W v Director-General, Community Services

The case of W v Director-General, Community Services involved a dispute regarding the approval of a kinship carer under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYP Act). The applicant sought a review of decisions made by the Director-General concerning the approval of the kinship carer for a specified purpose, placement decisions, and the authorisation of the kinship carer to exercise daily care responsibility. The matter was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue before the court was the scope of the approval granted to a suitable entity, specifically a kinship carer, under the CYP Act. The court had to determine the level of particularity required when a suitable entity is approved for a specific purpose. For instance, whether the approval should be for a broad purpose such as 'kinship care for a specified child' or for a more specific purpose like 'kinship care for a specified child on a short term basis.' Additionally, the court had to examine how the CYP Act allows for changes or reversals of the decisions made by the Director-General regarding the approval of suitable entities, placement decisions, and kinship care authorisations.

In addressing these issues, the court found that while the CYP Act contemplates that a suitable entity may be approved for a specified purpose, the exact level of particularity required is not explicitly defined. The court inferred from the examples provided in section 61 of the CYP Act that the purpose for which an entity is registered should be considered in light of the objects and principles of the CYP Act, particularly the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child as stated in section 8. The court also noted that while there are provisions for the Director-General to make decisions regarding suitable entities, placements, and authorisations, there is no specific provision in the CYP Act that allows for the cancellation or change of these decisions. Instead, such powers are derived from section 180 of the Legislation Act 2001. The court concluded that the AAT lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the applicant.

ORDERS:
1. The application for review is dismissed as the Tribunal found it lacks jurisdiction to make the orders sought.