Re Thomas

[2009] NSWSC 625

CITATION:	Director-General, Department of Community Services; Re Thomas [2009] NSWSC 625
HEARING DATE(S):	28 May 2009
JUDGMENT DATE :	28 May 2009
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division Expedition List
JUDGMENT OF:	Brereton J
CATCHWORDS:	CHILDREN – Parens patriae jurisdiction – Court to keep close supervision of implementation of radical order – obligation of DoCS to provide relevant information
CATEGORY:	Procedural and other rulings
PARTIES:	Director-General, Department of Community Services (first plaintiff) Minister for Community Services (second plaintiff) "Thomas" (first defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 1258/09
COUNSEL:	Ms E Boyle (plaintiffs) Ms K Reynolds (first defendant)
SOLICITORS:	I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (plaintiffs) Leonie Miller (first defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Thursday 28 May 2009

1258/09 Director-General, Department of Community Services; Re “Thomas”

JUDGMENT (ex tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: In view of my concerns as to the current medical treatment that Thomas is receiving in respect of his haematuria, the absence of an adequate consultant or treating psychiatrist report, and the absence of a report of the treating psychologist, I am not prepared to grant an adjournment of the length sought by the Department. I will adjourn the proceedings for one month and review the situation again at that time.

2 I direct that by 18 June 2009 the Director General file and serve a report concerning Thomas' progress – to the extent that it has not already been covered by the affidavit of Kevin Ko affirmed 22 May 2009 – including further contact with his maternal grandmother and other family members; information as to his developmental progress; a detailed report from his treating child psychiatrist and from his treating psychologist; further information as to his progress in engaging with relevant service providers to address symptoms of aggression, violence and self-harming behaviour; any further information as to his education; information as to the frequency and types of incidents, including of self harm and aggression; progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the occupational therapy report of 19 May 2009; and any further information as to proposed future plans.

3 It is not intended that such further report be required in any way to duplicate what is already covered in that of 22 May 2009. However, I do need to be satisfied that the situation is under appropriate professional review by the relevant psychiatrist and psychologist, and such material is not presently available to me. I also need to be satisfied that his medical condition is receiving appropriate and prompt treatment, and on the material before me I am not satisfied that there has been an appropriately expeditious response to his haematuria. It may well be that there is good explanation for that, but I wish to keep that under review.

4 I will adjourn the proceedings to Thursday 25 June 2009 at 9.30 before me for further directions.

5 The child's representative seeks an order that I prohibit publication of the proceedings before the Court today. On previous occasions I have indicated that the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court in matters of this type is a matter of great public importance and on many occasions considerable public interest. There is already in place, and there remains unaffected, an order that no publication that would identify or tend to identify the child, the subject of these proceedings, occur except for the purpose of the proper conduct of the proceedings. That order remains in force. If I were to entirely prohibit publication of the proceedings today, the Court would effectively be endeavouring to proceed in secret and I cannot see how the public interest is served by that. So far as Thomas' interests, which also are crucial, are concerned, given the order already in place, I do not see how such publication as might permissibly take place could identify him, except to someone who was already very well familiar with his case and circumstances. In my view, the current order provides the appropriate level of balance between the legitimate public interest in these proceedings, and Thomas' interests. I decline to make a more extensive non-publication order.

**********