Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and Teddy [2020] NSWChC 1

Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and Teddy [2020] NSWChC 1

The Care Plan before the court did not propose a permanency plan involving restoration, guardianship, or adoption as a necessary or integral part, but rather only contemplated the possibility of a guardianship application in the future. Section 79(9) therefore did not apply. The proposed short term order was found to be neither necessary nor desirable as it would necessitate further court applications that might prove unnecessary, creating instability contrary to the best interests of the child and permanency objectives of the Act. Permanency planning had not been appropriately and adequately addressed, so no final short term order could be made.

Parties
Applicant: The Secretary; Respondent: The Mother; Respondent: The Father; Subject Child: The Baby
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Care and Protection / Interim Orders; Determination of Proposal for 'short Term Order' Under S 79(9) Care Act
Outcome
Short term order declined; formal finding that permanency planning not adequately addressed; Secretary directed to file further Care Plan; case stood over for further orders.
Legal Topics
Short Term Orders, Permanency Planning, Parental Responsibility, Guardianship
Child Protection Family Law Short Term Orders Permanency Planning Parental Responsibility Guardianship

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 6 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary

Applicant

The Mother

Respondent

The Father

Respondent

The Baby

Subject Child

Procedural Posture

Care and Protection / Interim Orders; Determination of Proposal for 'short Term Order' Under S 79(9) Care Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a short term care order under s 79(9) of the Care Act should be made for the child
  2. 2 Whether permanency planning for the child has been appropriately and adequately addressed as required by s 83(7) Care Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Care Plan before the court did not propose a permanency plan involving restoration, guardianship, or adoption as a necessary or integral part, but rather only contemplated the possibility of a guardianship application in the future. Section 79(9) therefore did not apply. The proposed short term order was found to be neither necessary nor desirable as it would necessitate further court applications that might prove unnecessary, creating instability contrary to the best interests of the child and permanency objectives of the Act. Permanency planning had not been appropriately and adequately addressed, so no final short term order could be made.

Court Disposition

Short term order declined; formal finding that permanency planning not adequately addressed; Secretary directed to file further Care Plan; case stood over for further orders.

Orders

  • Secretary to prepare and file Further Amended Care Plan by 19 February 2020.
  • Matter stood over for final orders to 9 March 2020 at Parramatta.