Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: DCP v Challenge Children’s Services [2017] NSWCATAD 365 Hearing dates: 25 July 2017 and 22 August 2017 Date of orders: 14 December 2017 Decision date: 14 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Anderson, Senior Member
R Royer, General MemberDecision: (1) The decision to remove from the applicant the responsibility for the daily care and control of the children is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-review of decisions under section 245 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998(NSW) and section 28 (1)(a) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) – where removal of children from the care responsibility for the daily care and control of the children of the applicant due to allegations of reportable conduct – where six allegations were substantiated – where issue is the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before the Tribunal. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW)Cases Cited: AQY & AQZ v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1028
Bell-Collins Children v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 853
Blinko and Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) and the Bell-Collins Children [2014] NSWChC 5
DFaCS (NSW) and the Colt Children [2013] NSWChC 5
Director-General, Department of Community Services v D & Ors [2007] NSWSC 762
J v Lieschke [1987] HCA 4; (1987) 162 CLR 447
Johnson v Page [2007] Fam CA 1235; (2007) FLC
93-344
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
M v M [1988] HCA 68; 166 CLR 69
MXS v Department of Family and Human Services (NSW) [2012] NSWDC 63
PR v Department of Community Services [2009] NSWADT 277
Re Cameron [2012] NSWSC 1453
Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127
Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436
The Department of Community Services v "Rachel Grant", "Tracy Reid", "Sharon Reid and "Frank Reid" [2010] CLN 1
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247Category: Principal judgment Parties: DCP (Applicant)
Challenge Children’s Services (Respondent)Representation: In Person (Applicant)
Counsel:
Solicitors:
N Shepherd (Respondent)
NLS Law Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00166202 Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 65 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, a person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of, publish or broadcast the name of any person who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or to whom any proceedings in the Tribunal relate, or who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings in the Tribunal.Note that a reference…
Continue reading DCP v Challenge Children's Services
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- DCP v Challenge Children's Services [2017] NSWCATAD 365
- Case
- [2017] NSWCATAD 365
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of DCP v Challenge Children's Services involved the applicant, DCP, challenging a decision to remove her children from her care and control due to substantiated allegations of reportable conduct. The case was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The primary legislation under which the decision was made was the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) and the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW). The applicant sought a review of the decision, arguing that it was not the correct or preferable decision based on the evidence presented.
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to remove the children from the applicant's care was justified and appropriate in light of the evidence and applicable legal standards. The Tribunal had to consider the weight of the evidence supporting the allegations and whether the decision to remove the children was the correct and preferable outcome based on the material before it. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed and that she should retain her care responsibilities. The Tribunal's task was to assess the correctness of the decision and determine whether it was supported by the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the decision to remove the children from the applicant's care was supported by the evidence and was the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal found that six allegations of reportable conduct were substantiated, and that the removal of the children was necessary to protect their welfare. The Tribunal concluded that the decision was reasonable and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was flawed or should be overturned. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to remove the children from the applicant's care and control.
The Tribunal's final orders affirmed the decision to remove the responsibility for the daily care and control of the children from the applicant. The Tribunal found that the decision was supported by the evidence and was the correct and preferable decision based on the material before it. The applicant's challenge to the decision was therefore unsuccessful.
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to remove the children from the applicant's care was justified and appropriate in light of the evidence and applicable legal standards. The Tribunal had to consider the weight of the evidence supporting the allegations and whether the decision to remove the children was the correct and preferable outcome based on the material before it. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed and that she should retain her care responsibilities. The Tribunal's task was to assess the correctness of the decision and determine whether it was supported by the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the decision to remove the children from the applicant's care was supported by the evidence and was the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal found that six allegations of reportable conduct were substantiated, and that the removal of the children was necessary to protect their welfare. The Tribunal concluded that the decision was reasonable and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was flawed or should be overturned. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to remove the children from the applicant's care and control.
The Tribunal's final orders affirmed the decision to remove the responsibility for the daily care and control of the children from the applicant. The Tribunal found that the decision was supported by the evidence and was the correct and preferable decision based on the material before it. The applicant's challenge to the decision was therefore unsuccessful.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The decision to remove from the applicant the responsibility for the daily care and control of the children is affirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.