Bell-Collins Children v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 853

Bell-Collins Children v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 853

The appeal was dismissed because the Court was comfortably satisfied that the children’s injuries were not accidental or medically explained, that the parents were responsible for the injuries through intentional conduct by one or other or possibly both parents, and that the parents’ continued refusal to give an explanation consistent with the medical evidence meant they were unlikely to address the issues that led to removal. Restoration to the parents would therefore pose an unacceptable risk of harm and there was no realistic possibility of restoration. Placement with the great grandparents would also pose an unacceptable risk because they did not genuinely accept the risk posed by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998, S 91 Against Final Care Orders of the Children's Court / Supreme Court Rehearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Decision of Children's Court to leave the children in the care of the Minister upheld.
Legal Topics
['parental Responsibility' 'realistic Possibility of Restoration' 'unacceptable Risk of Harm' 'out of Home Care' 'placement With Relatives' 'contact Arrangements' 'unexplained Child Injuries']
['family Law and Child Welfare' 'care and Protection'] ['parental Responsibility' 'realistic Possibility of Restoration' 'unacceptable Risk of Harm' 'out of Home Care' 'placement With Relatives' 'contact Arrangements' 'unexplained Child Injuries']

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

Appeal Under Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998, S 91 Against Final Care Orders of the Children's Court / Supreme Court Rehearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a realistic possibility of restoration of the children to the parents under Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, s 83.' "Whether the children's injuries were caused intentionally or recklessly by one or both parents, or were accidental or medically explained." 'Whether restoration to the parents would give rise to an unacceptable risk of harm to the children.' 'Whether the children should remain in the care of the Minister or be placed with their great grandparents.' 'Whether existing contact arrangements should be altered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Court was comfortably satisfied that the children’s injuries were not accidental or medically explained, that the parents were responsible for the injuries through intentional conduct by one or other or possibly both parents, and that the parents’ continued refusal to give an explanation consistent with the medical evidence meant they were unlikely to address the issues that led to removal. Restoration to the parents would therefore pose an unacceptable risk of harm and there was no realistic possibility of restoration. Placement with the great grandparents would also pose an unacceptable risk because they did not genuinely accept the risk posed by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Decision of Children's Court to leave the children in the care of the Minister upheld.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Exhibits be returned.']