Wilson v Roberts (No 2) [2010] FamCA 734
Court: Family Court
Judge: Dessau J
Facts: A child, E, was born to a woman and has lived with his mother and her partner. E’s biological father and his partner desire substantial time with him, contrary to the mothers’ wishes. The women seek sole parental responsibility for E and the right to relocate overseas, while the men seek shared parental responsibility and object to the overseas move. The men have been actively involved in E’s life since birth, caring for him for at least two full days per week and one additional evening until a disagreement arose regarding the time E spent with each party.
Reasoning: Section 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) underwent repeal and replacement by a new Section 60H through the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and other Measures) Act 2008, specifically addressing children born through artificial insemination. Although E was born before the amendment’s commencement on 21 November 2008, it is evident that the amendment applies retroactively to children born before that date. Notably, a person not recognized as a parent can still seek a parenting order if they are “concerned with the care, welfare, or development of the child” (see Section 65 of the Act). Given the circumstances, an equal division of parenting roles among the four adults is impractical for E. The mothers are established as E’s primary attachment figures, responsible for crucial decisions, while the men should remain involved in his life. Importantly, the women should not face restrictions on moving overseas.
To read the full judgement go to: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2010/734.html