CITATION: Jones -v- Minister, Community Services [2001] NSWADT 192 revised - 30/09/2002 DIVISION: Community Services Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Lucy Jones
RESPONDENT
Minister, Department of Community ServicesFILE NUMBER: 014009 HEARING DATES: 09/04/2001, 10/04/2001, 18/09/2001 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 09/18/2001 DATE OF DECISION:
11/19/2001BEFORE: Hennessy N (Deputy President) at 1; Monoghan-Nagle L - Member at 99; Gelin B - Member at 1 APPLICATION: Custody - decision to terminate the custody of a ward MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993CASES CITED: B. and R. and the Separate Representative 1995 127 FLR 438 the Full Court of the Family Court
Torrens v Fleming (1980) FLC 90-840REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
M O'Brien, barrister
GUARDIAN AD LITEM
J SmithORDERS: The decision of the Minister to terminate the applicant’s custody of Cathleen is set aside.
Section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies to this decision.
Section 126 provides:
(1A) ...
1) A person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person: (a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or
(b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or
(c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal,
whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.
The Tribunal is divided in opinion in this matter. Under section 78(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 if the Tribunal is constituted by more than one member and the members are divided in opinion, the opinion of the majority is taken to be the decision of the Tribunal.The names of the applicant, children and foster carers used in this decision are not their real names.
Reasons of Nancy Hennessy and Ben Gelin
Introduction
1 This application concerns a child, Cathleen, who is three and half years old. She is of Aboriginal descent and has been made a ward of the state until she turns 18 years old. Cathleen is currently in the care of Mrs Jones, a 54 year old woman who is not of Aboriginal descent. The Minister for Community Services (the Minister) decided to remove Cathleen from Mrs Jones’s care and place her with two of her older siblings, Tim and Kellie. These children are currently in the care of Aboriginal foster…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Minister, Community Services and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] NSWADT 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision was in line with the statutory requirements of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). Specifically, it needed to assess whether the Minister had acted in the child's best interests by considering all relevant factors, including the child's cultural background, family connections, and overall welfare. The court also had to examine the weight given to the recommendations of the Guardian ad Litem and other experts, as well as the views of the Departmental Officers involved in the case.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister had appropriately considered the statutory requirements and the welfare of the child. The court was satisfied that the Minister had given due weight to the recommendations of the Guardian ad Litem and the views of other experts, who unanimously recommended that placing Cathleen with her siblings in the Aboriginal community was in her best interests. The court also considered the potential benefits of the community placement, including the preservation of cultural ties and the support of extended family. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was in the child's best interests and endorsed the recommendations of the Guardian ad Litem and the other experts.
The final orders of the court were to place Cathleen with her siblings in the Aboriginal community, as recommended by the Guardian ad Litem, Ms Wilson of LINK UP, and the Departmental Officers. The court's decision recognised the importance of cultural preservation and family support in the best interests determination for Aboriginal children.
Orders
Orders of the court
138 I endorse the recommendations of Ms Smith (GAL) Ms Wilson (LINK UP) and Departmental Officers that Cathleen should be placed with her siblings in the Aboriginal community.
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.