BQZ v Challenge Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 92

BQZ v Challenge Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 92

The care plan proposal to transition the child to Aboriginal carers was not embodied in the Children's Court orders and did not limit the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Section 13(4), rather than the general placement order in section 13(1), applied because the child had one Aboriginal parent and one non-Aboriginal parent. Having regard to the child's best interests, safety, welfare and wellbeing, the uncontradicted evidence of strong and secure attachment to the applicant and her extended family, the risks of developmental regression and distress from removal, the delay in implementing the proposed Aboriginal placement, and the Aboriginal elder's evidence that the applicant could support the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Decision to Remove Responsibility for Daily Care and Control of a Child From an Authorised Carer Under Section 245(1)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
The application succeeded; the decision to remove the child from the applicant's daily care and control was set aside and a substituted decision granted daily care and control to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['review Under Section 63 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997' 'daily Care and Control of Child' 'authorised Carer' 'aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child and Young Person Placement Principles' 'best Interests, Safety, Welfare and Wellbeing of Child' 'attachment and Placement Stability']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'out of Home Care'] ['review Under Section 63 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997' 'daily Care and Control of Child' 'authorised Carer' 'aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child and Young Person Placement Principles' 'best Interests, Safety, Welfare and Wellbeing of Child' 'attachment and Placement Stability']

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

Administrative Review of a Decision to Remove Responsibility for Daily Care and Control of a Child From an Authorised Carer Under Section 245(1)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's decision to remove from the applicant responsibility for the daily care and control of the child should be set aside." 'What was the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before the Tribunal.' 'How section 13 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 applied to a child with one Aboriginal parent and one non-Aboriginal parent.' "Whether the child's best interests were better served by remaining with the applicant or transitioning to Aboriginal authorised carers caring for the child's siblings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The care plan proposal to transition the child to Aboriginal carers was not embodied in the Children's Court orders and did not limit the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Section 13(4), rather than the general placement order in section 13(1), applied because the child had one Aboriginal parent and one non-Aboriginal parent. Having regard to the child's best interests, safety, welfare and wellbeing, the uncontradicted evidence of strong and secure attachment to the applicant and her extended family, the risks of developmental regression and distress from removal, the delay in implementing the proposed Aboriginal placement, and the Aboriginal elder's evidence that the applicant could support the...

Court Disposition

The application succeeded; the decision to remove the child from the applicant's daily care and control was set aside and a substituted decision granted daily care and control to the applicant.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the relevant decision maker, William Wain, Manager Casework with Challenge Children's Services, made on or about 13 January 2015 to remove from the applicant the responsibility for the daily care and control of the child the subject of this application is set aside." 'The Tribunal makes a decision...