Coleman & Hindle & Anor (No 3)

The applicant grandmother sought a stay of proceedings in relation to parenting applications concerning two children. The dispute arose from a series of orders concerning the children's care, commencing with an order in 2002 placing them with the applicant grandmother. In 2008, the Department of Child Safety took possession of the children, and subsequent state court orders placed them under the guardianship of the Director of Child Safety. The Director then placed the children with their mother, with whom they had been residing for approximately two years. The father, Mr Hindle, was seeing the children regularly by agreement. The applicant grandmother had not seen the children for a considerable period. The application for stay was heard by Murphy J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant grandmother's application for a stay of proceedings. This application was made in the context of an impending expiry of a state child welfare law order and a mother's application for the children to remain in her care. The court also had to consider the implications of the applicant grandmother's pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, which challenged the validity of the Department's actions in removing the children and the Queensland Court of Appeal's decision on that matter.

Murphy J dismissed the application for a stay. His Honour noted that the basis for the application was difficult to discern. The court had previously dealt with numerous applications, including the mother's request for the children to remain in her care upon the expiry of the state child welfare order. This application was supported by the Department of Child Safety, the Independent Children's Lawyer, and the children's father. The Department had indicated that if the children were not placed with the mother, further child welfare proceedings would be initiated. The court also observed that the applicant grandmother's application for special leave to the High Court was yet to be heard.

The application filed by the applicant on 3 November 2009 was dismissed. The transcript of the proceedings was ordered to be expedited and provided to the parties at no cost.