The Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and the Harper Children [2016] NSWChC 3

The Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and the Harper Children [2016] NSWChC 3

The Court accepted the Secretary's assessments because the accumulation of factors, including the credible expert evidence that Dylan's sepsis was caused by deliberate introduction of faecal or decaying material into his bloodstream, the mother's opportunity and capacity, the nurses' evidence of Dylan's comments, unauthorised contact, unresolved psychological and parenting concerns, and the children's strong improvement in the father's care, established that the mother continued to pose a serious unacceptable risk of harm that could not be sufficiently ameliorated. The father did not pose an unacceptable risk, had improved his parenting capacity, and the children were safe and thriving in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Care and Protection Proceedings Concerning Permanency Planning for Four Children / Principal Judgment and Final Care Orders After Finding That the Children Were in Need of Care and Protection
Outcome
The Court accepted the Secretary's assessments, found no realistic possibility of restoration to the mother and a realistic possibility of restoration to the father, approved the permanency planning, and made final care orders.
Legal Topics
['realistic Possibility of Restoration' 'permanency Planning' 'placement' 'allocation of Parental Responsibility' 'unacceptable Risk of Harm' 'supervised Contact']
['care and Protection' 'child Protection'] ['realistic Possibility of Restoration' 'permanency Planning' 'placement' 'allocation of Parental Responsibility' 'unacceptable Risk of Harm' 'supervised Contact']

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

Care and Protection Proceedings Concerning Permanency Planning for Four Children / Principal Judgment and Final Care Orders After Finding That the Children Were in Need of Care and Protection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a realistic possibility of restoration of the children to their mother.' 'Whether there was a realistic possibility of restoration of the children to their father.' 'What permanent placement and allocation of parental responsibility would best meet the safety, welfare and well-being of the children.' 'Whether contact between the children and the mother should be supervised or otherwise ordered.' 'Whether the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children, including medical, psychological and emotional harm.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted the Secretary's assessments because the accumulation of factors, including the credible expert evidence that Dylan's sepsis was caused by deliberate introduction of faecal or decaying material into his bloodstream, the mother's opportunity and capacity, the nurses' evidence of Dylan's comments, unauthorised contact, unresolved psychological and parenting concerns, and the children's strong improvement in the father's care, established that the mother continued to pose a serious unacceptable risk of harm that could not be sufficiently ameliorated. The father did not pose an unacceptable risk, had improved his parenting capacity, and the children were safe and thriving in...

Court Disposition

The Court accepted the Secretary's assessments, found no realistic possibility of restoration to the mother and a realistic possibility of restoration to the father, approved the permanency planning, and made final care orders.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 79(1)(b) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for all four children is allocated to the Minister for Community Services for a period of 3 months.' 'Upon expiration of the initial order and pursuant to s 79(1) and (2), for a period of 9 months...