WATKINS & POLGLASE

In the matter of *Watkins & Polglase*, heard by Dawe J, the dispute concerned final parenting orders for a child named E. The Minister for Families and Communities sought these orders, presenting reports that raised serious welfare concerns for the child. The proceedings involved the discharge of previous parenting orders and the establishment of new arrangements for E's care and contact with her parents.

The court was required to determine the appropriate final orders for E, considering the best interests of the child in light of the welfare concerns raised. A key legal issue was the court's jurisdiction to make orders under the *Children’s Protection Act 1993* (SA), which the court found it did not possess. The court also had to consider the implications of the consent of the parties to the proposed orders.

Dawe J made orders by consent, discharging all previous parenting orders. For a period of twelve months, the Minister was granted sole parental responsibility for E's day-to-day care, long-term care, welfare, and development. The father and mother were to spend time with E as determined by the Minister, subject to her conditions. The Minister was also directed to provide regular summary reports to the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer, consider allowing them to speak with E's specialists, and keep them informed of E's placement. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was to be discharged after twelve months. The court also noted that if the matter returned to court, the father intended to rely on evidence already heard. The particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening these orders were set out in an attached Fact Sheet, incorporated into the orders pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B of the relevant legislation.