Freeman & Bowman [2015] FamCA 141
Court: Family Court
Judge: Hogan J
Facts: Ms. Freeman and Ms. Bowman were in a relationship, cohabitating for nearly 2 years. Within this period, baby B was born to Ms. Bowman through artificial insemination involving a known donor. Ms. Freeman requested a declaration asserting her parental status over baby B under Section 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). She argued that, as she was in a de facto relationship with Ms. Bowman during conception, and provided consent to the artificial conception procedure, she should be recognized as a parent. Ms. Bowman contested the application, contending that Ms. Freeman did not give consent to the artificial conception.
Reasoning: The court determined that Ms. Bowman employed language in her communication with the donor, such as “we,” indicating Ms. Freeman’s inclusion. This strongly implied, if not explicitly conveyed, that she was involved in a relationship when seeking the genetic material.
Furthermore, the court noted evidence establishing a de facto relationship, with Ms. Freeman providing financial support to Ms. Bowman, extending support to baby B post-birth. They openly presented their relationship to the public both before and after the child’s birth, portraying themselves as de facto partners, with the child integrated into this dynamic. The court concluded that Ms. Freeman had indeed consented to the artificial conception procedure, and at the time of conception, they were in a de facto relationship. Consequently, in accordance with section 60(H)(2), baby B is recognized as the child of Ms. Freeman.
To read the full judgement go to: ttps://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2015/141.html