PP v Director General of Department of Human Services, Re: Julia [2012] NSWDC 16

PP v Director General of Department of Human Services, Re: Julia [2012] NSWDC 16

The appeal was allowed only in relation to contact because the evidence did not establish any sufficient change of circumstances, urgency, risk in the placement, or basis to revisit parental responsibility. Julia was flourishing with her carers, who had maintained PP's status in Julia's eyes. Although PP loved Julia, his continuing hostility to the carers, fixation on Julia's health, diet and stature, lack of insight and inability to remain child-focused made unsupervised or substantially expanded contact contrary to Julia's interests. Supervised contact should continue, with limited additional supervised contact occasions, counselling, assessments, undertakings and reporting to support...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Care Appeal / Appeal From Orders Made in the Children's Court of NSW on 9 September 2011; District Court Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; contact issue allowed only; parental responsibility issue withdrawn and dismissed; no variation to the Children's Court orders, but notations varied and additional orders made.
Legal Topics
['supervised Contact' 'parental Responsibility' 'variation of Care Orders' 'undertakings' 'section 82 Reports' 'limitation on Future Proceedings']
['care and Protection' 'child Welfare'] ['supervised Contact' 'parental Responsibility' 'variation of Care Orders' 'undertakings' 'section 82 Reports' 'limitation on Future Proceedings']

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 Appeal / Appeal From Orders Made in the Children's Court of NSW on 9 September 2011; District Court Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether PP should have unsupervised and expanded contact with Julia, including overnight, weekend and school holiday contact.' 'Whether the existing placement and parental responsibility arrangements should be reopened or varied.' "Whether supervised contact remained necessary in Julia's safety, welfare and wellbeing." 'Whether additional supervised contact occasions and therapeutic measures should be provided.' 'Whether future proceedings by PP should be referred for preliminary consideration of summary dismissal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed only in relation to contact because the evidence did not establish any sufficient change of circumstances, urgency, risk in the placement, or basis to revisit parental responsibility. Julia was flourishing with her carers, who had maintained PP's status in Julia's eyes. Although PP loved Julia, his continuing hostility to the carers, fixation on Julia's health, diet and stature, lack of insight and inability to remain child-focused made unsupervised or substantially expanded contact contrary to Julia's interests. Supervised contact should continue, with limited additional supervised contact occasions, counselling, assessments, undertakings and reporting to support...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; contact issue allowed only; parental responsibility issue withdrawn and dismissed; no variation to the Children's Court orders, but notations varied and additional orders made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 91 of the Children and Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1998, the Summons Commencing the Appeal filed on 5 October 2011 was allowed only as it pertained to the issue of contact between Julia and her father PP.' 'The appeal concerning parental responsibility was withdrawn by PP by consent and...