GR v The Department of Communities & Justice [2021] NSWSC 983

GR v The Department of Communities & Justice [2021] NSWSC 983

The urgent application was dismissed because there was no evidence that Prozac, depot olanzapine or other medication had been administered to AB, no evidence that medication was likely to be administered without AB's informed consent, and no evidence that the first and second defendants had failed or were likely to fail to comply with public health or stay-at-home orders. The email concerning fluoxetine indicated that no such medication had yet been administered and that a process of informed consent was potentially underway.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Child Welfare Care Proceedings; Appeal From Care Order of the Children's Court / Urgent Notice of Motion Seeking Interim Injunctive Relief; Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Application refused and dismissed
Legal Topics
['care Order' "appeal From Children's Court Care Order" 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction' 'medical Treatment for Child in Care' 'contact Order' 'public Health and Stay at Home Orders' 'informed Consent']
['child Welfare' 'care Proceedings' 'equity'] ['care Order' "appeal From Children's Court Care Order" 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction' 'medical Treatment for Child in Care' 'contact Order' 'public Health and Stay at Home Orders' 'informed Consent']

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

Child Welfare Care Proceedings; Appeal From Care Order of the Children's Court / Urgent Notice of Motion Seeking Interim Injunctive Relief; Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second defendants should be ordered to comply with public health and stay-at-home orders for AB.' "Whether the first and second defendants should be restrained from administering medications, medical treatments, vaccines or hospital admissions for AB without leave of the Court or the plaintiff's written consent." 'Whether there was evidence justifying urgent intervention under the parens patriae jurisdiction in relation to proposed administration of Prozac, depot olanzapine or other medical treatment.' "Whether evidence showed that medication had been or was likely to be administered without AB's informed consent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The urgent application was dismissed because there was no evidence that Prozac, depot olanzapine or other medication had been administered to AB, no evidence that medication was likely to be administered without AB's informed consent, and no evidence that the first and second defendants had failed or were likely to fail to comply with public health or stay-at-home orders. The email concerning fluoxetine indicated that no such medication had yet been administered and that a process of informed consent was potentially underway.

Court Disposition

Application refused and dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']