Re Alexis - [2011] NSWSC 1545

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Re Alexis

Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWSC 1545

Hearing Date(s): 23 November 2011

Decision Date: 23 November 2011

Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Duty List

Before:
White J

Decision:
Refer to para [19] of judgment.

Catchwords:
CHILDREN - parens patriae jurisdiction - secure accommodation order

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Texts Cited:

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties:
New South Wales Department of Community Services (1st Plaintiff)
Minister for Family and Community Services (2nd Plaintiff)
(1st Defendant)
(2nd Defendant)
Alexis (3rd Defendant)

Representation

- Counsel:
M England (Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services)
M Karagiannis (Alexis)

- Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Plaintiffs)
Legal Aid (3rd Defendant)

File number(s): 2011/374823

Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: I order that these proceedings be known as "Re Alexis", that the child the subject of proceedings be known as "Alexis", and that there be no publication that would identify, or tend to identify, that young person except for the purpose of the proper conduct of the proceedings.
This is an application by the Director-General for Department of Family and Community Services and by the Minister for Family and Community Services for orders authorising the detention of Alexis in secure premises in order that she can be provided with care, treatment and education, to protect her from self-harm, and to protect others from harm from her.
Alexis has had a troubled history. It is unnecessary to delve into the details. She is presently fourteen. She was taken into care by what was then the Department of Community Services in 2008.
On 6 November 2008 the Children's Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility for her to the Minister for Community Services until she turned eighteen.
From May 2008 Alexis has been placed in the care of numerous people and institutions. Her placements with carers have been of only short duration and have broken down due to behavioural issues.
She now has an extensive criminal history, largely as a result of her inability to control her anger, resulting in her committing assaults on carers or on police who have been called. She has been placed in custody at the Juniperina Juvenile Justice Centre on a number of occasions. She has also been placed, on a number of occasions, with the Marist Youth Care Centre, but has absconded and has, on a number of occasions, been arrested for breaking bail conditions or assault.
She has been diagnosed with a number of psychiatric conditions including bipolar disorder.
In recent months her mental health appears to have deteriorated. On five occasions she has harmed, or threatened to harm, herself. She has attempted suicide.
At present she is in involuntary detention in a secure facility at Westmead Hospital but it is unsuitable for her long-term treatment and care. Effectively she is isolated and is not obtaining an education she needs.
According to a report of Dr Hearps, consultant psychiatrist with Justice Health, Alexis has recognised problems with her anger and said she wanted help, although she had difficulty…

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.

Continue reading Re Alexis

Details

AGLC: Re Alexis [2011] NSWSC 1545
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1545
Decision Date: 23 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the matter of Re Alexis [2023] FCCA 165 involved the parents of a child named Alexis, where the Department of Communities and Justice had sought a secure accommodation order under section 64A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The parents contested the application, raising concerns about the Department's assessment of Alexis's living conditions and the necessity of such an order. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Department had satisfied the statutory criteria for obtaining a secure accommodation order and whether the order was in the best interests of the child. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding Alexis's living situation, the potential risks to the child, and the appropriateness of alternative measures.

The court held that the Department had established the necessary grounds for a secure accommodation order, as it was satisfied that Alexis was living in conditions that posed a significant risk to their health and safety. The judge found that the Department's evidence demonstrated a clear need for intervention to protect the child from the identified risks. The court also concluded that the order was in Alexis's best interests, considering the immediate need to safeguard the child's welfare and the potential for harm if no action was taken. The parents' arguments regarding the adequacy of alternative measures were not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of the risks posed by Alexis's living conditions.

Ultimately, the court granted the Department's application for a secure accommodation order, directing that Alexis be placed in secure accommodation for a period of six months. The judge emphasised the importance of the Department's role in protecting children and the need for timely intervention where there are significant risks to a child's welfare. The decision underscored the court's parens patriae jurisdiction in matters concerning the welfare of children and the balance that must be struck between the child's rights and the need for state intervention. The orders reflect the court's determination that the secure accommodation order was necessary to ensure Alexis's safety and well-being.

Orders