"v v" v District Court of NSW

[2014] HCASL 106

"V V"

v

DISTRICT COURT OF NSW & ORS

[2014] HCASL 106
S20/2014

1. The applicant's daughter ("the child") has been the subject of temporary care arrangements and interim care orders since her birth in 2007.  Since 2008, the applicant has been a party to parenting proceedings in the Children's Court of New South Wales concerning the child.

2. On 9 February 2009, the Children's Court concluded that there was no realistic possibility that parental responsibility for the child would be restored to the applicant.  On 27 March 2009, the Children's Court made final orders allocating all aspects of parental responsibility for the child to the Minister until the child attained 18 years of age.

3. The applicant appealed to the District Court of New South Wales.  The matter thereafter had a protracted and complex procedural history.  On 19 April 2013, the District Court (Flannery DCJ) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  Flannery DCJ found that the child was in need of care and protection pursuant to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) ("the Act") at the time the parenting proceedings were filed, and would have continued to be in such need of care and protection but for the interim care orders that were made. Her Honour also found that there was no realistic possibility that parental responsibility for the child would be restored to the applicant.

4. On 23 December 2013, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Barrett, Ward and Leeming JJA) dismissed the applicant's application for prerogative relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), and for relief in the exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that Flannery DCJ had adopted the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation and that it was open to her Honour to make an order allocating parental responsibility to the Minister. No error of law or jurisdictional error had been demonstrated.

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  The applicant's written case does not demonstrate any error in the Court of Appeal's decision.  There are insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.  Special leave is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
19 June 2014 P.A. Keane