Re Anita - [2014] NSWSC 1352

Equity Division Supreme Court
New South Wales

Case Name:	Re Anita
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWSC 1352
Hearing Date(s):	11 July 2014
Date of Orders:	02 October 2014
Date of Decision:	02 October 2014
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	Robb J
Decision:	Set out in paragraph 76
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - joinder - application by Anita's mother to be joined as a party pursuant to r 6.24(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - parens patriae jurisdiction - whether joinder in best interest of the young person - powers and discretion of court
Legislation Cited:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 69C(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Director-General, Department of Community Services; Re Thomas [2009] NSWSC 2017 John Alexander's Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1 News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League (1996) 64 FCR 410 Re Bella [2013] NSWSC 1034 Re C and D [1998] Fam CA 98
Texts Cited:
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	Anita's mother (applicant) Minister for Community Services (respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: P Braine (applicant) M England/S Dewan (respondent) S Gardiner (independent legal representative for Anita) Solicitors: Leanne Wells Solicitor (applicant) NSW Crown Solicitor (respondent/plaintiff) Childrens Law Chambers (independent legal representative for Anita)
File Number(s):	2013/255452
Publication Restriction:	Reasons for judgment have been redacted with the agreement of the parties to protect the anonymity of certain persons

JUDGMENT

On 22 August 2013 I made orders in the duty list in the exercise of the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, on the application of the Director-General of the Department of Family and Community Services and the Minister for Family and Community services, that, until further order, the Director-General have power to detain a 15-year-old girl, known for the purposes of these proceedings as Anita, at secure premises and to use reasonable force if necessary to so detain her. I also made a number of related and consequential orders.
The orders were made in exercise of the jurisdiction that has been considered in detail by Brereton J in Director-General, Department of Community Services; Re Thomas [2009] NSWSC 2017. As White J has observed in Re Bella [2013] NSWSC 1034 at [3], secure accommodation orders of this type are essentially protective in nature, and are made where they are required for the protection and welfare of the child or young person. In the present case Anita was a young person who was at serious risk of harm to herself, and the restriction of her liberty was justified for her own protection. At the time the original orders were made there was a very pressing need to preserve Anita from an immediate risk of serious self-harm.
By further applications made by the Secretary (as now named) and the Minister on 29 August 2013, 6 December 2013, 10 March 2014 and 27 June 2014 I continued the secure accommodation and related orders. The application will next come before the court on 10 October 2014 for review of the continuation of…

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 Anita

Details

AGLC: Re Anita [2014] NSWSC 1352
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1352
Decision Date: 02 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Court was asked to determine whether Anita's mother could be joined as a party in proceedings concerning Anita, a young person. Anita's mother made an application to be joined as a party under rule 6.24(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, seeking to exercise her parens patriae jurisdiction on behalf of her daughter. The legal issues before the Court were whether joinder was in Anita's best interests and the extent of the Court's powers and discretion in deciding this matter.

The Court considered the nature of the parens patriae jurisdiction and its application to the specific circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the paramount consideration in any matter involving a young person is their best interests. The Court examined the evidence presented regarding Anita's welfare and the potential impact of her mother's involvement in the proceedings. The Court also considered the principles of procedural fairness and the importance of ensuring that all relevant parties have an opportunity to be heard.

After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments, the Court concluded that joinder of Anita's mother was in Anita's best interests. The Court found that her mother's involvement would provide additional support and protection for Anita during the proceedings. The Court exercised its discretion under rule 6.24(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to allow the joinder. The Court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the parties with the welfare of the young person in exercising its discretion.

Orders