MV v CEO Department of Children and Families

The case of MV v CEO Department of Children and Families involves a dispute between the CEO of the Department of Children and Families and the parents of a child under the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007. The parents sought to appeal a decision of the Local Court, which had granted a short term protection order that gave the CEO parental responsibility over the child for 12 months, and extended this responsibility until the child reached the age of 18. Additionally, the Local Court had ordered that the CEO must not move the children from their current placement without notifying the legal representative of the children 28 days in advance.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved whether the Local Court had given reasonable notice to the parties of the kind of order contemplated, and whether the Local Court had given the parties an opportunity to make submissions on the orders made. The parents argued that the Local Court had failed to provide reasonable notice and procedural fairness to the parties, and that the order made was inconsistent with the CEO's parental responsibility.

The court found that the Local Court had failed to provide reasonable notice to the parties of the kind of order contemplated, and had not given the parties an opportunity to make submissions on the orders made. The court held that if a magistrate is contemplating making an order different from orders proposed by the parties, fairness requires that the parties are given fair warning providing an opportunity for submissions on the point. The court also found that the order made by the Local Court that the CEO must not move the children from their current placement without notifying the legal representative of the children 28 days in advance, was an impermissible fetter on the discretion of the CEO and inconsistent with the CEO's parental responsibility.

As a result of these findings, the court allowed the appeal on both grounds. The orders of the Local Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Local Court for reconsideration in light of the findings of the court.