Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and Jake [2020] NSWChC 2

Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and Jake [2020] NSWChC 2

Because the proposed adoptive carers had not previously been through the adoption process, had no adoption assessment, had no foster care experience and no parenting experience before Jake's placement, and because the Care Plan contemplated an application for adoption only at the end of 12 to 24 months or at the end of the two-year order, the adoption plan was aspirational rather than a real plan offering long-term security. The Court therefore could not be satisfied that the Care Plan met Jake's needs or that permanency planning had been appropriately and adequately addressed. The permanency plan was not approved and s 79(9) had no application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Care and Protection Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Permanency Planning and Care Plan After Hearing
Outcome
The permanency plan was not approved. The Court found that permanency planning for Jake had not been appropriately and adequately addressed and invited the Secretary to prepare and file a further Care Plan.
Legal Topics
['permanency Planning' 'short Term Parental Responsibility Orders' 'realistic Possibility of Restoration' 'adequacy of Care Plan' 'contact' 'health Planning' 'cultural Planning']
['care and Protection' 'child Protection' 'adoption'] ['permanency Planning' 'short Term Parental Responsibility Orders' 'realistic Possibility of Restoration' 'adequacy of Care Plan' 'contact' 'health Planning' 'cultural Planning']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Care and Protection Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Permanency Planning and Care Plan After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed permanency plan involving adoption was appropriately and adequately addressed.' 'Whether adoption planning was premature and the Care Plan offered long-term security for Jake.' 'Whether s 79(9) applied to permit a short term order allocating all aspects of parental responsibility to the Minister for 24 months following approval of a permanency plan involving adoption.' "Whether the Care Plan appropriately and adequately addressed contact, Jake's health, and his cultural plan."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proposed adoptive carers had not previously been through the adoption process, had no adoption assessment, had no foster care experience and no parenting experience before Jake's placement, and because the Care Plan contemplated an application for adoption only at the end of 12 to 24 months or at the end of the two-year order, the adoption plan was aspirational rather than a real plan offering long-term security. The Court therefore could not be satisfied that the Care Plan met Jake's needs or that permanency planning had been appropriately and adequately addressed. The permanency plan was not approved and s 79(9) had no application.

Court Disposition

The permanency plan was not approved. The Court found that permanency planning for Jake had not been appropriately and adequately addressed and invited the Secretary to prepare and file a further Care Plan.

Orders

  • ['The Court makes a formal finding under s 83(7) that the permanency planning for the child has not been appropriately and adequately addressed.' 'The Court invites the Secretary to prepare and file a further Care Plan.']