Baby Gammy twin surrogacy decision in Family Court of WA
Exceptionally thorough, legally comprehensive and accessible judgement from Family Court of WA explains fraught facts of the Thai surrogacy case. Some interesting issues:
- the case was permitted to be published, (which is unusual in family law decisions), because the case had already received much (inaccurate it turns out) publicity in the media
- contrary to earlier media representations, the Australian genetic father of the twins and his wife, Mr and Mrs Farnell, did not abandon ‘Baby Gammy’ and did not try to access his trust fund
- there are complex, WA specific issues regarding surrogacy and child protection
- when deciding with whom ‘Baby Gammy’s sister (Pipah) lives, the judge took into account many issues including:
- Pipah’s twin ‘Baby Gammy’ remaining in Thailand and the complexities of separating twins who have not lived together; speak different languages; identify with different parents…
- Mr Farnell is a convicted sex offender but expert evidence indicates there is a low risk of him abusing Pipah
- the risk to Pipah of Mr Farnell being a convicted sex offender to be weighed against the high risk of harm to Pipah if she is removed from her current home (where she has lived her whole life) with Mr and Mrs Farnell
- orders made were specific to Pipah’s best interests:
- a formal safety network was put in place for Pipah
- Pipah is to be read an age appropriate, special Words and Pictures story every 3 months (until the safety network considers it redundant) outlining the special risk of Mr Farnell to Pipah, and other developmentally appropriate (and ongoing) assistance given to Pipah
- orders made to become effective if Mr and Mrs Farnell separate or Mrs Farnell becomes unable to care for Pipah
- orders made for Pipah to never be alone with Mr Farnell for the foreseeable future
- Pipah and Mr Farnell to continue to receive ongoing psychological and supervision
Read the judgement here: assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2802498/Family-Court-of-WA-Judgment-Farnell-amp-Anor-and.pdf