EW and BW; AW v Department of Community Services

[2007] NSWDC 216

CITATION:	EW and BW; AW v Department of Community Services [2007] NSWDC 216
HEARING DATE(S):	15/10/2007 - 19/10/2007
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 October 2007
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Knox SC DCJ
DECISION:	Orders and Notations in relation to EW (D.O.B. 26 June 1993):; Parental responsibility of EW born 20 June 1993 is allocated to the Minister until the age of 18 years;; The Court notes that it is the intention of the Director General that EW be restored to the care of the Mother within 2 years (with the Minister to retain parental responsibility until EW is 18 years of age) in accordance with the restoration plan annexed to these orders and marked “B” and the Court further notes the matters contained in the Case Plan annexed to these orders and marked “A”;; The Court orders that the Mother and EW will have contact as follows:; a. For 3 months from 10am Saturday until 5:00pm Sunday each weekend;; b. Thereafter from Friday afternoon until 5pm Sunday each weekend;; c. The Department may suspend contact pursuant to this order in the event of non-compliance with the Case Plan and Restoration Plan annexed in which event the mother and EW will have minimum contact of 2 hours per month supervised by the Department or its agent.; The Court notes that the Director General agrees to EW and the Mother having liberal telephone contact.; The Department to prepare s. 82 reports 3 months, 9 months and 15 months from the date of these orders.; Orders and Notations in relation to BW (D.O.B. 21 October 2002):; Parental responsibility of BW (born 21/10/2002) is allocated to the Minister until the age of 18 years;; BW to have a minimum of 12 contact occasions with the Mother in each 12 month period as follows:; a. Except as provided in 2 (b), for 2 hours on each occasion;; b. During school holidays and if JAW is available to attend, then for 3 hours on those occasions;; c. At the Mother’s election, contact each October to be either in the school holidays or on a day as close as possible to BW’s birthday;; d. Contact to be supervised by the Department or its agent unless otherwise agreed.; Order 2 is conditional upon the following:; a. That the Mother attends contact not affected by drugs or alcohol;; b. If in the opinion of the contact supervisor the Mother is drug or alcohol affected the supervisor may terminate the contact;; c. In the event that the Mother acts inappropriately during any contact occasion such that contact does in the opinion of the supervisor impact negatively on BW’s emotional well being then the supervisor may terminate the contact;; d. The Mother will co-operate with the Department in ensuring that contact does not impact negatively on BW including accepting counselling in relation thereto.; Order 2 will cease on the third anniversary of the date of the making of these orders.; The Department to prepare s.82 reports 3 months, 9 months and 15 months from the date of these orders.
CATCHWORDS:	Parenting and care arrangements - Care of the Minister - Contact orders with mother and each of the children - Care plan
LEGISLATION CITED:	Children and Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1998
PARTIES:	EW BW AW Department of Community Services
FILE NUMBER(S):	5653/06
COUNSEL:	Ms K Reynolds (for the plaintiff) Mr J Levy (for the first defendant, DOCS) Ms D Burns (independent legal representative for the child EW, the third defendent)
SOLICITORS:	Ms N Adams (independent legal representative for the child BW, the second defendent) Mr P Grant (direct representative for both children)

- 39 -

JUDGMENT

Issue

1 The central issue in this appeal concerns the parenting and care arrangements to be made for two children, EW born 20 June 1993 (aged 14), and BW born 21 October 2002 (aged 4). What makes this case of particular concern in relation to EW is that her parenting while in the care of her mother led to significant problems for her. Those problems have been compounded and exacerbated while she has been in the care of the Minister (effectively DOCS) over the last 18 months, not least because of her resistance to any arrangements which interfere with her contact with her mother and her ability to pursue the lifestyle she has adopted over that period.

2 In the event that care orders are made in favour of the Minister, there are a number of secondary, although important, issues including:

a) how long those care arrangements should be in place;

b) the contact that there should be between the mother of the children, Ms AW and each of the children;

c) the contact each child is to have with the other;

d) what specific matters should be included in the care plan proposed including the programmes in which EW should be involved in terms particularly of her education and any therapeutic counselling deemed to be necessary; and

e) whether, and how, such contact orders should be formalised.

Proceedings

3 These proceedings come to this Court by way of an appeal from an order made by Magistrate Ellis in the Children’s Court sitting at Woy Woy (orders 17 February 2006). Those orders were confirmed by further orders dated 6 March, 20 March, 5 June and 31 July, 2006 (final orders) making parental responsibility orders in favour of the Minister pursuant to section 79(1) (b) of the Children & Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (‘the Act’).

4 Pursuant to section 91 of the Act, these proceedings are considered to be a re-hearing. I have admitted the transcript and evidence in the Children’s Court proceedings pursuant to section 91(3) of the Act. In the context where there have been substantial and relevant changes to the lives and situations of both children and the applicant mother over the intervening period since the Children’s Court orders, I have directed that fresh evidence may be led by all parties pursuant to section 92(2) of the Act.

5 The objects of the Act which guide decision-making in this area are provided by section 8:

(a) that children and young persons receive such care and protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-being, taking into account the rights, powers and duties of their parents or other persons responsible for them; and
(b) that all institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children and young persons provide an environment for them that is free of violence and exploitation and provide services that foster their health, developmental needs, spirituality, self-respect and dignity; and
(c) that appropriate assistance is rendered to parents and other persons responsible for children and young persons in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities in order to promote a safe and nurturing environment.

6 Also of relevance in the circumstances of this case are the principles set out in section 9, the paramountcy of the safety welfare and well-being of the child, the paramountcy of those rights over the rights of the parent, the weight to be given to the wishes of the children, the need to protect the child from harm and to promote the child’s development.

7 The particular matters to be considered which are relevant in the circumstances of this case are set out under sections 72, 79 and 80 of the Act.

Applications

DOCS

8 DOCS seeks orders in relation to each child pursuant to section 79(1)(b) of the Act 1998 that a responsibility order be made in favour of the Minister until each child attains the age of 18 years.

9 The basis for that extended period is that it would be only possible for DOCS to be able to give financial and other assistance (for example, on legal matters) to the children while they are the subject of parenting responsibility orders in favour of the Minister.

10 The grounds under section 71 of the Act on which DOCS moves for final orders are as follows:

a) The child or young person has been or is likely to be physically or sexually abused or ill-treated;

b) The child’s basic physical, psychological, or educational needs are not being met or are not likely to be met by his/her parents;

c) The child is suffering or is likely to suffer serious developmental impairment or serious psychological harm as a consequence of the domestic environment in which he or she is living.

11 DOCS’ position was that it opposed the formalisation of any contact orders or arrangements between Ms AW and the children and either of them.

Mother’s applications

BW

12 BW is living with his foster parents, Mr and Mrs G on the Central Coast. Those arrangements are apparently working satisfactorily.

13 Ms AW seeks the continuation of the DOCS’ foster care arrangements for BW subject to her being able to obtain contact orders for her to see BW. Both Ms AW and BW’s representative seek that those orders be formalised.

EW

14 Ms AW’s primary application, supported by EW’s representative, is for a parenting order in her favour of EW but, in the alternative, for defined contact orders. Again, both Ms AW and the representative of EW seek that those orders be formalised.

EW: whereabouts

15 At the outset of the proceedings, Counsel for DOCS, Mr Levy, informed the court that DOCS was unaware of where EW was then living. He said that various DOCS caseworkers were of the strong opinion that she was living with her mother.

16 Counsel for the mother indicated that her instructions were that the child was not living with her other than on an occasional or spasmodic basis.

EW – charges

17 I was informed at the outset of the proceedings that EW had been arrested on October, 2007 on charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm as well as being in possession of an offensive weapon, namely a knife. There is also an outstanding stalking/intimidation charge.

18 Those charges, which are in relation to apparently serious matters, followed EW being placed on a bond that day, or some short time before, to be of good behaviour for a twelve month period. There was also apparently an AVO taken out against EW by other young persons. There are also other possible charges pending. Those matters are at the charge stage only and no plea has been entered.

19 EW had been formally cautioned on the charge of common assault on 18 September 2007. She was then offered the option of entering a mentoring program commencing at the end of October 2007, that program to include liaison with the Police Youth Liaison Officer.

20 It was envisaged that EW would thereafter commence a program known as the P1 program which is a 15 week program of classes once per week covering matters such as drugs and alcohol, health and fitness.

Remand in custody and release

21 Following the assault occasioning charge, EW was remanded in custody. Initially bail was not granted due to her inability to comply with conditions, particularly as to her residence. Following negotiation between DOCS, Juvenile Justice officers, EW and her representative during the hearing, EW was released to bail on condition that she resided at the Glendale facility, as directed by DOCS, operated by Premier Youth Works until the charges against her next come to the Local Court.

22 That placement was a reaction to what had occurred in terms of EW's involvement with the police and the Children’s Court. Prior to that time, attempts by DOCS to place EW in foster care had been unsuccessful. She had previously and consistently indicated her opposition to being placed in a refuge or other accommodation. Presumably the only reason why the Glendale arrangement was acceptable to EW was that it was a better alternative than remaining in Juvenile Justice custody. The DOCS manager, Ms Powers, said that that incarceration finally gave the department ‘leverage’ to get EW to accept the residential placement.

Future arrangements: outstanding court matters

23 One issue which will need to be considered in the assessment of the future proposals for EW will therefore be what living and other arrangements will remain in place once the outstanding charges against EW are dealt with. Depending on the outcome of the outstanding charges, a court exercising criminal jurisdiction may have to deal with the question of EW’s future residence against the background of her life and the influences on her thus far.

24 Orders in relation to these proceedings will have to be made in circumstances of uncertainty as to the outcome of those outstanding Children’s Court matters. It may be of assistance to that court to be aware of the basis on which the orders in these proceedings was made in determining issues as to EW’s future. For that reason I will direct that a copy of these reasons and orders be delivered to the Children’s Court.

Evidence

25 At the commencement of proceedings, Counsel for DOCS tendered without opposition a folder containing the applications which had been filed for orders in relation to both EW and BW, as well as applications for assessment orders in relation to both children and all exhibited material which was before the Children’s Court. That material included a transcript of the reasons of the learned magistrate who determined the original care application.

26 Affidavits had been filed on behalf of DOCS as follows:

- Ronald Cordery affirmed 6 February 2006;

- Heather Clarke affirmed 6 February 2006;

- Emily Carter affirmed 22 March 2006 annexing clinical records relating to AW held at the Kullaroo Clinic;

- Emily Carter affirmed 14 June 2006;

- Barbara Powers sworn 28 September, 2007 and 15 October, 2007;

- Gabrielle Cantrall sworn 9 October, 2007;

- Thomas Dickinson sworn 9 October, 2007;

- Kerry Anne Lane sworn 17 November, 2006 (exhibit 5).

Care plans

27 There were care plans provided in relation to:

EW by Emily Carter and Giuseppe Sanna dated 1 May 2006, 15 February, 2007;
BW by Emily Carter and Giuseppe Sanna dated 1 May 2006.

Experts’ reports

28 There were reports filed by:

Jennifer Hadden dated 19 May 2006;
Dianne Doratis dated 2 May 2006 in relation to both EW and BW;
Robert Brown, forensic psychologist, University of Newcastle dated 15 March, 2007.

Affidavits on behalf of the mother

29 Affidavits were filed by:

Ms AW sworn 23 March 2006; 5 October, 2006, 3 November, 2006 and 16 October, 2007;
RAB sworn 6 June 2006 – although this affidavit was not relied on.

30 Oral evidence was given by Ms Barbara Powers, casework manager/supervisor from the Gosford Office of DOCS.

31 A summary of the effect of the evidence before the learned magistrate and the additional oral evidence given in these proceedings is as follows.

Parties/Family structure

Mother

32 The birth mother of both children is AW who is currently aged 34, her date of birth being 13 March, 1973.

Fathers

33 The birth father of EW is Brian D. A report of Mr Robert Brown, a forensic psychologist from the School of Behavioural Sciences at the University of Newcastle, dated 15 March, 2007, was tendered in which it was stated that Mr D has been imprisoned since 1994 following an attempted murder charge in 1993. Apparently he has had no contact with EW.

34 The birth father of BW is Shane W. Mr W has played no part in the proceedings. No party seeks any orders formalising his contact with the children.

Siblings

35 The children have a half-sibling JAW, born 17 May, 1996 – aged 11 - who is a child of Ms AW (the mother of EW and BW). Her father is Rick P. JAW resides with her maternal aunt, DM in Queanbeyan. Subject to questions of contact between EW and BW and JAW, there are no relevant issues in these proceedings concerning JAW.

Grandparents

36 Ms AW’s mother (and maternal grandmother to the children) is RAB. Ms RAB was imprisoned for three years on a fraud matter and is currently on parole. She has, or has had, a relationship with a partner, GW, in which there has apparently been a long history of violence including assaults and alcohol related incidents. A condition of Ms RAB’s parole is that she not have any contact with Mr GW.

37 There are extensive allegations of ongoing sexual assault by GW on Ms AW as a child and subsequently – see section 82 report to the Court detailing the allegations of the rape of Ms AW at age 14 by Mr GW – as well as by another one of Ms RAB’s children on EW.

38 There also seems to be a history of conflict between Ms AW and her mother, Ms RAB, arising out of suggestions that Ms RAB was using the care of EW to increase her social security receipts. Ms RAB also attributes some of Ms AW’s drug use, especially her heroin usage, to those events when Ms AW was in her care.

39 These matters are of significance bearing in mind the part Ms RAB has played in some interim placements of EW during the period when she was in DOCS’ supervision – again with the knowledge of both Ms AW and DOCS.

40 No party seeks any orders formalising Ms RAB’s contact with the children.

Current arrangements
BW

41 BW is in the permanent foster care of Mr and Mrs G and their family. Ms AW sees him on a relatively regular basis and that arrangement appears to be working satisfactorily as far as all involved are concerned.

42 The DOCS’ case plan indicates that BW has been progressing well in the placement. DOCS is “extremely satisfied” with the care that has been provided to BW by Mr and Mrs G. He has been provided with a stable environment with appropriate boundaries and consequences for his behaviours. The reports also note that BW has made significant progress in his placement with his foster carers with whom he has developed a safe and trusting relationship.

43 The earlier case plan notes that Miss AW initially appeared to have little ability to interact with BW in a sustained manner. At times she was said to be very quick to lose her temper with BW and has smacked him in the presence of a supervisor because he did not put his shoes on fast enough.

44 As at 3 October, 2007 the team leader of the Wesley Delmar Foster Care Agency reported that BW had “come on in leaps and bounds” since being placed with his current carers.

45 The carers have stated BW interacts well with the other children in the household and with the carers themselves. They have formed a close emotional bond with BW and feel that he is part of their family. BW’s current carers have indicated that they are willing to have BW for an extended period of time. They do not want to commit to this until a long term order has been made.

46 The affidavit of Thomas Dickenson sworn 9 October 2007 sets out that BW has made significant progress in his placement with his foster carers with whom he has developed a safe and trusting relationship. BW continues to attend pre-school two days a week. Arrangements – which appear to me to be both appropriate and sensitive - have been made for him to transfer with ease to a primary school in the same area. BW has been attending pre-school two days a week and has been gradually introduced to his future primary school for one to two hours per week.

47 Mr Dickenson also refers to the consultations that there have been with paediatricians about BW’s speech and co-ordination and in particular, his need for speech therapy and dental treatment. Again those seem entirely appropriate.

Contact BW – Ms AW

48 Ongoing contact between BW and his mother, EW, as well as with JAW, has been relatively fluid and non-contentious. The question of the extent and frequency of that contact – and, in particular whether those orders should be the subject of court orders - remains to be determined.

Contact BW – EW

49 The affidavit of Mr Dickenson states the DOCS position that the following observations of the female carer of BW that his visits with his family have been “much better since EW stopped going”. Apparently BW would come home angry and remain in that condition for days at a time. However, once the contact visits were curtailed to being just between BW and his mother, BW seems to be more settled and is willing to talk about the visits.

50 The report noted that EW tended to “mother” BW, in particular telling him what to eat, when to eat, and on occasions taking him to the toilet while on outings. She has also been observed chastising him for bad behaviour. By contrast the telephone contact between BW and his other sibling, JAW, are very positive and seem to calm him.

51 On the current material – particularly that detailing EW’s troubled and anti-social behaviour and her refusal to accept limits – I do not see that orders for such contact would be in BW’s best interests at this stage. That may be the subject of ongoing arrangements but it should be emphasised that the purpose of that contact is for BW’s benefit and in that regard, his stability and security is of fundamental importance.

History and Background: EW

52 According to DOCS records, EW had been the subject of 41 “child risk reports” from 17 September 1997 to 7 November 2005 some of which have been detailed in the exhibits from the Children’s Court proceedings. I should say at the outset that caution needs to be adopted to this material in that such reports are of a hearsay nature and are untested; moreover, it is not unknown that persons who make such reports, particularly anonymous reports, are sometimes motivated by other agendas towards the person the subject of the report. That said, it should be noted here that many of the reports are from professional sources. Throughout 2005 the Department received numerous mandatory and non-mandatory reports.

53 Both children were removed from their mother’s care under a temporary care order in 2004. That was pursuant to a temporary care arrangement signed by Ms AW due to accommodation issues when she fled what was said to be a violent relationship with BW’s father. The children remained in foster care for approximately six months and were then restored to their mother’s care.

54 The earlier reports indicated that EW was aware that her mother had to collect methadone from a clinic 6 days a week; further that methadone made her mum happy and “chills her out”. She was also able to report that her mother started using heroin when she was with BW’s father and also that the mother smoked pot and cigarettes. EW said that she has seen her mother involved in drugs and preparing to “shoot up” albeit in a situation where EW says that she was always sent out of the room before her mother injected.

55 EW has been witness to extreme physical abuse perpetrated against her mother and during those situations was put in the position of having to be a protector for her younger brother. The care plan notes that EW was also a victim of physical abuse from the same perpetrator.

56 EW has had a sporadic attendance at school, only recently starting in high school after not attending school at all since October 2005.

EW – pregnancy

57 It appears that EW left her family home for about a week in early 2006 and then presented herself at the Gosford Police Station. During, or about, this time, she became pregnant following what she said was a sexual assault on her. At that time she was aged 12 and a half years. EW reported to Miss Hadden that she did not know who the father was in relation to the termination she had in February 2006. She did not know who she had had sex with resulting in her pregnancy. She did not display any emotion when discussing the termination.

58 Ms AW had not lodged a missing persons report in relation to EW during the period she was missing. EW said that she was away from home for the entire week and that her mother had no idea of where she was. Ms AW said that she had no idea that EW was having sex at that stage although Miss AW apparently questioned EW repeatedly as to the state of her virginity or otherwise. When Ms AW was spoken to about EW requiring counselling following the termination of her pregnancy, she indicated that she did not believe that EW required this.

Further removal of children

59 As a result of the enquiries made by the department and reports to them a warrant was obtained under s. 233 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The children were removed from Miss AW on 5 February 2006 on the basis that they were at immediate risk of serious harm at the time of the removal.

60 The full details of the immediate risk alleged are set out in paragraphs 40-44 of Mr Cordery’s affidavit.

Evidence

61 The evidence before the learned magistrate in the Children’s Court care proceedings included a variety of section 82 reports and various affidavits and expert’s reports. That evidence was tendered to me along with updating material including further affidavits, DOCS reports and expert reports.

Affidavit of Mr Cordery

62 An affidavit of Mr Cordery, Senior DOCS case-worker, sworn 6 February 2006 sets out various reports of homelessness, physical abuse, and inadequate supervision of EW during 2005. There were reports of inappropriate behaviour involving the child displaying photographs of boys penises on her mobile phone.

63 Investigations of the child’s school attendances showing rare attendance over an eight week period. In 2004 there were apparently a number of reports of abuse of the children, Ms AW was being referred to the hospital for treatment for drug use, Ms AW prostituting herself to earn money to feed the children, homelessness for the entire family, mother’s drug usage involving both heroin and marijuana, and inadequate or non-existent parenting of the children including the children not being fed adequately, nor bathed, nor being provided (in relation to BW) with medical treatment.

64 The affidavit sets out DOCS’ view that EW was in need of intensive assistance and that this need was likely to continue and intensify. It was envisaged that that may need allocation to intensive support services and intensive casework.

Affidavit Ms Power

65 The affidavit of Ms Power encapsulates DOCS’ position that if EW remains living with her mother and parental responsibility reverts to her mother the Director General may not be in the position to offer the needed services to EW.

Ms Hadden’s report

66 Ms Hadden reports (report 19 May, 2006) that EW has said she spent “a lot of time sleeping at friends’ houses” whereby on her own admission she may be susceptible to some form of sexual assault, which regardless of its nature, given EW’s age would constitute an offence. Ms Hadden was also of the opinion that EW’s life with her mother was “unsettled, unstable, and unsafe”.

67 EW also worried about her mother’s safety although she was also reported as being neither emotional nor affectionate when referring to her mother although not demonstrating any signs of depression or anxiety. Ms Hadden considered that EW knew that many of her mother’s associates were drug users and a threat to her mother for a variety of reasons. That allegation was strongly disputed by Ms AW.

68 Ms Hadden was of the view that EW might well react negatively to being further displaced from her mother’s care.

69 Ms AW was attending the Kullaroo Methadone Clinic and completing her program as required. There was evidence before the magistrate as to the urinalysis results which displayed only methadone being detected on three occasions.

Dianne Doratis

70 Ms Doratis (report 2 May, 2006) recommended that EW’s placement be with the Minister until she was 18. Ms Doratis also was of the view that EW needed stable and consistent parenting where limits would be set on her behaviour. She acknowledged that EW might fight against returning to her mother’s care although she had developed good relationships with her carers. She thought that the carers would need to set and impose limits ‘so that she is less likely to abscond or self-restore’.

71 Ms Doratis’ opinion was that she did not consider Ms AW capable of managing EW’s behaviour, that she was and had been a poor parent who neglected and deprived the children. Moreover, she considered that EW would return to a place where she would be at high risk of harm if she went back to her mother’s care.

72 Ms Doratis said that she was unable to talk to EWand formed adverse views as to EW’s truthfulness ‘like her mother’. She noted EW’s social dysfunction and acting out behaviours, that she was non-compliant, wilful and manipulative. It is also clear from the report that there was a very negative interaction between Ms AW and Ms Doratis which was reflected in the critical comments made by Ms Doratis of Ms AW.

Report Mr Robert Brown – Forensic psychologist

73 A report from Mr Robert Brown, psychologist of the University of Newcastle, dated 15 March, 2007 was admitted into evidence. That report, based on extensive interviews at the parties’ homes and reviewing the DOCS files and other material, recommended a joint parenting arrangement between the Minister and Ms AW for a two year period and an immediate restoration of EW to her mother.

74 Mr Brown was of the opinion that Ms Doratis’ assessment was sound but that she did not have access to affidavits offering a different perspective on the functioning of the family nor did she visit Ms AW’s home. Mr Brown was also influenced by EW’s absconding from her foster placement and the ‘questionable’ conditions in which she was living. I have referred in my final consideration to other aspects of Mr Brown’s report – in particular, EW’s pseudo-maturity and the likely difficulty she will experience in accepting limits to the freedom she has enjoyed over the last few years and the opinion that Ms AW has apparently been heroin free for 18 months.

75 Of particular concern to me is Mr Brown’s evidence of EW’s possible educational marginalisation given the little attention that there has been to that aspect of her life by all involved with her over recent years. What compounds those problems is her truanting and, as part of that lifestyle, being the target of exploitation among older males with major adjustment problems.

AW

76 Ms AW’s affidavit (sworn 23 March 2006) states that she is reducing her dose of methadone and intended to be not taking any methadone by Christmas 2006. Her affidavit of 3 November, 2006 refers to her now taking 70 mg per day.

77 Ms AW said that she has never seen EW consuming illegal drugs. She said that she has provided adequate supervision for her children and, in particular, provided adequate shelter for her children over at least the preceding two year period. Ms AW said that her daughter had not had any sexual relationship with boys or men to her knowledge.

78 The affidavit (para. 20) details prior situations of conflict with EW when her mother attempted to make her stay at home when she was retrieved from the Gosford railway station. Thereafter, Ms AW discovered that EW had run away. She located EW some two days later. Apparently on a prior occasion, EW was found sleeping on the pavement at the Kincumber Shopping Centre and returned home by the police.

79 During the hearing, an affidavit sworn 16 November, 2007, was filed updating Ms AW’s current situation and her attempts to meet the criticisms of her parenting and other issues. As a result of the way the proceedings developed, that affidavit was not the subject of cross-examination.

Contact with Ms RAB

80 An affidavit by RAB (EW’s maternal grandmother) sworn 6 June 2006 sets out that she had looked after EW from the day she was born, EW having come to live with her from about 8 months of age while her mother was in rehabilitation. Thereafter she apparently returned to live with her mother at an unspecified date and BW has not lived with the grandmother thereafter.

81 Ms RAB said that she was gaoled for a period of about 3 years for fraud offences being released in March 2006. The children visited their grandmother in gaol on special occasions. She has seen BW on one occasion since her release from prison.

Findings by magistrate

82 After hearing all the evidence, the learned magistrate found (final orders 31 July, 2006) that there was no realistic possibility of restoration of EW to her mother and made long term orders in favour of the Minister.

83 In coming to this decision, the learned magistrate referred to the fact that the children had a degree of stability in their lives at that time while with the departmental carers. Her Honour further found that Ms AW herself had a highly dysfunctional upbringing and had never been given the benefit of knowing true mothering and parenting. Her Honour also concluded that Ms AW had an inability to appropriately parent her own children. That was compounded by the fact that she had been in relationships which involved domestic violence and that she had turned to drugs (transcript 31/07/06 page 14).

84 The learned magistrate also found that Ms AW had not set any boundaries for EW and that the restoration of EW to her mother might well lead to a regression in those areas where there had been advances. In my view, the findings and observations made by the learned magistrate were completely appropriate given the evidence available to her at that time.

Events occurring while EW was in the care of DOCS

85 During the subsequent period while EW was in DOCS care, EW was placed in various foster family situations. Initially she was said to be happy and adjusted in those situations. That period of acceptance – if that is what it was - was short-lived. Departmental records indicate, even at that stage, that EW thought her foster family was ‘nice but that she would rather be with her mother’.

86 There were a variety of placements, attempted placements and disappearances by EW from places where she had been placed. EW had refused offers of further foster placements and refuge accommodation.

87 Ms Rene, a DOCS manager of casework reported that EW had been found intoxicated or substance affected in September, 2006 and had been transported to the Gosford Hospital. Various departmental reports and affidavits set out the more recent events concerning EW and her behavioural problems. In particular, the affidavit refers to EWs risk-taking behaviour, the assault with which she has been charged, the fact that she has been involved in fights in various cafes and other centres in the Gosford area, her involvement in fights outside the Gosford railway station when she was apparently subject to the capsicum spray by Police officers.

88 EW had decided to leave the foster placement DOCS had organised by at least September, 2006 and that she had gone to live with her maternal grandmother Ms RAB, for a seven month period from October, 2006 until 30 April, 2007. It is unclear whether EW had any contact with Mr GW or any of the other persons the subject of the abuse allegations in the earlier reports.

89 By September, 2006, EW had gone missing and was listed as a missing person with the police. By October, 2006 she had contacted DOCS and sought permission to reside with her grandmother in Sydney which she then proceeded to do for the next 7 months.

90 DOCS’ case is that the carers provided constant care for EW without respite. Further, that they were very active in attending interviews with the schools in order to provide her with an educational environment which would support her and to assist her in catching up on missed school work. While there may have been plans for EW’s welfare and education with the Parramatta CSC, little seems to have occurred, despite the recognition that she had high educational needs. DOCS also attempted to assist in arranging distance education for EW during this period and spoke to Ms RAB about EW’s need for an education. However, nothing concrete was done.

91 EW maintained (at least) telephone contact with her mother and some contact with BW. DOCS accepted the limitations of the placement with Ms RAB seemed to consider (section 82 report 15 February, 2007) that such a placement had been positive for EW. EW has been involved by her mother in her conflict with her grandmother to the extent that EW reported to the psychologist, Jennifer Hadden, that her mother had told her GW (the maternal grandmother’s partner) would hurt them when her mother (the grandmother) was not around. EW was also aware that BW’s father Shane would hurt her when their mother was asleep. She reported that Shane had tried to choke them and spat on them.

92 However, it was also known to DOCS during that time that EW did not go to school, despite a recognition in the section 82 report to the Children’s Court that EW had considerable educational needs. DOCS officers apparently knew that EW was seeing her mother every week on a Saturday. These matters do not appear to have been included in the section 82 report to the Court.

93 From the time EW left Ms RAB’s home (in about May, 2007) and until October, 2007, it is unclear where she was been living or with whom or on what basis. That uncertainty was brought to an end when EW came before the Children’s Court and was incarcerated immediately prior to this hearing.

Conclusions : EW’s wishes

94 It seems clear to me from all the evidence that EW had maintained the wish to be with her mother since that time and right up to the present time. The basis for the department’s view that EW was living with her mother immediately prior to the hearing before this Court is set out in the affidavit of Barbara Powers sworn 28 September 2007, especially at paragraphs 10-14 and 21.

95 Moreover, it seems clear that EW has frustrated, either intentionally or unintentionally, any other option which does not include her mother as being a part of her life in some way. EW was offered foster care or a refuge placement which she refused. Further, that while she has not been able to have that need met, she has acted out her frustrations in an increasingly self-destructive and socially destructive way.

Contact : EW and DOCS

96 EW has ongoing contact with DOCS officers both by way of telephone contact and on shopping trips. EW has apparently got a relatively good, or at least a working, relationship with a DOCS caseworker, Alison Bush. Ms Bush was in court and maintained contact with EW during the hearing. They are in telephone contact at least three times per week.

97 DOCS are conscious of the need to maintain and develop a rapport with EW, particularly given her age and her unsettled past.

DOCS attitude to contact between EW and her mother

98 There seems to have been a breakdown in the relationship between DOCS and Ms AW. Clearly, DOCS had formed an adverse view of Ms AW’s parenting capacities and that Ms AW had failed or was incapable of addressing the major trauma that EW and her younger brother experienced while living in her care. Not unreasonably, DOCS was concerned about the impact on EW of the neglect which had occurred in the past, including the domestic violence she had witnessed, the fact that she had witnessed her mother’s drug use and subsequent behaviours as well as the fact that she had lived a life without stability and boundaries.

99 Given the care orders that had been made in the Minister’s favour, the issue then became whether DOCS could make arrangements which would provide that stability and boundaries. DOCS desire was to develop EW’s living skills, her educational opportunities and to stabilise her life. It was also anticipated that she would attend the PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) program.

Deterioration in EW’s behaviour

100 Whatever the intentions and plans of DOCS, and for whatever reason, those parenting obligations of DOCS were not met. EW's behaviour while under the parenting regime of DOCS has been subject to just as many problems - albeit some were of a different nature – to those which occurred while she was in her mother's care. Indeed, her self-destructive and anti-social behaviour appears to have deteriorated.

101 DOCS has thought that Ms AW and EW had conspired to frustrate the various DOCS placements and to ensure that EW came to live with her mother, either overtly or surreptitiously if necessary. Various DOCS’ officers took the view that Ms AW had not made any attempt to make any contact with the departmental caseworkers and that she was unsupportive of the attempts made, and to be made, by DOCS for EW’s education and welfare.

102 While DOCS’ objectives for EW may have been laudable, and DOCS’ concerns about Ms AW may have some basis, they were not shared by EW. The defiance or frustration of DOCS’ plans were compounded by EW’s perception of DOCS’ attitude, at least to the extent of not supporting contact between EW and her mother. Clearly that attitude was made clear to EW, and, even if that had not occurred explicitly, it must have been apparent to EW that she was not being permitted to live with her mother. Unsurprisingly, the regime based on that premise was not, and has not been, accepted by EW. Equally unsurprisingly, given the skills that EW must have developed to have survived on the streets thus far given her lifestyle and what has occurred to her, she did not comply with arrangements made for her.

103 I have no doubt that, at her age and level of experience, EW will continue to frustrate any such arrangements unless they are structured, at least to some extent, to meet her needs and wishes to have a meaningful relationship with her mother and, for example, to enable her to know that her mother is all right.

Events occurring during contact

104 Ms AW has attended every contact visit which has been arranged with EW and her brother. The visits are mainly dictated by what EW wants to do – mainly clothes shopping. It is clear that there is some manipulative behaviour going on in circumstances where EW does not get what she wants. It was also said that Ms AW became very short tempered when it comes to the children’s behaviour.

Aboriginality

105 The extent of the children’s aboriginality and their identification with their aboriginality is unclear on the evidence. However, there is clearly some connection and awareness.

106 DOCS attempted to locate an Aboriginal placement for BW in the local community. However, the closest placement available was in the upper Hunter area. As EW is located in Wyong shire it was considered in BW’s best interests to stay on the Central Coast to remain in contact with his local community. The current female carer for BW identifies herself as aboriginal.

DOCS’ proposals for EW

107 At the outset of the proceedings, Ms Barbara Powers, casework supervisor from the Gosford Office of DOCS, gave evidence that a place would be found immediately for EW in the Premier Youth Works programme.

108 DOCS proposes that EW remain in the Glendale home as part of the Premier Youth Works program. This is an intensive residential program which will permit her to have one-on-one contact with a caseworker, continuation of her schooling and educational programs, contact with her mother on weekends and on-going transportation to and from the premises and events requiring participation in the program.

109 That would take place in a home in Glendale in the southern suburbs of Newcastle where EW would be subject to intensive one-on-one supervision by a team from Premier Youth Works. It would involve a supervised, individualised programme in relation to EW’s education and health.

110 On the evening of the second day of the hearing after EW had been brought to court from her then incarceration by officers of Juvenile Justice, it was arranged that EW would be taken to the Glendale premises to ascertain her suitability for them. By arrangement EW continued in those premises for the remainder of the hearing.

111 If a place becomes available for EW on the Pathways programme, DOCS proposes that she will be transferred to that programme with the attendant advantages of closer proximity to her family and other services in Gosford.

Period of time for parenting order – aged 18

112 Ms Powers sought that the Minister have parental responsibility orders made in his favour until EW is 18. While Ms Powers conceded that it would be naïve to assume that EW would remain in DOCS control until she was 18, the advantage of that time period for such an order would be that DOCS could only provide financial and associated assistance to her – for example, in relation to advocacy on legal matters and in relation to the provision of medical, dental and housing assistance – while she was the subject of a care order in favour of the Minister.

113 While DOCS opposed formal contact orders to Ms AW, DOCS was prepared to facilitate contact between EW and her mother.

114 Ms Powers made it clear that DOCS saw no possibility of restoration of EW to her mother's care. It also seems clear that future DOCS' decisions will be made which will reflect that attitude.

Criticisms of DOCS’ placements and parenting of EW

115 No evidence was adduced of what those premises or care arrangements would be nor the likelihood of when the other proposals for EW might come into effect. Much of the evidence consisted of proposals which might eventuate - for example, the Police Mentoring Programme. The earliest date on which these might eventuate appears to be 2008 although EW can enter the P1 programme now.

116 There have also apparently been a series of meetings amongst DOCS officers about EW's position and placement without coming to any effective conclusion - certainly none which has been effective in dealing with the clear problems she has experienced to date, the manifestations of those problems and keeping EW away from the lifestyle she has been able to pursue while she has been under the parenting responsibility of DOCS.

117 There does not seem to be any indicia of urgency about the departmental decision-making for EW. That may well be because of the recognition of the difficulties and high costs associated with dealing with someone such as EW and the difficulties associated with placement given her manifestations of aggressive and criminal behaviour as well as her attitudes. Whatever the situation, the result in terms of EW’s self-destructive and anti-social lifestyle have become apparent. The community will have to deal with the consequences of that behaviour.

118 These findings are disputed by DOCS which refers to its continued involvement with EW. DOCS position is very much that it attempted to provide options to EW irrespective of the cost but that EW would not cooperate with DOCS or participate in those proposals in relation to her health, education and residence.

DOCS attitude to continuing involvement of Ms AW with EW

119 Against this background, DOCS proposes to administer its future parenting responsibilities of EW according to 'permanent placement principles' which effectively advocate a minimisation of contact between EW and Ms AW.

120 DOCS officers, in particular, the case manager, Ms Powers opposes formal orders. The same principles with the same underlying policy is relied on in relation to the attempts to minimise contact between Ms AW and BW.

Aboriginal issues

121 The DOCS officers have spoken with EW about the fact that her current placement is not identified as Aboriginal. EW responded to say that she was “fine with that, however, would like to interact with the local Aboriginal community”. The carers have stated that they will ensure that EW has access to Aboriginal services, supports, and social groups – with which they identify - whenever they are available. It is proposed that the Gosford Community Services Aboriginal caseworker will work with EW and the carers to assess her local Aboriginal communities support services.

Consideration

122 The evidence makes it clear that EW is a very hurt and emotionally vulnerable child who has experienced substantial psychological harm. That is primarily the result of the inadequate parenting she has received throughout her life and the experiences she has had and has been permitted to have.

123 On the evidence before me I find that EW’s primary attachment is to her mother but that that attachment is fraught with problems and deep-seated issues arising from the history of the dysfunctional relationships and experiences she has had.

124 Those issues include the neglect of EW’s emotional, educational and medical needs over the years – particularly her need for stability and clear and consistent parental role models and structured limits being set to restrain her aberrant, aggressive and self-destructive behaviour. That neglect also needs to be seen against the background of the abuse which EW has experienced and the failure to provide an environment where her needs are and can be met.

125 Her reactions to that neglect, originally by Ms AW, has been compounded by her negative reactions to her separation from her mother. The DOCS placements, although obviously well-intended, did not result in any lasting or permanent environment in which EW would accept, let alone in which she would prosper.

126 Those placements were based on a departmental premise and view that EW had expressed no desire to have face-to-face contact with her mother nor that such contact was in EW’s interests. I have specifically reviewed all the evidence and observed EW’s interaction with her mother in court over a period of some days when a number of allegations were ventilated.

127 In my view, DOCS’ attitudes to EW’s wishes were inaccurate. I find that EW has, and has continued to express a desire to be in close contact with her mother, although at her level of maturity, without any awareness of the potential problems associated with that contact and the lifestyle she has pursued while ostensibly in her mother’s care. I think it highly likely that EW would also see such an arrangement as being more flexible for her to pursue the superficially seductive freedoms that she has experienced to date without being aware of the dangers, and ultimately the destructive nature of the lifestyle she has been pursuing.

128 It is also clear, and I find, that the DOCS placements did not work to EW’s advantage or benefit. Indeed, I doubt whether any such placements could have been lastingly effective or whether they would have ever been accepted by EW, where her primary attachment, however dysfunctional or problematic it may be, has been and will always be to her mother and further, where she clearly resents, and will not accept, departmental actions which she sees to be in conflict with that relationship or her capacity to pursue it.

129 The references throughout the tendered material to her ‘street-wise’ nature and survival strategies are hardly surprising nor that she has returned to the superficial freedom of living in the streets or without any fixed or permanent abode - let alone security. It is also unsurprising that her self-destructive activities have led to increasingly anti-social behaviour and then, equally inevitably, to her current brushes with the criminal justice system.

130 If the situation is left to continue as it is, it is highly likely that her life pathway will be a further spiral downwards into further and increasing drug usage, other criminal and anti-social behaviour and probably a very short and destructive life.

131 However, EW’s street survival skills and capacity to manipulate or ignore situations not to her liking will mean that her supervision will be onerous and time-consuming. Such supervision arrangements but will not be accepted by her – and indeed likely to be sabotaged - unless she has a regular contact with her mother.

132 The fact that EW has taken the step – using her own resources and initiative - of finding and making contact with her maternal grandmother even to the stage of entering some kind of living arrangement with her with all the conflicts or problems that that might entail – where she sees DOCS as having frustrated her contact with her mother is an indication of her determination to maintain that contact and her concept of her family.

133 I think it is important that EW have the security of knowing that she will see her mother, and on a gradual and structured basis, live with her for increasing periods provided that such contact occur in circumstances where neither EW nor her mother will frustrate other programmes put in place for her benefit – even if EW does not accept the validity of them.

134 In my view, Ms AW is also determined to maintain and pursue contact no matter what the blockages. I accept that her motivation for moving to the Central Coast was to be with, or close by and available for, her daughter as well as BW. I also accept that she has a commitment to and attachment to her children which she expresses within the life experiences and emotional framework she has had.

135 I have reservations as to whether Ms AW has the insight to see that her contact may well be highly disturbing to EW unless it is handled appropriately and the proper messages are delivered by her to EW that what is proposed for EW by the Department are in EW’s best interests – particularly in giving EW some modicum of emotional security based on secure and non-exploitive accommodation, and importantly, life skills and education. It is only if EW acquires those skills that she has any chance of surviving, let alone leading a normal life.

136 However, that contact will only be successful and not interfere with the program, plans and opportunities there are for her with intensive supervision as proposed by the Department, if Ms AW also accepts that her contact with EW should be to maintain a positive relationship which is for EW’s needs rather than to meet Ms AW’s own needs, as deep-seated as they are.

137 For that reason, such contact needs to be structured, consistent and predictable and with a recognition by both Ms AW and EW that there are many on the public purse who need to make arrangements which should not be interfered with unless there are sound and verified reasons – for example, for non-attendance in accordance with pre-scheduled meetings. I would envisage therefore that if Ms AW is unable to attend any meeting or contact visit within half an hour of the scheduled time that such contact will be suspended on that occasion so that EW and those looking after her can get on with their respective routines.

138 Such contact should only also take place where Ms AW is medically and emotionally able to participate in such contact in a meaningful way. It goes without saying that such contact should not occur, and, indeed, should be automatically suspended, if Ms AW is displaying any signs of drug abuse or reaction.

Prohibition on interference with programmes

139 In my view there must be time given to establish a settled and secure environment for EW which she accepts. In particular, I think it essential that Ms AW encourage any therapeutic or treatment programs which will be directed towards EW sexually offending or being involved in sexual activities with anyone. Not only would any sexual activity by EW be illegal at her age, but it would also be part of a lifestyle which will run the risk of her returning to the streets and the unstructured and potentially destructive life she has been leading. If that encouragement does not occur – and is independently verified by any of the professionals involved - then it may be that Ms AW contact with EW should be suspended.

140 Here, in my view, there is a risk of ongoing disruption to a settled environment for EW unless she and her mother - and others who may be of importance to her - accept the situation whereby she is able to participate with the programs on offer. In the event that there is any frustration of the programs by any person having contact with EW, it may be appropriate for orders to be made limiting or suspending that contact.

141 It is appropriate and necessary that an order be made that neither Ms AW nor any other person take any action to permit or encourage EW to remain in any premises other than those nominated by DOCS for the period specified.

Contact by mother

142 I note that DOCS has undertaken to provide transport to EW to her mother’s home while EW remains living in Glendale. Such contact visits are both appropriate and necessary, particularly in circumstances where I am quite sure that EW will not comply with any arrangements unless she sees her mother on a regular basis. As I have said, it is important that such contact take place in a structured environment.

143 Similarly if Ms AW does not provide accurate information about EW’s whereabouts, behaviour or activities for such periods as EW is with her, then it may be that Ms AW’s contact should be suspended until she does provide the appropriate information.

144 EW has clearly not accepted existing departmental placements nor complied with any supervision of her activities. Her acceptance of the current situation and placement has only been in the face of her belated recognition that her current brushes with the criminal justice system will mean the deprivation of her liberty on an increasingly lengthy basis.

145 To the extent that there is a conflict on the expert/clinician’s reports, I indicate that the evidence in my view supports the findings of Mr Brown - although I would differ on the time period and circumstances in which EW should be restored to her mother. Specifically I accept the opinion that EW has been exposed to antisocial, forceful persons in the past and that the social intensity and unruliness she manifests are products of that lifestyle and culture as well as the challenges she faces in adapting to Ms AW’s changing lifestyle. I also accept and have real reservations about orders made in circumstances where EW is unwilling or unable to relinquish her personal control and freedom and independence in circumstances of her pseudo-maturity.

146 Mr Roberts after his home visit and interviews was of the opinion that Ms AW has been heroin-free for 18 months. I have seen no evidence to the contrary but it is a matter which should be monitored closely. Again, a breach of that situation and the associated illegality is a matter which would, in my view, warrant suspension of the proposed restoration programme until it is clearly and permanently rectified.

Separation of children

147 In an ideal world the children would not be separated from each other. Nevertheless, here it seems to me that it is in BW’s best interests that he remain in the care of his current foster parents and that his contact with EW be limited to telephone contact.

Aboriginality

148 It appears that the children if not identifying as Aboriginal are certainly aware of a connection with the Aboriginality culture and history. While it is unusual for a situation to arise that the children are not with Aboriginal carers, the evidence suggests that the carers for BW at least are aware of and encouraging of BW’s contact with Aboriginal programs and other experiences. As I have noted, BW’s female carer identifies with the aboriginal community. The evidence indicates that there have been discussions with the aboriginal case workers and people in the local community.

149 I consider that the obligation to ensure that the children’s respective awareness and contact with their aboriginality would be maintained and developed through their contact with their mother. In the case of BW, that is also likely to be pursued by his current female carer, Ms G.

Findings and Orders

150 The matters set out in paras 119 – 145 and my preliminary views on the evidence were summarised to the parties after evidence was led. There were then extensive negotiations between the parties following which what was essentially a care plan was submitted by DOCS and signed by the parties or their representatives. For the purposes of section 95 of the Act, I note that EW was in court and involved in those negotiations.

151 I find that an environment has not been provided for EW which is free of violence and exploitation nor have services been provided to her which foster her health and developmental needs nor has it been safe and nurturing within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. Further, that such arrangements as have been provided by DOCS have been frustrated by EW’s desire to maintain contact with her mother as well as a desire to pursue a lifestyle which is inimical to her proper and safe development and her health and educational needs. I find that EW is in need of care and protection.

152 I accept and find that there is no realistic possibility of restoration of EW to her mother other than in accordance with the terms of the plan as submitted and annexed and in accordance with the time periods and conditions specified. To the extent that that plan involves restoration of EW to her mother, I find for the purposes of section 84 of the Act that the plan envisages a staged restoration when conditions and time periods are satisfied and implicitly describes the outcomes to be achieved prior to restoration and the services to be provided. I also accept that there is no reasonable possibility of restoration of BW to his mother other than in accordance with the plan proposed for him.

153 In my view the matters set out in that plan meet the criteria which I am required to consider under the Act which I have set out earlier in these reasons, in particular that the plan will meet the needs for the safety, welfare and well-being of EW; moreover, that the plan will give due weight to the wishes of EW having regard to her developmental capacity in all the circumstances and is the least intrusive intervention in the life of EW consistent with her protection from harm and to promote her development and that it will protect her identity and culture.

154 I also find that the areas of parental responsibility specified in that plans for each child should be the sole responsibility of the Minister through DOCS.

155 I order that EW be placed under the parental responsibility of the Minister pursuant to section 79(1)(b) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 until she is 18.

156 I find that BW is in need of care and protection.

157 I order that BW be placed under the parental responsibility of the Minister pursuant to section 79(1)(b) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 until he is 18.

158 I make orders in accordance with the care plan submitted and signed by the parties. A copy of that plan is annexed to these reasons.

159 I direct that a copy of these reasons be sent to the Registrar of the Children’s Court.

Orders and Notations in relation to EW (D.O.B. 26 June 1993)

1. Parental responsibility of EW born 20 June 1993 is allocated to the Minister until the age of 18 years.

2. The Court notes that it is the intention of the Director General that EW be restored to the care of the Mother within 2 years (with the Minister to retain parental responsibility until EW is 18 years of age) in accordance with the restoration plan annexed to these orders and marked “B” and the Court further notes the matters contained in the Case Plan annexed to these orders and marked “A”.

3. The Court orders that the Mother and EW will have contact as follows:

a) For 3 months from 10am Saturday until 5:00pm Sunday each weekend;

b) Thereafter from Friday afternoon until 5pm Sunday each weekend;

c) The Department may suspend contact pursuant to this order in the event of non-compliance with the Case Plan and Restoration Plan annexed in which event the mother and EW will have minimum contact of 2 hours per month supervised by the Department or its agent.

4. The Court notes that the Director General agrees to EW and the Mother having liberal telephone contact.

5. The Department to prepare s. 82 reports 3 months, 9 months and 15 months from the date of these orders.

Orders and Notations in relation to BW (D.O.B. 21 October 2002)

1. Parental responsibility of BW (born 21/10/2002) is allocated to the Minister until the age of 18 years.

2. BW to have a minimum of 12 contact occasions with the Mother in each 12 month period as follows:

a) Except as provided in 2 (b), for 2 hours on each occasion;

b) During school holidays and if JAW is available to attend, then for 3 hours on those occasions;

c) At the Mother’s election, contact each October to be either in the school holidays or on a day as close as possible to BW’s birthday;

d) Contact to be supervised by the Department or its agent unless otherwise agreed.

3. Order 2 is conditional upon the following:

a) That the Mother attends contact not affected by drugs or alcohol;

b) If in the opinion of the contact supervisor the Mother is drug or alcohol affected the supervisor may terminate the contact;

c) In the event that the Mother acts inappropriately during any contact occasion such that contact does in the opinion of the supervisor impact negatively on BW’s emotional well being then the supervisor may terminate the contact;

d) The Mother will co-operate with the Department in ensuring that contact does not impact negatively on BW including accepting counselling in relation thereto.

4. Order 2 will cease on the third anniversary of the date of the making of these orders.

5. The Department to prepare s.82 reports 3 months, 9 months and 15 months from the date of these orders.

1. Continue to pursue a placement for EW at Baptist Community Services Pathway Adolescent Unit as long as it remains the Department’s preferred option for EW’s accommodation.

2. Hand over intensive case management to the Intensive Support Service Team.

3. Support and advocate for EW in the criminal proceedings against her.

4. Pursue referral to PANOC or similar service to assist with the development of the relationship between EW and her Mother within an acknowledgement of past traumas and with a view to establishing a respectful and ongoing parent/child relationship.

5. To facilitate contact between BW and EW as best meets EW’s and BWs best interests.

6. To facilitate contact between EW and JAW as appropriate.

7. To continue to liaise with EW to provide Aboriginal, education and health services as required.

8. Within 7 days convene a meeting between the Department, EW and the Mother to develop concrete case planning goals (including the objective of restoration within 2 years) and agreed measurement mechanisms for those goals.

9. A review at the end of 4 weeks and 12 weeks respectively.

B. The Mother undertakes to:

1. Advise the Director-General of any risk taking behaviour of EW including but not limited to:

a. criminality or criminal offences;

b. prostitution or promiscuity;

c. leaving Mother’s premises without permission;

d. failure by EW to obey the Mother’s reasonable directions;

e. any violent or aggressive behaviour;

f. any taking of illegal or unprescribed drugs or substances including alcohol;

g. inappropriate association with other children or adults.

2. To accept referrals and participate in such therapeutic services as are developed in the Case Plan.

3. To accept the supervision of the Director General including but not limited to:

a. Providing urinalysis; and

b. Refraining from violent or aggressive behaviour.

4. To keep the Department advised of her address and mobile telephone number.

C. EW undertakes to participate in case planning with the Department in respect of the following:

1. In consultation with EW, accepting placement provided by the Department with weekend time with her mother as previously set out.

2. In consultation with EW, accepting and attending educational services as referred by the Department.

3. In consultation with EW, accepting health services referral as organised by the Department.

Department’s Plan for Restoration of EW to her Mother

Progression of Restoration Plan is conditional on the following:

- The Mother to remain free of non-prescription and illegal drugs and substances.

- The Mother not to consume alcohol within 12 hours of caring for EW.

- The Mother to submit to random drug screens as arranged by the Department within 24 hours of notice of request.

- The Mother to advise the Department of any relationships of hers with male partners.

- The Mother will not allow any adult male to stay or reside at her residence without agreement of the Department.

- The Mother will take all reasonable steps to facilitate EWs attendance at programs (educational, counselling, mentoring, health and recreational) as put in place by in liaison with EW.

- The Mother will take all reasonable steps to know EW’s whereabouts at all times when EW is in the Mother’s care, or report her missing to the Department and/or the Police within 4 hours.

- The Mother to advise the Department of any persons who may from time to time stay at her residence.

- The Mother to take all reasonable steps to ensure EW’s safety while in her care.

- The Mother to attend programs/referrals as advised by the Department in liaison with the mother. These will include but not be limited to Burnside, Parenting Teenagers, PANOC or similar service, and counselling for drug and alcohol (if identified as ongoing issue).

- The Mother’s compliance with notations in the Order.

- In the event that EW is sentenced to a period of full-time incarceration in a juvenile facility in respect of criminal matters, the Department will conduct a review of the Restoration Plan within one month of that occurring.

EW is to be transported to her Mother’s care by the Department or its agent.

1. From the date of the making of the order and for a period of 3 months EW is to have contact with her Mother from Saturday 10am to Sunday 5pm.

2. From the third month after the making of the order and for three months EW is to contact with the Mother from Friday 5pm to Sunday 5pm (except for Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, which EW can spend with the Mother).

3. From the sixth month after the making of the order and for a period of three months EW is to spend an additional day in the care of her Mother.

4. From the ninth month after the making of the order and for a period of three months EW is to spend an additional day in the care of her Mother.

5. From the twelfth month after the making of the order and for three months EW is to spend an additional day in the care of her Mother.

6. From the fifteenth month after the making of the order and for three months EW is to spend an additional day in the care of her Mother.

7. At eighteen months after the making of the order EW is to be returned to the full time residential care of her Mother, provided the Restoration Plan had proceeded as outlined above, based on the Mother’s compliance with the previous points, and EW has not been incarcerated.