BMA and BMB v Department of Family and Community Services

The applicants, BMA and BMB, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Department of Family and Community Services, represented by the respondent. The decisions in question involved the removal of a child from the applicants' day-to-day care and the de-authorisation of the applicants as authorised out-of-home carers. The dispute was heard and determined by the relevant tribunal.

The central legal issues before the tribunal were whether the decisions of the Department to remove the child from the applicants' care and to de-authorise them as authorised carers were lawful. The applicants argued that the decisions were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The tribunal was required to examine the evidence and reasoning underpinning the Department's decisions to determine their validity.

In examining the evidence, the tribunal found that while the decision to remove the child from the applicants' care was supported by sufficient evidence, the decision to de-authorise the applicants as authorised carers was not. The tribunal held that the Department's decision to de-authorise the applicants was unreasonable due to a lack of proper consideration of the applicants' capacity to care for the child. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the decision to de-authorise the applicants and affirmed the decision to remove the child from their care. The tribunal also made recommendations for the transfer of responsibility for the child's placement and for facilitating contact between the child and the applicants. Furthermore, directions were made in relation to the applicants' application for costs.

The tribunal's final orders included setting aside the decision to de-authorise the applicants as authorised carers, affirming the decision to remove the child from their care, recommending that responsibility for the child's placement be transferred to the Albury offices of the Department, and facilitating contact between the child and the applicants. Directions were also made regarding the applicants' application for costs.