Re Henry; JL v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

The case of *Re Henry; JL v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services* concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales from a decision of the District Court, which itself had heard an appeal from the Children’s Court. The central dispute involved a care and protection order made by the Children’s Court placing a child under the parental responsibility of the Minister until the age of 18. The applicant, JL, sought relief from the Court of Appeal under s 69 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), alleging errors of law or jurisdictional error by the District Court.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court had correctly construed and applied the provisions of the *Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998* (NSW), particularly in relation to the care and protection orders. Specific issues raised included whether the District Court judge had demonstrated apprehended bias, either through excessive intervention during the examination of witnesses by a litigant in person or in the assessment of the applicant's case. Furthermore, the court considered whether the District Court judge had placed an inappropriate amount of weight, either too much or too little, on the applicant's evidence, and the relevance of international treaty obligations, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the exercise of discretion in such matters.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law on the face of the record or jurisdictional error. The court reasoned that the District Court judge had not erred in their application of the relevant legislation, nor had they demonstrated apprehended bias. The judge's conduct during the proceedings, including their intervention in witness examinations, was found to be within the bounds of appropriate judicial management, and the weight afforded to the applicant's evidence was considered to be a matter for the judge's assessment, not a legal error. The court also found that while international treaty obligations were relevant considerations, they did not compel a different outcome in this instance. Consequently, in Matter No. 2012/367923, the appeal was dismissed, and in Matter No. 2014/73341, the summons was dismissed.