Samuel and Bryan

This matter concerned an application by the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, New South Wales, regarding the parental responsibility and time spent arrangements for two children, H and W. The dispute centred on the father's supervised contact with the children, including the frequency, the identity of the supervisor, and whether contact should occur in a family setting. The court was required to determine these issues in light of findings that the father lacked the capacity to meet the children's emotional needs, even during supervised contact.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate orders for parental responsibility and the children's living arrangements, as well as the terms and supervision of the time the children would spend with each parent. Crucially, the court had to consider the special needs of both children, including developmental delays and behavioural issues, and the impact of their past chaotic and emotionally deprived upbringing. The court also had to assess the parents' capacity for responsible parenting, acknowledging their love for the children but also their significant deficits in insight due to intellectual functioning, mental health issues, and personality.

Flohm J found that the Director-General should have sole parental responsibility for the children, who were to live with persons determined by the Director-General. The father and mother were each to spend a minimum of two hours per month with the children, with all contact to be supervised by at least one, and preferably two, experienced officers from the Department of Community Services. The Director-General was also ordered to conduct a review of these arrangements within twelve months and implement any recommended changes. Further orders imposed restrictions on the parents' contact with the children except as permitted, prohibited denigration of the other parent and their relatives in the children's presence, and restricted discussion of adverse aspects of the children's past lives. The court also made orders regarding the children's counselling, medical information, and school communications, and restrained the parents from causing the children to undergo further counselling or interviews unless deemed necessary by a medical practitioner.