SEPARATED GAY PARENTS FIGHT OVER TIME WITH CHILD
Pelmore & Mickels [2020] FCCA 3308 (17 November 2020)
This is a parenting case that involves a child born by way of an altruistic gestational surrogacy procedure where the applicant father seeks that the respondent father’s time be supervised.
Facts:
This is a parenting proceeding between the applicant, Mr Pelmore (“the applicant”), and the respondent, Mr Mickels (“the respondent”) in relation to parenting issues for their much-loved child, X, born in 2017. The applicant and respondent were in a de facto relationship from 2009 until January 2018.
The applicant in this proceeding seeks that X live with him and that all the time X spends with the respondent be supervised by the latter’s parents.
It is presented before the Court as a risk case by the applicant consequent upon the respondent’s misuse of illegal drugs. The respondent admits misuse of methamphetamines, and admits use of whatever the drug, GBH, may be.
However, on the evidence, the respondent has taken a number of positive steps to address his drug use, and particularly methamphetamine misuse problem, and orders can be made that appropriately mitigate the risk to X consequent upon the respondent’s issue with misuse of illegal drugs, so as to allow X to pursue his relationship with the respondent on a normal basis, despite the unacceptable risk to X presented by that misuse of illegal drugs by the respondent.
Issue: Should X spend time with the respondent-father?
Law:
- Family Law Act 1975 SS.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 61C, 65D, 65DAA
Analysis:
There is a risk consequent upon the respondent’s use, at times in the past two years, of illegal drugs. Such risk is of its nature, and particularly, when methamphetamine and ice are mentioned and raised as drugs used, an unacceptable risk to X, but I find that such unacceptable risk can be addressed by appropriate mitigating orders.
It is in X’s best interests that he be given an opportunity to continue his meaningful relationship with each of his fathers, with his relationship with the respondent being subject to appropriate orders to mitigate what I have found to be an unacceptable risk posed to X in the respondent’s care in consequence of accepted evidence in relation to misuse of illicit drugs by the respondent.
Conclusion: Court orders that (1) That the child X live with Applicant and that (2) all of the time the child is in the Respondent’s care is to be supervised by on or other of the Respondent’s parents Mr B or Ms C, until the Respondent has provided to the Applicant a hair follicle testing result summary that indicates a negative result for all illicit drugs.
