Ezra & Anton [2025] FedCFamC1F 786 (5 November 2025)

(a) The child's education (both current and future);

(b) The child's religious and cultural upbringing;

(c) The child's health;

(d) Requesting that Medicare issue a card/s for the child and claiming Medicare benefits for the child;

(e) Requesting a copy of the child's birth certificate and dealing with the Office of Births, Deaths and Marriages;

(f) Dealing with NDIS and making any applications required; and

(g) Dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Passport Offices and visa providers.

1. That the applicant and respondents have responsibility for all day-to-day decisions with respect to the child.

1. That pursuant to s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the respondents are granted leave to publish a copy of these Orders to all service providers for the child, including but not limited to the child's school, treating medical practitioners, any other doctors, therapists, counsellors, government departments, health insurer, passport and visa providers, or, for securing any financial support for the child.
2. That these Orders are authority for the respondents to schedule and consent to treatment, therapy, schooling, programs, services and the like for the child, and to give and receive such information from service providers as a parent would ordinarily receive.

1. That pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and after the passing of the applicant, the respondents are permitted to take or allow the child to travel overseas.
2. That pursuant to s 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), and after the passing of the applicant, the respondents are hereby authorised to execute all documents necessary to obtain an Australian Passport and travel documents, including renewals, for and on behalf of X born in 2019, without the need for any parent's signature.

1. That the event any wording in these Orders constrains or otherwise fetters the respondents' abilities to deal with service providers for the child, they have liberty to approach chambers, via associate.justicebrasch@fcfcoa.gov.au, under r 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) deposing to the problem and proposing relevant amendment/s by way of affidavit.

1. With respect to Order 1, the need for counselling is dispensed with under s 65F(2)(b) and 65F(2)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. That pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in "Parenting Orders - obligations, consequences and who can help" and these particulars are included in these Orders.
2. That Exhibit 1 is a s 67ZBD report received from the Department of Communities and Justice (NSW) on 4 November 2025 which indicates that they hold no child protection records.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ezra & Anton has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The applicant mother in this matter is Ms Ezra, who was born in 1977. She is a public servant, but has not worked for two years following a cancer diagnosis, which has rendered her unfit for work.
2. She is the sole parent of X born in 2019 ("X") ("the child").
3. The applicant mother has raised X as a single parent by her choice and has done so up until her cancer diagnosis. The Court has been provided with details of X's conception and it is not necessary to repeat that here, other than to say X was conceived with donor sperm provided by an American sperm bank. No father is listed on the child's birth certificate. The applicant mother has been advised that X's sperm donor is not identifiable to X until he attains the age of 18 years; that will likely be at X's election when he is an adult.
4. Thus, there is no father who would ordinarily be a necessary party under r 3.02 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). That means I need not turn my mind to whether the father needs to be found and served due to that 'usual' necessary party status.
5. Instead, I am satisfied to proceed on the basis that X does not know his father, the donor is unknown to the mother, and X can make the choice when he is an adult as to whether he wishes to go down the path [of finding the donor's identity].
6. X and the mother lived together in her home in or around Sydney. When X was about two years of age, he was diagnosed with suffering global developmental delay by the developmental unit at a hospital and was referred to a paediatric specialist. That diagnosis was confirmed and regular consultation with speech therapists, occupational therapists and play therapists were established and continue to the present time. X commenced school this year and attends Kindergarten in Suburb E. X's latest reports are in evidence.

1. The Critical Incident List is a list designed to confer major long-term decision making responsibility for children upon a non-parent when they have neither an appropriate nor available parent to make decisions for them. That is not strictly the case here, but there will come a time where the mother will be unable to make decisions in concert with the respondents for X.
2. Therefore, the matter was accepted into the Critical Incident List because: (a) that time [where the mother cannot make decisions] will come; and, (b) so the applicant mother knows final Orders have been made for her son X when she is no longer able to express any views about major long-term decisions.
3. The applicant has disclosed to the Court the details of her cancer. It is not necessary to repeat that here other than to say the condition is incurable and will ultimately be fatal.

1. The respondents are Mr Anton born in 1987 and Mrs Anton born in 1982.
2. The applicant and the respondents describe that they became friends initially through work, with that friendship dating back to the early 2000s. At a point, they all served at the same place.
3. The mother told the Court that before the cancer diagnosis, the respondents would help with X and babysit when she was doing something else or otherwise unavailable. Their friendship grew.
4. The respondents have young children as well. The applicant deposed that she and X would attend the respondents' home from time to time and spend time with their children, one of whom is now aged 10 and the other aged three. She says that she and X would often accompany the respondents on various outings.
5. This is important to note because the parenting arrangements that are proposed for X would see him remain living with the respondents and their two children, who are hardly strangers to X but will likely be growing as a sibship.
6. Following the mother's cancer diagnosis, the respondents became much more involved in the mother's and X's lives, particularly as the treatment she was undergoing weakened her and she was required to be in and out of hospital. The applicant mother deposed that throughout her treatment she was greatly supported by the respondents, who cared for her and for X. The applicant mother deposed, that X slowly became a member of the respondents' household when she was unable to fully parent X because of her treatment.
7. The kind of treatment needed by the applicant when she was on an oncology ward meant children were not permitted to visit. Nevertheless, the respondents would put X on the telephone so he could speak to his mother. They usually communicated through FaceTime on their mobile phones.

The mother's decision making for the child's transition to the respondent's care

1. In a fundamentally child focused decision, the applicant mother came to the realisation that it was unfair for X to live with her on a full-time basis because of her limitations. She also observed that X was strongly bonded with the respondents and was spending most of his time with them, being raised by the respondents and in the company of their children. That was an incredibly child focused thing for the applicant mother to come to terms with. She also acknowledged she has been unable to take X to his various therapies or to school. She has not driven a car for some time and no longer holds a driver's licence.
2. In another act of considerable child focus, the respondents offered to have X predominantly live with them, including overnights.
3. After considering her 'station in life', as the mother put it, and in consultation with the respondents, the mother ultimately decided it was in X's best interests that he relocate and live with the respondents and for her to visit and spend time with X at the respondents' home.
4. As such, X has been based at the respondents' home since about September 2024. That must have been a heart wrenching decision for the mother to make, but it is one that puts her child, X, first and foremost.
5. The applicant mother visits X at the respondents' home and stays with them. At the moment, it is for overnight visits on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Obviously, this gives the mother the opportunity to engage in the treatments, therapies and medical support she needs, but at the same time allows her to see her son, and on the other side, it gives X the opportunity to remain physically in contact with his mother, which will be precious memories for him to keep.
6. In a further child focused decision, the mother selected that X go to School D as that is the school to which the respondents send their daughter.

1. For the reasons already highlighted, the mother said she has given X's upbringing and future a great deal of thought. She believes it is in X's best interest that he be settled before she passes.
2. The mother therefore approaches the Court wishing to put formal arrangements in place to have parental responsibility not only remain with her, but also allocated to the respondents in relation to X's upbringing, and, that X continue living with the respondents at their home.

1. The mother describes the respondents as coming from large families, with both heavily involved in family life and their relationships with immediate and extended family members. Her observations also include that those relationships are harmonious. The mother describes the respondents' household also as harmonious, and she wishes X to remain and be a part of their family.
2. The mother's convictions are such that she has made a Will appointing the respondents as X's testamentary guardians.
3. However, no doubt with the assistance of wise legal advice, she wishes that a more robust arrangement be put in place through this Court so that the respondents can make the major long-term decisions for X, as may be required before the mother's death but also after her death. For that same reason of certainty, she also seeks live with Orders. She wishes parental responsibility to remain with her [and the respondents] whilst ever she is alive. I will be making Consent Orders that reflect that position.

1. The respondents consent to the mother's application to have parental responsibility allocated to them, but also remain with the mother. They also consent to an Order that X live with them.
2. The respondents' backgrounds are as follows. They were married in 2013 and have been together since the middle of 2010. They have two young children of their own.
3. What they said about X coming into their care is entirely consistent with what the applicant said. That is, X has been in their care about five days a week since August 2024 and full time seven days a week since about November 2024.
4. They described X's mother, the applicant, as a person who has been and remains a very close friend of theirs.
5. Their own children were born in 2014 and in 2021. C, born in 2014, will likely develop as the big sister to X and their other child, B born 2021.
6. The respondents also described a close friendship, as did the applicant, that started off with working together and developed through playing sport and socialising together outside of work. The respondents say, as does the applicant, they have all remained very close friends. For example, the respondents depose that following X's birth, he and the mother would visit their home and X would have play dates with their children. They would likewise visit X and the mother at their home. They would have play dates out, such as attending parks, the zoo and eating out.
7. In other words, the respondents and their children are not strangers to X and it is plain that the mother trusts them.
8. The respondents also said that when the mother was undergoing her cancer treatment, they were the mainstays of help for the mother and with the care of X. For example, they would drop the mother off and pick her up from clinicians and hospital. They would also visit the mother when she was staying at hospital and, in practical assistance which must have been a comfort to the mother, they would also take X to and from his daycare, feed and bathe him. When the mother was attending clinicians, undergoing treatment, recovering from treatment, or when admitted to hospital, they would babysit X and care for him.
9. The respondents deposed to the mother's treatment and their involvement with the mother and child. The details are unnecessary for these reasons, other than to say the Court is satisfied and finds the respondents have been critical supports for the mother and the child.

The respondents' reflections on offering the child transition to their care

1. The respondents deposed to their journey whereby X ultimately came to live with them.
2. It started with the two respondents noticing the mother was failing to regain her health and therefore discussing the prospect of becoming X's full time and permanent carers. But not only did they discuss that outcome amongst themselves, they also wisely discussed these matters with their close friends and close family members. They sought the advice of friends and family members as to whether they would accept and support the respondents taking in X. They deposed, and I have no reason to doubt, they received nothing but positive feedback and encouragement.
3. In light of that acceptance and support of family and friends, the respondents decided to approach the mother about her feelings on their suggestion that they care for X.

The parties discuss X's transition to the respondents

1. The applicant mother and the respondents had several meetings to discuss what caring for X might entail and what their mutual expectations were. That says to me, and the Court is satisfied, this [the change of residence] was not something that was lightly entered into, but was given serious and significant thought by the three adults, not only through their own decision-making processes but in all working together.

1. The respondents deposed to the mother's decline in her health, including at work. It is not necessary to repeat what they observed in these reasons other than to say the Court has read it.
2. Consequently, the respondents deposed that in May 2024 or thereabouts, X commenced spending more time with them, with play dates becoming more and more frequent. X also started staying over at their home each weekend and that continued for several months. This should be understood in the context of the mother's decline in her health. The mother was understandably unable, at this time, to drop off and collect X from daycare so one of the respondents did that for X and for the mother.
3. Between May and August 2024, the mother had a friend stay with her who could assist, but when that friend had to depart for overseas, the mother was no longer able to care for X by herself. That is something the mother herself recognised in what is child focused insight.
4. It was decided between the mother and respondents to change X's daycare. He had been attending a daycare, understandably, close to the mother's home but instead it was practical and made logistical sense for X to attend a daycare closer to the respondents.
5. X then started living with the respondents between Mondays and Fridays and would return to the mother on the weekends. The respondents said, as did the mother, that X was blending into their family and was participating in all family routines and events during the days he stayed with them. That says to me that the respondents are inclusive of X, as if he were one of their own. That said, he is not one of their own, but they are including him in the sibship and giving him the support and the bonding that he obviously must need now and into the future.
6. The respondents added that since November 2024, when X started living with them on a full-time basis, they have included him in all routines and day-to-day activities. He has, effectively, an older sibling and a younger sibling with the respondents' children. Indeed, they say X has bonded with C and B and it is now like they are three siblings.
7. Currently, the mother comes to visit twice a week but that of course depends on her condition and how she is feeling. That says to the Court that X's mother will be welcome in the respondents' house to see X for as long as her abilities avail.
8. The respondents stress that all decisions they refer to in their affidavit in relation to X's relocation and his care arrangements were made collaboratively between the mother and themselves.
9. The respondents described X as thriving at school and as a good student who tries very hard. The respondents are aware of X's diagnosis of global development delay and they deposed to this in their affidavit. They are continuing with his extracurricular supports, which the mother put in place, including speech, occupational and play therapies. They provide all of X's meals, clothing, daily routines, driving to and from school and his appointments, including therapy.
10. X, with the mother's approval and consent and no doubt good wishes, has been able to enjoy three trips away with the respondents and their children.
11. The respondents deposed to the routine in which X resides, all of which is child focused. On the days when the mother is not staying with them, the respondents keep the mother up to date each day, depending on how well the mother is, and if she is too unwell to take up a phone call, they message her and let her know what X has been doing.
12. The respondents described X as bonding well with them and also with their children. They say he is comfortable staying with all of them, and I have no doubt of that. They say they are doing their best to allow X to integrate into their family. That said, I have no doubt that the respondents will make sure X's memory of his mother is one that will be vivid and warm in the child's heart.
13. They say they wish to raise X and support him in his adult life in every way possible. They will continue with his therapies and any other learning supports that may be advised.
14. They have agreed with the mother to be X's testamentary guardians under her Will; however, they understand, rightly, that the mother cannot bequeath parental responsibility regarding X.
15. Accordingly, they join with the mother in seeking what they all call a more robust set of Orders, which make clear the care arrangements and decision-making arrangements for X both now and when the mother passes.

1. Section 60CG of the F_amily Law Act 1975_ (Cth) ("the Act") imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the court to include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
2. Section 65D(1) of the Act provides that this Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper (subject to s 65DAB of the Act, which is irrelevant in this matter). A "parenting order" is defined in s 64B of the Act.
3. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act, and that is:

The objects of this Part are:

(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and

(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.

1. Section 60CA of the Act provides that the child's best interests are a paramount consideration in making a parenting order. Section 60CC of the Act addresses those best interests and provides:

(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and

(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child-also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).

1. The provisions in s 60CC(4) do not apply here. As for s 60CC(1)(b) and (3), X is not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child.

1. I turn now to the s 60CC factors, particularly those under ss 60CC(2).
2. Subsection 60CC(2)(a) refers to what arrangements would promote the safety of the child or each person who has the care of the child, whether or not that person has parental responsibility.
3. I have the benefit of a [s 67ZBD] report from police, which all parties have seen. That indicates there are no police concerns with any of the parties in this matter.
4. I also have the benefit of a s 67ZBD report from the Department of Communities and Justice (NSW), which has been marked as Exhibit 1. They had no records of the child, the respondents' children, the respondents or the applicant.
5. In other words, the authorities in the community who have eyes on the safety of children have no concerns with X's arrangements.
6. Another thing that says the applicant and the respondents are promoting X's safety is that the mother has brought this application and the respondents have joined in with it. They have wisely sought to make arrangements before the mother's passing, which will no doubt be a comfort to her, but will also mean the respondents and most importantly X have legal structures around him when his mother is no longer able to express or communicate decisions of a major long-term nature.
7. Subsection 60CC(2)(b) is about the views of the child.
8. X is still little, born in 2019. He will not have the developmental ability to express a view, let alone understand his mother's illness and what is going to come before him in the loss of his mother. But, on all of the evidence before me, X plainly loves his mother very much and has developed a good, solid bond with the respondents and their children.
9. Subsections 60CC(2)(c) and (d) go hand in hand; the developmental, psychological, emotional, cultural needs of the child, and the capacity of the adults or the parties in this matter to meet those needs.
10. Again, the mother has brought this application and has made incredibly child focused decisions, all of which must have been heartbreaking for her. But, she has placed X first, which absolutely demonstrates that she can meet her child's needs and has the capacity to do so. I am equally satisfied that the respondents do as well.
11. X is not, as said, a stranger to them. Through a friendship that dates back almost a quarter of a century, the respondents would be well alert to the kinds of values the mother has and will be able to think about those when they have to make decisions for X down the track. The fact that they have joined in and have consented to the making of the Orders that are proposed also demonstrates the respondents' capacities to meet X's needs.
12. Subsection 60CC(2)(e) is sad. It speaks to the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so.
13. One of the points of the Critical Incident List is to get parties in and out of the Court as quickly and as expeditiously as a child's best interests allow. Hence, it is far more important that final Orders be made today so the mother can spend what time she has left with X, and, X with his mother, as opposed to coming to Court for, frankly, unnecessary future hearings.
14. As for other people who are significant to the child, he has the benefit of the respondents, who have been in his life as long as he has been born, and their children.
15. Subsection 60CC(2)(f) is anything else.
16. I have already alluded to the importance for X and the mother in having final Orders made today and that is something that I can facilitate through this list.
17. For those reasons, I intend to make the Orders that I discussed with the applicant and respondent's solicitors at the start of this hearing.

I certify that the preceding seventy-seven (77) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Brasch.