EG v Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia regarding decisions made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) concerning the guardianship and placement of a child, AB. The appellant, who was AB's foster carer, sought leave to appeal against SACAT's decision, which had affirmed the Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection's decision to place AB under long-term guardianship with the Department and to not assess AB's paternal aunt as a kinship carer. The paternal aunt was later approved as a kinship carer.

The Court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether SACAT erred in its assessment of the risk of future harm to AB if she were not placed in kinship care, specifically concerning the evidence of a clinical psychologist, Ms. Fallo. Additionally, the Court considered whether SACAT had failed to accord the appellant procedural fairness by admitting and relying on evidence from Mr. Segal for a purpose different from that for which it was initially presented, without providing the appellant an opportunity to respond. The Court also examined grounds related to the interpretation and application of the relevant child welfare legislation, particularly concerning the importance of maintaining connections with biological family.

The Court reasoned that Ms. Fallo, a clinical psychologist with extensive experience in attachment, had appropriately applied her expertise to the specific circumstances of AB, rather than offering generalised or anecdotal evidence. Therefore, the Court found no error in SACAT's reliance on her evidence regarding the risk of future harm. Regarding procedural fairness, the Court determined that the appellant had not been denied this right, as the evidence in question was presented in a manner consistent with the agreed procedures and the appellant had the opportunity to challenge it. The Court also noted that the legislation explicitly recognised the desirability of maintaining connections with biological family, a principle that informed the overall decision-making process.

Ultimately, the Court granted the appellant leave to appeal on certain grounds but dismissed the appeal. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's findings regarding the risk of harm and procedural fairness.