Re M (No 5) - BM v Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services & Ors [2013] NSWCA 253

Re M (No 5) - BM v Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services & Ors [2013] NSWCA 253

The summons was dismissed because the applicant did not establish any error of law in the District Court decision. Her challenges to factual findings, credibility assessments and the merits of placement and restoration decisions could not found relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The District Court did not err by failing to make assessment orders because no application for such orders had been made. The applicant also failed to show that the further amended Care Plans were prepared contrary to s 78(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, as the Director-General had taken steps to obtain and consider her views and, given the Children's Court...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 of a District Court Decision in Care Proceedings / Summons Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Summons dismissed; name of First Respondent amended.
Legal Topics
['care Orders' 'parental Responsibility' 'care Plans' 'permanency Planning' 'assessment Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'error of Law' 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction']
['child Protection' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['care Orders' 'parental Responsibility' 'care Plans' 'permanency Planning' 'assessment Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'error of Law' 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction']

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

Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 of a District Court Decision in Care Proceedings / Summons Before the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court decision disclosed an error of law warranting relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.' 'Whether the Director-General made the relevant Care Plans as far as possible with the agreement of the mother as required by s 78(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.' 'Whether the District Court erred by not ordering clinical assessments of the children and parents.' "Whether the mother's challenges to factual findings and credibility assessments could found judicial review relief." "Whether circumstances warranted exercise of the Court's parens patriae jurisdiction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the applicant did not establish any error of law in the District Court decision. Her challenges to factual findings, credibility assessments and the merits of placement and restoration decisions could not found relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The District Court did not err by failing to make assessment orders because no application for such orders had been made. The applicant also failed to show that the further amended Care Plans were prepared contrary to s 78(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, as the Director-General had taken steps to obtain and consider her views and, given the Children's Court...

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; name of First Respondent amended.

Orders

  • ['Amend the name of the First Respondent to the summons filed on 17 June 2013 (Summons) to "Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services".' 'Dismiss the Summons.']