A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 3)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 369
Hearing dates: In Chambers
Date of orders: 03 April 2019
Decision date: 03 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
(1) The applicants in this matter and their children are to be referred to only by pseudonyms (“A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”); and
(2) Any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of A, B, C or D is not to be reported upon.
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW — Children — Pseudonym order
Cases Cited: A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 43
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: A (First Plaintiff)
B (Second Plaintiff)
Secretary, Family and Community Services (First Defendant)
Legal Aid NSW (Second Defendant)
Children’s Court of NSW (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Singleton (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
A and B, unrepresented (First and Second Plaintiffs)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/299545
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

I gave judgment in this matter in February: see A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 43. The plaintiffs sought pseudonym orders to ensure that their children’s identity could not be identified from the publication of that judgment.
Being satisfied in the circumstances in which the application was made and the statutory regimes which apply to the proceedings in the Children’s Court, with which this application was concerned, which are explained in the February judgment, that the interests of justice required that the children’s identity not be disclosed. I made orders that:

The applicants in this matter and their children are to be referred to only by pseudonyms (“A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”); and

Any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of A, B, C or D is not to be reported upon.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 3) involved a dispute regarding the protection and welfare of children, specifically concerning the issuance of a pseudonym order to protect their identities. The matter was heard by the Family Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction over family law matters, including those involving the care and protection of children.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to grant a pseudonym order to protect the identities of children who were involved in a family law proceeding. The pseudonym order would have prevented the publication of the children's names and other identifying information in any court documents or media reports. The court had to balance the need to protect the children's privacy and welfare against the public's right to know about the proceedings and the role of transparency in the justice system.

The Family Court of Australia considered the welfare and best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the children's privacy and the potential harm that could arise from the disclosure of their identities. The court noted that pseudonym orders are not granted lightly and are reserved for cases where there is a significant risk of harm to the children if their identities are disclosed. The court concluded that the pseudonym order was necessary to protect the children's welfare and granted the order accordingly.

In summary, the Family Court of Australia granted a pseudonym order to protect the identities of children involved in a family law proceeding, finding that it was necessary to protect their welfare and privacy. The court balanced the children's best interests with the public's right to know and the importance of transparency in the justice system. The pseudonym order ensures that the children's identities remain confidential and that any potential harm to them is minimised.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 369
Hearing dates:	In Chambers
Date of orders:	03 April 2019
Decision date:	03 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	(1) The applicants in this matter and their children are to be referred to only by pseudonyms (“A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”); and (2) Any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of A, B, C or D is not to be reported upon.
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW — Children — Pseudonym order
Cases Cited:	A v Secretary, Family and Community Services (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 43
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	A (First Plaintiff) B (Second Plaintiff) Secretary, Family and Community Services (First Defendant) Legal Aid NSW (Second Defendant) Children’s Court of NSW (Third Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Singleton (First Defendant) Solicitors: A and B, unrepresented (First and Second Plaintiffs) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant)
File Number(s):	2018/299545
Publication restriction:	Nil