Re Elliott

[2018] NSWSC 679

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Re Elliott [2018] NSWSC 679
Hearing dates:	09/05/2018
Date of orders:	09 May 2018
Decision date:	09 May 2018
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Protective List
Before:	McDougall J
Decision:	Make secure accommodation and ancillary orders.
Catchwords:	CHILDREN - parens patriae jurisdiction - secure accommodation orders - balancing exercise between competing considerations - where orders would amount to serious limitation of personal liberty - where significant risk of harm to child if order not made - no evidence of appropriate alternatives - where proposed program offers a real prospect of stabilisation and recovery - orders made.
Cases Cited:	Re: Mary [2018] NSWSC 678
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Secretary, Department of Family (First Plaintiff) Community Services and Minister for Family and Community Services (Second Plaintiff)
Representation:	Counsel: S Christie (Plaintiffs)   Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (Plaintiffs)
File Number(s):	2018/145778

Judgment   (ex tempore – revised 9 may 2018)

1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application for secure accommodation orders in respect of the child who will be known as Elliott. I dealt with another such application earlier today[1] . For the reasons I there gave, I will not rehash the authorities dealing with the source of the court’s power. Nor do I find it necessary to here repeat what I said in summary form as to the Sherwood programme.

   1. Re: Mary [2018] NSWSC 678

2. Elliott is 10 years old. He has two siblings. The three of them were removed from the care of their mother in December 2010. On 14 July 2011, final orders were made in the Children’s Court allocating parental responsibility for Elliott to the Minister until Elliott should attain the age of 18. Thereafter, parental responsibility for Elliott was transferred to Barnados, a non-government agency, which can provide out-of-home care and other services. For reasons that will be apparent in a moment, Barnardos has relinquished responsibility for Elliott.

3. Barnardos’ records demonstrate that Elliott’s behaviour, particularly in recent years, has been appalling. This culminated in the event which led to Barnardos relinquishing responsibility. Those events involved Elliott assaulting the carer responsible for him. The police were called, and an ambulance was called, not to treat Elliott but to treat the carer.

4. In the circumstances, there being no real alternative, Elliott has been placed in Sherwood House. That is to say, in the exercise of parental responsibility, the Minister has concluded that it is appropriate, for Elliott’s own protection and for the protection of the public, that Elliott should be securely accommodated.

5. The evidence satisfies me that Elliott will present a very serious risk to members of the community unless an order of the kind that has been sought is made. It is, I think, noteworthy that an experienced care provider, Barnardos, which was able to provide one-to-one staff support to Elliott, found it impossible to care for him. It is very difficult to see how another independent carer could do any better.

6. The evidence also satisfies me that Elliott suffers from significant mental health problems. He has been diagnosed as presenting with aggressive, provocative and dysregulated behaviours and, in the view of experts, his behaviour fits the pattern of disorganised attachment disorder.

7. It is appalling to think that a child so young is in such a state, physical and mental, that secure accommodation is the best alternative for him. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that it is. Accordingly, I propose to make the orders sought, after discussing with counsel the relevant dates when the matter should come back.

8. In making the orders and in dealing with the matter so briefly, I have taken into account that the application has been brought on with extreme urgency and that, as a result, the plaintiffs have been unable to accumulate evidence of the kind that ordinarily would be put before the court. I understand completely the reasons why that is so. It is hoped, when the matter comes back before the court, that that position may be alleviated, at least, in part.

9. I make orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 18 as amended in the short minutes of order, initialled by me and dated today’s date.

**********

Endnote