CM v Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWSC 1740

CM v Secretary, New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWSC 1740

The Court refused to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction because the Minister presently held parental responsibility under interim Children's Court orders, the Children's Court care proceedings were already part-heard, exceptional circumstances justifying Supreme Court intervention were not established, the evidence did not permit the Court to conclude that the clinician's risk concerns had been displaced, and returning the child to the mother before the resumed hearing risked causing further trauma if he later had to be removed again.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Under the Supreme Court's Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Concerning Return of a Child to His Mother / Ex Tempore Duty Judge Decision; Related Children's Court Care Proceedings Were Part Heard and Interim Care Orders Were in Force
Outcome
Interlocutory application refused; Notice of Motion and Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['return of Child to Mother' 'interim Care Orders' 'parental Responsibility' "children's Court Proceedings Part Heard" 'exceptional Circumstances for Supreme Court Intervention']
['equity' 'child Protection' 'parens Patriae'] ['return of Child to Mother' 'interim Care Orders' 'parental Responsibility' "children's Court Proceedings Part Heard" 'exceptional Circumstances for Supreme Court Intervention']

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

Interlocutory Application Under the Supreme Court's Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Concerning Return of a Child to His Mother / Ex Tempore Duty Judge Decision; Related Children's Court Care Proceedings Were Part Heard and Interim Care Orders Were in Force

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to order that the child be returned to his mother's care immediately." "Whether exceptional circumstances were established to justify overriding interim care orders and parental responsibility currently allocated to the Minister by the Children's Court." "Whether returning the child to the mother before the resumed Children's Court hearing risked causing further trauma if final orders later required removal again."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction because the Minister presently held parental responsibility under interim Children's Court orders, the Children's Court care proceedings were already part-heard, exceptional circumstances justifying Supreme Court intervention were not established, the evidence did not permit the Court to conclude that the clinician's risk concerns had been displaced, and returning the child to the mother before the resumed hearing risked causing further trauma if he later had to be removed again.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application refused; Notice of Motion and Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the plaintiff to file in Court a Summons dated 26 October 2020, initialled by her Honour, dated today and placed with the papers.' 'Dismiss the Notice of Motion received by the Court on 3 November 2020.' 'Dismiss the Summons dated 26 October 2020 filed on 5 November 2020.']