re L (a child) (No.2) - [2009] NSWSC 189

CITATION: Application by Director-General, Department of Community Services; re L (a child) (No.2) [2009] NSWSC 189

HEARING DATE(S): In chambers

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 March 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity
Adoptions List

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

DECISION: Order extended for one year

CATCHWORDS: Adoption of children - parental responsibility order - application for extension of interim parental responsibility order by Director-General in his favour - relevant considerations

LEGISLATION CITED: Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), s 84

CASES CITED: Application by Director-General, Department of Community Services; re L (a child) [2008] NSWSC 235

PARTIES: Director-General, Department of Community Services (P)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 80008/08

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
ADOPTIONS LIST

AUSTIN J

MONDAY 23 MARCH 2009

80008/08 APPLICATION BY DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES; RE L (A CHILD) (NO.2)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: For the reasons given in my judgment dated 25 March 2008 (Application by Director-General, Department of Community Services, re L (a child) [2008] NSWSC 235), I made an order, on the application of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, that the Director-General is to have parental responsibility for the child L for the period up to and including Wednesday 25 March. The order was expressed to be subject to terms requiring that Anglicare Adoption Services would provide regular supervision of the child's placement with Mr and Mrs T, and provide a further report to the Department. The order was made under s 84(2) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW). I noted that the order could be extended for another year (Judgment, at [40]), but the order could not extend beyond two years (Judgment, at [15]).

2 I expressed the opinion that it was in the best interests of the child that, for the time being, the Director-General should retain parental responsibility (Judgment, at [37]). I said that I saw a parental responsibility order in favour of the Director-General as part of the arrangements to ensure that a process of settling an effective plan for the long-term care of the child would be brought to fruition. I saw the Director-General as taking an overarching role in driving the process forward towards a satisfactory outcome, but that regular supervision of the child's placement with Mr and Mrs T should be undertaken by Anglicare.

3 By summons filed on 20 March 2009 (wrongly stamped by the Court Registry as 20 March 2008), the Director-General has applied for a further order under s 84(2) having the effect of continuing the existing parental responsibility for L for a further period of one year, with liberty to apply for a further order. If the order is made it will operate until 24 March 2010. In my view the Court has the power to make this order, for the reasons given in my earlier judgment.

4 The evidence before the Court now, in the form of an affidavit by Mary Frances Griffin made on 18 March 2009 with multiple annexures, indicates that there was tension between Mr and…

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 L (a child) (No.2)

Details

AGLC: re L (a child) (No.2) [2009] NSWSC 189
Case: [2009] NSWSC 189
Decision Date: 23 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, who sought an extension of an interim parental responsibility order for a child named L. The application was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The Director-General sought the extension to continue to provide care for the child while the court determined the final outcome of the adoption proceedings.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Director-General had demonstrated that it was in the child's best interests for the interim order to be extended, and if the Director-General had fulfilled their obligations under the relevant legislation. The court also had to consider the welfare and best interests of the child, including the child's need for stability and continuity in their care, as well as the views of the child themselves.

In its decision, the court held that the Director-General had demonstrated that it was in the child's best interests for the interim order to be extended. The court found that the Director-General had acted in accordance with their statutory obligations and had provided appropriate care and support for the child. The court considered the child's need for stability and continuity in their care, as well as the views of the child, and concluded that the extension of the order was in the child's best interests.

The court made an order extending the interim parental responsibility order in favour of the Director-General for a further period. The court also directed that the Director-General continue to provide appropriate care and support for the child during this period, and to keep the court informed of any significant developments in the child's circumstances.

Orders