Minister for Community Services v Ce (No. 2) (CSD) - [2002] NSWADTAP 1

Appeal Panel

CITATION: Minister for Community Services -v- CE (No. 2) (CSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 1

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Minister for Community Services
RESPONDENTS
Mr And Mrs CE

FILE NUMBER: 019050

HEARING DATES: On the papers and further hearing on 19/12/2001

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/19/2001

DATE OF DECISION:
01/07/2002

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
CE -v- Director General, Department of Community Services [2001] NSWADT

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Britton A - Judicial Member; Groth D - Member

CATCHWORDS: custody - decision to terminate the custody of a ward

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 014031

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 10/18/2001

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993

CASES CITED: Minister for Community Services -v- CE (No. 1) [2002] NSWADTAP 7
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
McDonald v Guardianship Administration Board [1993] 1 VR 521
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Reynolds v Reynolds (1973) 47 ALJR 499
McKee v McKee [1951] AC 352

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
M Anderson, counsel
RESPONDENTS
B Rigg, counsel

ORDERS: The decision to terminate the respondents’ custody of the wards is affirmed.

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.
1 On 23 March 2001 the Department of Community Services (the Department) acting under delegation from the Minister for Community Services (the Minister) removed two wards from the care of a family with whom they had been placed under a foster care agreement. The two wards, C1 and C2, were brothers, then aged five and three. The carers with whom they had been placed were Mr and Mrs CE (the respondents to the appeal, and the applicants in the original proceedings.) The removal was permanent. The decision was taken following a report that Mr CE had used excessive methods to discipline C1, in particular, on 21 March 2001.
2 It was not disputed that the decision was made in exercise of the power of the Minister to terminate the custody…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Minister for Community Services v Ce (No. 2) (CSD) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWADTAP 1
Decision Date: 01/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minister for Community Services v Ce (No. 2) (CSD) involved the Minister for Community Services seeking to terminate the custody of several wards, who were siblings, held by the respondents, who were the wards’ aunt and uncle. The decision was brought about due to concerns about the welfare and safety of the wards, and whether the respondents were able to provide an appropriate environment for them. The case was heard in the Community Services Division of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court needed to determine was whether the decision to terminate the custody of the wards was in the best interests of the children. This involved considering evidence related to the welfare and safety of the wards, the capacity of the respondents to provide a suitable environment for them, and whether the decision was in line with statutory obligations. The court also needed to assess whether the Minister had acted reasonably and lawfully in making the decision.

The court found that the decision to terminate the custody of the wards was in their best interests. The evidence presented indicated that the respondents were unable to provide a stable and safe environment for the children, and that their welfare and safety were at risk. The court determined that the decision was in line with the statutory obligations and that the Minister had acted reasonably and lawfully in making the decision. The court affirmed the decision to terminate the respondents’ custody of the wards.

The court's decision affirmed the decision to terminate the respondents' custody of the wards. The court found that the decision was in the best interests of the children and that the Minister had acted reasonably and lawfully in making the decision. The court also found that the decision was in line with the statutory obligations. The decision provides clarity on the circumstances in which the court will intervene in custody decisions and the factors that will be considered in making such decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision to terminate the respondents’ custody of the wards is affirmed.

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.

CITATION:	Minister for Community Services -v- CE (No. 2) (CSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 1
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Minister for Community Services RESPONDENTS Mr And Mrs CE
FILE NUMBER:	019050
HEARING DATES:	On the papers and further hearing on 19/12/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/19/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	01/07/2002
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	CE -v- Director General, Department of Community Services [2001] NSWADT
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Britton A - Judicial Member; Groth D - Member
CATCHWORDS:	custody - decision to terminate the custody of a ward
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	014031
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	10/18/2001
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993
CASES CITED:	Minister for Community Services -v- CE (No. 1) [2002] NSWADTAP 7 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 McDonald v Guardianship Administration Board [1993] 1 VR 521 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Reynolds v Reynolds (1973) 47 ALJR 499 McKee v McKee [1951] AC 352
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT M Anderson, counsel RESPONDENTS B Rigg, counsel
ORDERS:	The decision to terminate the respondents’ custody of the wards is affirmed.