Groth v Banks [2013] FamCA 430
Court: Family Court
Judge: Cronin J
Facts: The applicant’s genetic material was used in the artificial conception of a child born to a single woman. She argued that the applicant, being a donor, shouldn’t be considered a parent. This assertion was based on Section 15 of the Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic), which establishes an irrebuttable presumption that a man providing genetic material for artificial conception shall not be regarded as the father.
Reasoning: The Act, as outlined in Section 4(1), lacks a helpful definition, especially when the child in question is not adopted. In the absence of a comprehensive definition within the Act, the ordinary dictionary meaning is to be applied. The Act consistently reflects the notion that a child’s biological donors are its parents. Biology serves as the decisive factor unless explicitly ruled out by law. As the applicant is the biological progenitor who deliberately took steps to become a father, he qualifies as a parent. Consequently, both parties would share equal parental responsibility, with the child residing primarily with the mother and spending gradually increasing periods of time with the father.
To read the full judgement go to: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2013/430.html