Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and the Stone and Bates Children [2020] NSWChC 6
The Carers, by virtue of their long-term care for the children, have demonstrated an objectively sufficient interest in the welfare of the children for the purposes of s 90(1AA)(e) and are not excluded by delay, lack of contact, or loss of professional status; they have standing to bring the s 90 application.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 June 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Care and Protection / Preliminary Threshold Decision on Standing Under S 90 of the Care Act
- Outcome
- The Carers have standing under s 90 of the Care Act to bring their application.
- Legal Topics
- ['standing Under S 90 of the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998' 'care and Protection Orders' 'parental Responsibility' "interpretation of 'sufficient Interest'" "jurisdictional Questions Between Children's Court and Ncat"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Care and Protection / Preliminary Threshold Decision on Standing Under S 90 of the Care Act
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Carers have standing to bring a s 90 application for rescission or variation of care orders under the Care Act' "Interpretation of 'sufficient interest' required for standing under s 90(1AA)(e)" 'Effect of removal of children on sufficiency of interest' 'Impact of delay and conduct after removal on standing']
Ratio Decidendi
The Carers, by virtue of their long-term care for the children, have demonstrated an objectively sufficient interest in the welfare of the children for the purposes of s 90(1AA)(e) and are not excluded by delay, lack of contact, or loss of professional status; they have standing to bring the s 90 application.
Court Disposition
The Carers have standing under s 90 of the Care Act to bring their application.
Orders
- ['The Carers are found to have standing under s 90(1AA)(e) of the Care Act to bring their application for rescission or variation of final care orders.' 'Orders 3 and 4 of both applications, seeking immediate return and restoration of the children, are to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction to grant such orders.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment