"RT" v Kerri Dawn CRO an Officer of the Department for Community Development

In this case, "RT" and another person (referred to as "AT") appealed against a decision made by Kerri Dawn Cro, an officer of the Department for Community Development. The appeal related to the commitment of their three children to the care of the Department until they turned 18 years of age. The appellants sought leave to appeal from the decision of Magistrate Schwass in the Children's Court of Western Australia, who had previously declared each of their children to be in need of care and protection. The Children's Court had ordered that each child be committed to the care of the Department until the age of 18 years.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. First, the appellants argued that the Magistrate had erred in law by granting amendments to the respondent's applications in circumstances that were unfair to them. The appellants contended that the late amendment of the applications, which resulted in the change of the committal period from two years to until the children turned 18 years of age, was unfair. Additionally, the appellants argued that they were refused legal aid for representation at the hearing when the respondent was seeking committal for a period of two years, and there is no way of knowing whether legal aid might have been granted if the respondent had been seeking committal until 18 years of age.

Second, the appellants contended that the Magistrate erred in law by failing to consider whether each child should be committed to the care of the Department for a lesser period than until 18 years of age. The appellants argued that the dire outcome of the hearing warranted more careful consideration of the appropriate committal period.

The court considered the arguments presented by the appellants and determined that there were two possible grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal related to the circumstances of the late amendment of the applications, which the court found to be unfair to the appellants. The second ground of appeal concerned the Magistrate's failure to consider whether wardship for a lesser period might be appropriate in all of the circumstances. The court granted leave to appeal on these two grounds.

The final orders of the court were that leave was given to appeal from the orders committing the children to the care of the Department until 18 years of age. The appellants were permitted to proceed with their appeal on the grounds that the Magistrate had erred in granting amendments to the applications in circumstances that were unfair to them and had failed to consider whether each child should be committed to the care of the Department for a lesser period than until 18 years of age.