An Adoptive Father v Minister for Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1305

An Adoptive Father v Minister for Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1305

The Court found the existing care plans, including updated materials, adequately and appropriately addressed permanency planning as required by the statute, and there was no evidential basis or best interests justification to require changes to exclude contact with the first carer or to impose restrictive passport orders. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: An Adoptive Father; First Defendant: Minister for Family and Community Services; Second Defendant: Secretary of NSW Department of Family and Community Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 S 91 / Final Judgment Following Rehearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's Amended Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Care Orders, Permanency Planning, Appeals From Children's Court, Non Contact Orders, Passport Release Orders
Child Law Family Law Equity Parental Responsibility Care Orders Permanency Planning Appeals From Children's Court Non Contact Orders +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

An Adoptive Father

Plaintiff

Minister for Family and Community Services

First Defendant

Secretary of NSW Department of Family and Community Services

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 S 91 / Final Judgment Following Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permanency planning for the children has been appropriately and adequately addressed under Care Act s 83(7)
  2. 2 Whether the care plan should be varied to exclude contact with the first carer
  3. 3 Whether non-contact orders under s 86 should be made prohibiting contact with the first carer

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the existing care plans, including updated materials, adequately and appropriately addressed permanency planning as required by the statute, and there was no evidential basis or best interests justification to require changes to exclude contact with the first carer or to impose restrictive passport orders. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Amended Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's Amended Summons dated 4 February 2019 is dismissed
  • Registrar of the Children's Court of NSW directed to release the passports of the children to an authorised officer of the second defendant