Submission to the Family Law Council of Australia Consideration of Determining Who Is A

Submission to the Family Law Council of Australia Consideration of Determining Who Is A

InternationalSurrogacy Arrangements

SubmissiontotheFamilyLawCouncilofAustralia

Considerationofdeterminingwhoisaparentincasesinvolvingsurrogacyarrangements

June2013

Background

International surrogacyarrangementsare becomingincreasinglycommon,withcasespresentingin both the citizenshipandmigrationprograms. The caseload has increasedconsistentlysince 2008,when the Department was onlyaware ofoccasional cases.Weestimate thatthere arenow wellover 100casesper year.

Source countries for surrogacycases

The UnitedStateswas previouslythe main countrywhereAustraliansentered into surrogacyarrangements. Inrecentyears, most casespresented to the Department have come fromIndia, the UnitedStates and Thailand,with afewfrom Malaysia,Ukraine and China.

Drivers

We observe that thereis a complexset of drivers for overseas surrogacywhich encompasssocial,legal,economicand technologicalelements.These include:

  • socialchangesresultingin familyformationlater inlife, leadingto fertilitydifficultiesfor would-be parents;
  • changingsocialnormsregardingsurrogacy;
  • recentchanges in legal recognition of children ofsame-sexrelationshipsunderAustralianlaw;
  • improvements in successratesandincreased availabilityof cheap reproductivetechnology,especiallyinemergingeconomies;
  • the limitations of domestic surrogacyoptions (costs of reproductive technology,illegalityof commercialarrangementsand possiblescarcityof willingsurrogatemothers);
  • the limitedavailabilityof childrenforadoptiondomesticallyand thecomplexities ofthe international adoptions framework.

Caseload

The Department must accommodate twotypes ofcaseloads involvingchildrenbornthroughsurrogacyarrangements;newborn babies whose intended parentsareAustraliancitizens orpermanentresidentsandchildren in “establishedfamilies”.

Newbornbabies – with intendedparentbeing anAustraliancitizen or permanentresidentMost surrogacycases present asnewborn babies whose (intended / commissioning) parentsare Australiancitizens or permanentresidents. Typically, theAustralianparent(s) enterintoanarrangementwith a surrogate mother overseasandoftenonlytravel to the baby’s countryto collect the child. Theywillthen applyfor eitherAustraliancitizenship bydescent oraChild (subclass 101)visa for the child.

Children in “establishedfamilies”

The Departmenthasreceivedapplicationsfrom familyunits thatincludechildrenbornoverseas undersurrogacyarrangements. Thesefamilyunits mayinclude older childrenwhohave been with thecommissioningparentssincebirth. These caseswouldtypicallybenon-Australians or ex-patriateAustralianparentswhohave lawfullyand legitimatelyformedtheirfamilyon thebasis ofthelaw of their countryof residence.

Entry into Australia

Toenter Australia, achild bornoverseas must apply(andbe eligible) foreither Australiancitizenship (bydescent)oravisa forAustralia.

Approval ofthese applicationsrelies upon recognition ofthe parent-childrelationshipbetween thechildand theintendedparent.

The Department is in a difficult position because itmust make anassessmentbased on therecognition ofaparent-child relationshipbetweenthe intendedparent(s) and the child, butthere is no Commonwealth or internationallegalframework toguiderecognition of parent-childrelationships in caseswhere surrogacyarrangementsarecommissionedoverseas.

OverviewofDepartmentallegislationandcurrent approachtosurrogacycaseload

Applications for Australiancitizenship by descent

A childbornoverseas will be eligible for Australiancitizenshipbydescentiftheyhave atleast one parentwho is an Australiancitizen.Under policy, theconsent ofatleast one‘responsible parent’ to the application is required ifthe applicant is under 16years ofage.However, the absence of suchconsentwould not prevent the approval ofcitizenshipbydescent ifthechildmeets the legislativecriteria. Thereis no requirement tohave theconsentofboth parents for anapplicationfor Australiancitizenship.

Parentundercitizenshiplegislation

The term`parent’ is notdefined in the AustralianCitizenshipAct 2007 (the Citizenship Act).Section 8 ofthe CitizenshipActprescribeswho istaken to beachild’sparentwhen achild isa child ofaperson undersection 60H (children born as aresult of artificialconceptionprocedures) or60HB (childrenbornthrough surrogacyarrangements) oftheFamilyLawAct1975.

Until 2010, it was the Department’s position that,exceptwhere section 8 applies, ‘parent’meant a biological parent.On 15 September 2010, the FullFederalCourt found that‘parent’for the purposesofthe Australian Citizenship Act2007 (the Citizenship Act) cannot berestricted to biologicalparentsand is a question offact,withregard to all the circumstances,includingbiological, social andlegal. This ruling increased the vulnerabilityofthecitizenshipprogram to child traffickingand/orabduction cases. Caseswhere there is nobiological link withanAustralianintendedparent,includingthoseinvolvinginternationalsurrogacy,are dealt withon a case bycase basis,withclose scrutinyoftheevidence.

It is also ourpolicythat the provisionsrelatingto s60HoftheFamilyLawAct(aboutartificialconceptionprocedures) do notapplyto international surrogacycases because thebirthmother is not anintendedparent, allowingus to recognise the biologicalintendedparentas a parentfor thepurposes oftheCitizenship Act .

Because theterm`parent’ is not defined in theCitizenship Act, it is possible that in somecircumstances aperson is found to have more thantwoparentsfor thepurposes of thatAct.

Applications for a visa

The entitlement to avisarelies on the recognition ofthe parent-childrelationshipbetween theintendedparentand thechild.Thisapplieswhether the child is applyingforaChild (subclass

101)visa, or as adependent familymemberin their parent’s visaapplication.

It is also arequirement forthe grant ofavisa thatthepublic interestcriteria relatingtoparental responsibilitybemet(these are specificallyPublicInterestCriteria4015 and 4017 inSchedule 4 ofthe MigrationRegulations1994).

ParentunderMigrationlegislation

Although`parent’and`child’ are defined in theMigration Act 1958 andRegulations,thesedefinitionsare inclusive,rather thanconclusive - together, theyensure thatfor migrationpurposes,we recognise parent-childrelationshipscovered undertheFamilyLaw Act, andalsorecognise both formallyandcustomarilyadopted children,as well asstep-children.

The Department’s current position is that,for the purposes ofthe MigrationAct, in theabsence of specific provisions suchas those at s60Hor s60HBofthe FamilyLaw Act, orthose relatingto adoption, a parent must bethe biologicalparent ofthe child.Forinternational surrogacycases,we thereforegenerallyrequire that therebeabiological linkbetween theintended parentand the child in orderfor the parent-child relationship to berecognised.

The public interest criteria relatingto parental responsibilityrequires thereto be either courtor other legalconsent allowingthegrant ofthevisato the child, ortheconsent of eachpersonwhocan lawfullydetermine where the child is to live.Thisrequires us to considernot onlythe relationshipbetweenthe intendedparentand the child, but also the parentalrights ofotherparties,suchas thesurrogate mother and her partner as well asdonors. Inmakingthesedeterminations, the Department currentlyconsiders Australia’smigrationlegislationaswellaslocallaws.

Applicationsfor both citizenshipandvisasfromchildrenbornunder surrogacyarrangementsaregivenconsiderable scrutiny. Consideration isgiven to the lawfulnessofthe process in thehome country,as well as to the contractand theconsent ofthe surrogate mother (and herpartner, ifshe has one)relinquishingparental rights to the childandgivingthe intendedparent(s) parental responsibility. However, in theabsence ofanyAustralian law guidingthisprocess, it canbe difficult to require applicants to provide variousinformation(suchasDNA),and the Department is concerned that anydecision is open to challenge ina court.

KeyIssuesarising for the Department in the surrogacy caseload

Of particular concern is thegrowingnumber of casespresentingfromcountrieswhere thereis no or limitedlegalframework surroundingsurrogacy,suchasIndia,ThailandandMalaysia. The lack ofalegal framework in thesecountries,coupledwith thepovertyofmanyofthe population,increases the potentialforexploitation ofthe surrogate mother aswellas the risks of childtrafficking.

Specific risks to the Departmentinclude:

  • The lack of legalframeworkcreatesuncertaintiesin the Department’s decision-making;
  • The lack ofa legalframework or clearguidelinesgoverninginternational surrogacyarrangementsrequires the Department to adoptspecific approaches to eachcountry.This inevitablyleads to inconsistent requirements,andcreates arisk ofinconsistentdecisionsacross thecaseload;
  • The caseloadpresents arangeofintegrityconcerns, particularlywhere thereis nogenetic link between theintendedparentsand thechild;
  • The risk of unauthorisedor incomplete adoptionsbeingpassed offas surrogacyarrangements to avoid the particular immigrationrequirements in relation toadoptions;
  • The risk ofpossible childtraffickingbeingdisguised assurrogacy;
  • Concernsover the implication of Australia recognisingparent-childrelationshipsthrough surrogacyarrangementsthatmay;
  • be exploitative;
  • involveaminoractingasa surrogate mother;
  • be illegal ornot recognised in thehome country;
  • be commercial in natureandillegalfor theresidents ofsome Australianjurisdictions;
  • Even ifthe Department and the Departmentof ForeignAffairsandTrade recogniseaparent-childrelationship to enable entryinto Australia,once here, this relationship isoften not able to berecognised under otherAustralianlaws, leavingthechildvulnerable and in legal limbo;
  • Inaddition to beingableto recognise an intendedparentasa parent ofthechild, theDepartment needs to beableto determine conclusivelywho is not a parentofa childso as to ensure surrogacyarrangements do not result in chainmigrationapplicationsfrom the surrogate mother andherfamily. Thisapproach is similar to existingprovisionsatsection 60H and60HBin theFamilyLaw Act which limit the number ofparents to two.

Anadditional issueis that the Departmentgenerallyrelies on clients to inform us that a childis bornunder asurrogacyarrangement. It is not uncommonfor clients to conceal this fromthe Department,and ourabilityto detectsurrogacyarrangements is limited.Keyindicatorsare:

  • same-sexmale couples with childrenwhere both menare listed on a birthcertificate
  • a womanoverthe age of 45 listedas the mother ofa child
  • recordsof travel to anothercountryshortlybeforethe birth ofthe child.

Giventhese risks, the Departmentpaysparticularattention to anycases involvingsurrogacy.

These issues specificallyimpact the immigration and citizenshipportfolioandweacknowledge thatthere isa range of other issues that will be included inyour considerationof international surrogacyarrangementswhichmaybeoutsidethescopeofour portfolio.

However,given theextent ofourexposureto cases involvinginternationalsurrogacyarrangements to date, weare veryhappyto beengaged in further discussions of these broaderissues.

Possible solutions – what the terms ofreferencemeanto DIAC

Clarification onwho is and who is not a parent

Ultimately, the Departmentwould like anamendment to theFamilyLawAct thatwouldallow for the consistentdetermination of who is, and alsowho is NOT a parent in casesinvolvinginternationalsurrogacy.

Because therearearangeof entitlementsthatflow fromparent-childrelationships, it isequallyimportant to theDepartment to beable todetermine conclusivelywho is not a parentofa child.

How this may beachieved

The Departmentrecognisesthat developingthepolicysettings to put this goal into effect isincrediblycomplex. Aprimaryconcern forthe Department is that the endgoal must beeasyto implement,consistentandenforceable. Decisionsmade on visa andcitizenshipapplicationsare often made at the APS4 or APS5level. It is importanttherefore, that theseofficersareable to interpretand applyanyguidelines.

Although it is ultimatelya matter forGovernment to decide thepolicysettingswhichreflectsocialnormsand expectations, the Department is concernedthat ifthepolicysettings aretoorestrictive,clientswill simplydevelop more sophisticatedways ofconcealingsurrogacyarrangementsfrom us. An exampleofthis would beif commercialsurrogacyarrangementswere not recognised underanew regime.Conversely, we accept theremaybearangeofrequirementsthat aremore restrictive thancurrentoverseaspractices but which arenecessary,suchas minimum age limits for surrogate mothers,and age limits(bothupper andlower) on intended parents.

The Departmenthasgiven some consideration onhowanyamendments maybeachieved,andwouldpropose thefollowingalternativesas possible models:

OptionA: Specific provisions in the Family Law Act

This maybe similar to existingstate and territorylegislation, wherebytheFamilyLawActcontains a set of requirementsthat must be met.This mayinclude,for example:

  • minimum andmaximumage for partiesinvolved;
  • requirement fora biological link;
  • the arrangement is lawfulin the child’s home country;

Ifthis model is adopted, it is important to consider the implementation ofthe amendments.Thismeans the requirements must be simple,consistentand be able to beassessedobjectively.

For example, a commonrequirement in Australian law is thatallparties to asurrogacyarrangementobtain counsellingprior to enteringinto the agreement.Unless it is also arequirement in thecountryin which thesurrogacyarrangementoccurs,requiringpre-agreement counsellingfor migrationandcitizenshippurposesmaylead some intendingparents to obtainsuch counsellingbut mayalso result in the provision to decision-makers offraudulentevidence of counselling. Further,decision-makerswould not bein aposition toconsider thequalityofthe counselling.

OptionB: Jurisdictionsprescribedunder theFamilyLaw Act

Thiswould be similar to existingprovisions in theFamilyLaw Act, wherebyasurrogacyarrangement is recognised ifit occursunder thelawofa specific jurisdiction.This maymean,forexample,that the Attorney-General’sDepartment(oranother body) is responsiblefor developingaset of criteria throughwhich thesurrogacyarrangements that occur inspecific jurisdictions arerecognised undertheFamilyLaw Act.

Option C: Access to FamilyLaw Court or other bodyto determine parent-childrelationshipAnother modelwould beto provide a streamlinedavenue for intended parents to seekparentage ordersthroughtheFamilyCourt. Thiswouldallow a suitable person to makeassessmentsbased on theindividualfacts ofthecase, and bearingin mind the bestinterests ofthe child.

The Departmentconsiders this is animportantavenue for intendedparentswhere thereis adispute thatcannot be resolved in thecountryin which thesurrogacyarrangementoccurs.However, this structure does not offer theconsistencyorpredictabilitythatthe twopreviousoptions offer,andwouldpossiblylead to clients seekingto conceal thesurrogacyarrangement to enable more rapid decisions on their applications.

Wenote there mayalsobe issues of jurisdiction and access,particularlybynon-Australiancitizens or residents.

Differentprovisions for Australiansresidents andother nationals and expatriate AustraliansAsmentionedpreviously, the international surrogacycaseloadincludes both Australianswhoenter into surrogacyarrangementoverseasas well as familyunits whichmayinclude olderchildrenwhowere bornunder surrogacyarrangements thatare lawful in the parent’s countryof residence.

The Departmentwould likeanyamendment to the FamilyLaw Act to allow for therecognition offamilyunits where this has been donelawfullyin the client’shomecountryorcountryof usual residence before the migrationprocess.

Migrationlegislation alreadycontainsprovisions, in relation to adoptedchildren,thatallowsfor the recognition ofadoptions thatare lawful inother countries for non-Australianresidents, or forexpatriate Australianswhoadopt a child in the course oflivingabroad.

It is proposed that a similar approachcould beadopted to caterfor surrogacycasesthatwouldnot otherwise be recognisedunder Australianlaw,but where thefamilyunit is alreadylegitimatelyformed on the basis of foreignlaw.

Below aresomecase studies thatillustrate the issuesfacedwhen tryingtodetermine parent-childrelationshipsfor the purposes ofassessingapplicationsfor avisatoAustralia orforAustraliancitizenship. The issuesaddressed in these case studies arebased on actualcases,but characteristics of differentcasesmayhavebeen blended, or changed inorder to ensuretheidentityof realapplicants is protected.

Case Studies

Mr and Mrs S – onlyonetwin wanted

MrS advised the AustralianHigh Commission in New Delhithat hehad cometoIndiatomeet his twinbiologicalchildren,bornthroughinternational surrogacyarrangements inIndia.Mr andMrs S had decided that theywanted to takeonlyone twinback toAustralia withthemas theycould not affordtosupport both children. MrS intends to transferparentalresponsibilityfor his sonto friends,who areIndiancitizens,reside inIndiaandare unabletohave achildthemselves.

MrS lodged acitizenshipbydescentapplicationfor his onlydaughter. DNA testingconfirmed his parentageofboth children.

Issues:

  • At this stage it is uncertainas to whether theproposed transfer of parentalresponsibilityfor theother twin to the unrelatedIndiancouple is possible underIndian law, or whether this twinwill be able to obtainIndiancitizenship.
  • It is possiblethe child will be stateless.
  • However,even ifadopted the childwouldremaineligible for Australiancitizenshipbydescent.
  • The AustralianFederal Police representative inIndia wasconsulted but didnotidentifyanychildwelfare/traffickinggroundfor police actionagainst Mror Mrs S.

Mr and Mrs P– no biological tie

MrP, anAustraliancitizen ofIndianbackground,commissionedtwingirlswho he claimswere intended to have been his biologicalchildrenusingdonor eggs. DNAtestresultsshowed no biological tie with MrP as the commissioningfather. Investigationsbythe clinicwhere theembryoswerecreatedwere unableto determine howthe error occurredor who theactualbiologicalparentofthe childrenmightbe.

The AustralianHigh Commission (AHC) wasunable to determine whetherit was in fact agenuine error on thepartofthe clinic orthechildrenwere conceivedwith donor spermintentionallyand MrP has concealed this from theAHC.

Issues:

  • ConsideringH-McMullen (FFC 2010)thedecision maker foundthat, forthe purposesof citizenshipbydescentapplication, theMrP was a parent for citizenshippurposesand the children havenow acquiredcitizenship bydescent.
  • The failure ofthe clinic tohave procedures in placeto preventsuchanerroroccurringor detect donorsubstitution highlights concerns with some international surrogacymarkets.

Mr C and Mr B– determining who is the biologicalparent

MrC and MrB areade factocouple. MrC is anAustraliancitizenand MrBis a UScitizen.Their children,BabyJand BabyS were conceivedthrough theuseofsperm thatwasprovidedbyboth men and “mixed” together priorto fertilisation ofthedonor eggs.

The couple presenteda Californiancourt orderconfirmingtheir parental rightsand severingthoseofthe surrogate mother,her husband and theeggdonor. Thecourt order confirmsthatboth menprovided sperm to the procedure.

Issues:

  • Ifthis arrangementhad been undertaken in Australia (andanappropriatecourt orderwasissuedundera StateorTerritoryLaw to satisfys60HBoftheFLA), both menwould be recognisedas the legalparents of each child, regardless ofwhichwas thegenetic father ofeachchild.
  • A similar case in anothercountryarosewhere weconductDNA testingasa matter ofcourse.The intended father was the biologicalfather ofboth twins, but the intendedmother was the biologicalmother ofonlyone.She claimed not to knowdonor eggshadalsobeen used in theprocedure. Because thefather was not anAustraliancitizen,but the mother was,onlythe twinwith a biologicallink to the mother wasapprovedcitizenshipbydescent.The other needed to applyfor avisa asa dependentapplicanton the father’sPartner visa application.

Mr and Mrs L -failureto keep to the terms of a surrogacy arrangement

AnAustraliancouple inanoverseas countryentered into asurrogacyarrangementwith alocalwomanand her partner for herto act as a surrogate mother.Therewas no formalcontractand thereare nosurrogacylaws in thatcountry.The Australian male was thebiologicalfather ofthechild.

Duringthe pregnancy, themonetarydemands bythe surrogate mother andher partnergrewand the relationshipbetween the two couples broke down.The surrogate mother and herpartner refused to providethe child to the Australiancouple.

Issues:

  • Thiscase highlights theissues whenpeople pursuesurrogacyarrangementsthatarenot regulated in thehomecountry. In some countries, it is possible that,despite thebiological link between the Australianmanand the child, the surrogate mother andher husbandmaybefound to bethe parents ofthechild.
  • The case alsoraises interestingquestionsabout the protection ofallpartiesinvolved,includingthe intended parents and the child.
  • In this case, theAustralians ultimatelylocated thechildand the Australianmale wasgivencare, custodyandcontrol ofthe childbytheCourtfor Children.Thebiologicalrelationshipbetween himand the childwas evidenced byaDNA test.Citizenshipbydescentwasapproved.

Mr K and MsB- possible fraudulentsurrogacy arrangement

A male in Australia on atemporaryvisa(Mr K),and Australiancitizen(MsB), claim to havehad ababyunderasurrogacyarrangement inIndia.

Ms Bis sponsoringMrKfor a Partner visa.Thereare doubts about whether theirrelationship is a genuinepartner relationship.The(claimed) surrogate motheris Mr K’s ex-wife.

Issues:

  • There is nothingin theCitizenship Actthatwouldallow us to deferconsideration ofthe application until such time asanassessment had beenmade on the partner visaapplication,notwithstandingthe factthat thereis apotential integrityissuewiththatvisa application.
  • Regardless of whetheramigration decision makerwere to findthat MrKand Ms Bare not in agenuine relationship,H-McMullen(FFC 2010) meansthat,for thepurposes of citizenship bydescentapplication,wewould still have to addresswhetherMs Bwas aparent whenthe childwasborn.
  • IfMrKwas refused apartnervisabut BabyKwas grantedAustraliancitizenship,BabyKcouldthen sponsorMrK (andanydependent familymembers) fora parentvisa.
  • Revertingtoa requirementthat the Australiancitizenparent is a biologicalparentwouldmean the child would not be eligible for citizenshipbydescent, but maybeeligible fora Partner visa(as a dependant on MrK’s application) orlatersponsoredfor aChild visabyMrKorMs Bif andonlyiftherelationshipbetweenMr K and MsBis found to begenuine.
  • Thiscase alsoraisesissuesaroundIndiansurrogacyarrangements,and thelack ofanyscrutinyof such arrangements. It should, forexample, not be acceptable forMr K’sex-wife to actas asurrogate mother for hischild.We alsowouldhave no reliableevidence that the conception ofBabyK involvedanyartificialconceptionprocess.
  • Whilethis isspeculation, it is possible that this case represents a“babyforavisa”deal,andthat onceMrKis a permanentresident,he wouldthenreconcilewith hisfirstwife and seek to sponsor her and their child for migration. Inreturn,Ms Bmaykeep BabyK.

Mr Yand Mr D– establishedfamily units

MrY and MrDareadefactomalecouple fromIsrael.MrYappliedforaBusiness –LongStay(subclass 457)visawith MrD andtheir twochildren,MasterB(aged8) and MissL(aged 6)asdependants.

AnIsraelibirthcertificate lists MrY and MrD asthe parents ofeachchild.Issues:

  • This is an exampleof an“existing” familyunit.Whatever the circumstancesbehindthe surrogacyarrangement, thefamilymayhavebeen lawfullyliving as afamilyunitin their homecountryforseveralyears.
  • CurrentMigrationlegislationallowsfor therecognition of childrenwho are adoptedin accordancewith thelaws ofa person’s homecountryto berecognised providingthe person is not anAustralianpermanentresident or citizen – except in caseswheretheyhavebeen residingas expatriates in that countryfor over12 months beforeapplyingforavisa and the residence was not contrived to circumventAustralianadoptionprovisions(seeSchedule 2 Regulations for Adoption(subclass 102) visa).
  • Where the couple is asame-sexmale couple,wewill be alerted to the factthere musthave been asurrogacyarrangement.Thisallowsus to askfor appropriatedocuments(suchas court documents, or other evidence ofa biologicallink).Weareconsciousthat this maylead to theperceptionthat weare targetingsame-sexcoupleson thebasis of their sexuality.

Otherissuesraised bycases

  • The abovearearangeofissueswe haveencountered in casesthatrelate to thegeneral lack ofsafeguards in place forallparties. Theyparticularlyhighlight thedifferencesbetween the strictadoptionrequirementsandwhatpeople achievethrough surrogacyarrangements.
  • Commissioningparentswithsignificantcriminal historyand/orconvictionsfor childsexoffences.
  • Multiple babies -acouple commissionedtwosurrogate motherssimultaneously,resultingin 3 babies.
  • People of advanced (oryoungage) commissioningbabies.
  • Surrogacyarrangementsoccurringin countrieswhere it is illegal – a Chinese casepresentedwith aprovincial courtcertificate declaringintendedparentsasparents.
  • Some countries(eg. Ukraine) have surrogacyregulated in their FamilyLawand issuebirthcertificates accordingto local law.Nocourtoversight is provided.

Relevant legislation for citizenship

The AustralianCitizenshipAct 2007

The term“parent” is notdefined in the CitizenshipAct.However, section 8 allowsforrecognition of parent-childrelationshipsrecognisedunder s60H(about artificialconceptionprocedures) and s60HB (about surrogacyarrangements) oftheFamilyLaw Act 1975.

Section 8 - Childrenborn as a result ofartificialconceptionprocedures or surrogacyarrangements

(1)Thissectionapplies ifa child is:

(a)achild ofapersonunder section 60Hor60HBoftheFamilyLawAct 1975;and

(b)either:

(i)a child oftheperson’s spouseorde factopartner under that section;or

(ii)a biologicalchild ofthe person’s spouseorde factopartner.

(2)The child is takenforthe purposes ofthis Act:

(a)to bethechild ofthe personand thespouseorde factopartner;and

(b)not to bethe childof anyone else

Section 6 – Responsibleparent

(1)Forthe purposesofthis Act, a person is aresponsible parent in relationto a child if andonlyif:

Top View