and strength in reaching an agreement that was considered to be in the child's best interests.