Director-General, Department of Child Safety & S

This judgment concerns a dispute between the Director-General, Department of Child Safety, and an individual identified as 'S'. The case was heard by O'Reilly J. The core of the dispute involved the resolution of conflicting affidavit evidence presented by the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was how to determine disputed facts when the evidence is solely in the form of affidavits, and no oral evidence is presented or permitted. Specifically, the court had to consider the standard of proof required and the quality of evidence necessary to resolve such conflicts, particularly in the context of consent to a child's removal.

O'Reilly J applied principles derived from English and Australian case law, including *In re F (A Minor) (Child Abduction)* and *Panayotides and Panayotides*. The court affirmed that where irreconcilable affidavit evidence exists, a judge must look for independent extraneous evidence that is compelling enough to reject sworn testimony. Alternatively, the evidence itself may be inherently improbable. If no grounds exist to reject the written evidence, the party bearing the onus of proof will fail. The court noted that phrases like "clear unequivocal and informed" consent refer to the quality of evidence required to meet the civil standard, not a higher standard of proof.