Re Mark (2003) 31 Fam LR 162
Court: Family Court
Judge: Brown J
Facts: The one-year-old child has been residing with two men, each considering the child their son, and who have cohabited since 1992. The child was born through surrogacy, involving a woman in the US, residing with her husband, using an anonymous donor egg and the sperm of Mr. X (one of the men). The surrogacy arrangement was formalized through a surrogate agreement in California.
Reasoning: Mr. X, who provided his genetic material with the explicit intention of becoming a parent to the child, qualifies as a parent in the ordinary sense of the term and, therefore, as a parent under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Section 60H of the Family Law Act provides a definition of a parent that is expansive rather than restrictive. In determining the best interests of Mark, the child, the court must consider various factors outlined in Section 68F(2) of the Family Law Act 1975. These include assessing the child’s relationships with parents and other individuals, considering the potential effects of any changes in the child’s circumstances, and evaluating the capacity of each parent or person to meet the child’s needs, both emotionally and intellectually. Given Mr. X and Mr. Y’s shared commitment to the child’s care and well-being, they both shall bear parental responsibility for the child.
To read the full judgement go to: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2003/822.html