LZ and QJ v FACS

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

LZ and QJ v FACS [2017] NSWDC 414

Hearing dates:

17-24 July 2017; 02 August 2017 and 28 September 2017

Date of orders:

29 September 2017

Decision date:

29 September 2017

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Knox SC, ADCJ

Decision:

I dismiss the summons and appeal in relation to the child A

The orders of the Children's Court at Bidura made on 7 December 2016 in relation to Y are conformed

That except as provided in Order 4, all aspects of parental responsibility for Y, be allocated to the Secretary

Catchwords:

APPEAL FROM CHILDREN'S COURT - Parents' found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm - AVO Order to protect children - Children's attachment to the carers' - sibling bond - whether to separate siblings - cultural considerations - criticism of carers' by parents' counsel - concern parents will leave Australia - whether the Secretary will renew children's passports - assessment of parents

Legislation Cited:

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998

Cases Cited:

DFaCS re Day [2012] NSW ChC 14
"V V" v District Court of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 469
Director-General, Department of Community Services v D & Ors [2007] NSWSC 762
Re Kerry (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 127
Re Tracey [2011] NSWCA 43
Donnell v Davey [2010] Fam CAFA 15

Texts Cited:

UN Convention of the Rights of the Child 1989

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

L Z (First Plaintiff)
Q J (Second Plaintiff)
The Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (First Defendant)
Y J (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
L Goodchild (First and Second Plaintiffs)
M Anderson (First Defendant)
G Moore (Second Defendant)
S Gardiner (Third Defendant)

Solicitor:

File Number(s):

2016/384724

Publication restriction:

None

Issue

1. The issue in this case concerns the parenting and care arrangements to be made for:

W J (A) (aged 12 ½)

Y J (Y) (aged 6 ½)

2. The children are currently under the care of the Secretary, who proposes that the children should remain living with their current carers in a southern Sydney coastal suburb.

3. The parents seek that the child, Y, be restored to their care on the basis that:

1. she will reside with the parents at an inner city suburb

2. she will continue at her present school at a southern Sydney coastal suburb; and

3. she will see A at the carers’ house or some other agreed venue on a weekly basis.

4. In the alternative, they seek weekly contact with Y extending to overnight contact on a regular fortnightly basis. The parents do not press for the restoration of A nor do they seek contact orders given the strength and consistency of her wishes.

5. There are no separate or different interests between the two plaintiff parents.

6. The respective lawyers for each of the two children propose that each child remain with the carers with whom they are currently residing. A (aged 12½) is able to give direct instructions to her lawyer whose views, in any event, are identical to those expressed by…