JT v Director-General, Community Services Directorate

[2013] ACTSC 40

JT v DIRECTOR-GENERAL, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE & ORS
[2013] ACTSC 40 (12 February 2013)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 8 of 2011

Judge:             Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              12 February 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 8 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JT

Appellant

AND:DIRECTOR-GENERAL, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE

First Respondent

AND:LH

Second Respondent

AND:DD

Third Respondent

AND:GM

Fourth Respondent

AND:PJ

Fifth Respondent

AND:RJ

Sixth Respondent

AND:AH

Seventh Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  12 February 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The orders of Magistrate Fryer made on 21 December 2010 be amended to read ‘provided that...’ in place of the notation wording to the contact provision so that it is clearly part of the order.

1. The appeal be otherwise dismissed.

1. It seems to me as that there is not currently an issue between the parties.  There may be an issue which is properly within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court as to whether the contact should be monthly or fortnightly.  As I have already noted certainly the mother is free to make that application for leave to amend the orders and nobody disputes that.  If that was deemed to be in the interests of the child particularly, then obviously the magistrate would make that order, and if her Honour refused there could be an appeal, but that is a moot point at this stage. 

1. I do think, however, that it is misleading to describe the proviso as a notation.  It should be amended to read “provided that...”.  Though it is not a substantive change to the orders, it makes it better expressed.  Subject to that, no other orders are made and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.

Associate:

Date:    12 March 2013  

Counsel for the Appellant:  Mr M Hassall
Solicitor for the Appellant:  Mr M Hassall
Counsel for the 1st Respondent:                   Ms A Tonkin
Solicitor for the 1st Respondent:                   ACT Government Solicitor
Counsel for the 2nd and 3^rd Respondents:     Unrepresented
Solicitor for the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents:      Jeanine Lloyd and Associates
Counsel for the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th
   Respondents:  Unrepresented
Solicitor for the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th
   Respondents:  Darryl Perkins Solicitor
Date of hearing:  12 February 2013
Date of judgment:  12 February 2013