Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

The High Court of Australia to consider the definition of “parent”

Mar 5, 2019, 03:43 AM
The High Court of Australia to consider the definition of “parent”
Slug :
Meta Title : The High Court of Australia to consider the definition of “parent”
Meta Keywords : The High Court of Australia to consider the definition of “parent”
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : Yes
Prioritise In Trending Articles : Yes
Date : Mar 5, 2019, 03:00 AM
Article ID :

Family lawyers have another reason to keep a watchful eye on the High Court of Australia in 2019, writes Will Stidston, a special counsel and accredited family law specialist at Barry Nilsson in Melbourne.

The High Court of Australia recently granted special leave to hear an appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Parsons and Anor & Masson [2018] FamCAFC 115. In summary:

  1. A child was conceived utilising artificial insemination and the father was named on the child’s birth certificate.
  2. A controversy arose between the parents as to the parentage of the child.
  3. At first instance, the Family Court of Australia held that the father was a “parent” for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The mother appealed this decision.
  4. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia allowed the appeal and determined that the father was not a parent on the basis of s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s 14(2) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW). The father sought, and was granted, special leave to appeal this decision to the High Court of Australia as indicated above.

The High Court appeal, which will utilise the pseudonym Masson v Parsons & Ors will consider, inter alia, whether the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia erred in concluding that:

  1. s 142(s) of the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) operated to determine that the appellant was not a “parent” for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); and
  2. s 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) exhaustively defines parents of children for the purpose of that Act.

The decision of the High Court will no doubt be illuminating with broad application for parents utilising artificial insemination procedures.


Categories :
  • Articles
  • News
Tags :
  • family law
Australia-Flag-2
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family Law (General)
Load more comments
Comment by from