ZA v Director-General, Community Services Directorate (No 4)

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Elkaim ACJ, Mossop and Anderson JJ, heard an appeal concerning care and protection proceedings. The appellant, self-represented, sought to have her two children, AA and RA, returned to her care. The primary dispute arose from final Care and Protection Orders made by the Chief Magistrate in 2017, which placed the children under the Director-General, Community Services Directorate's daily and long-term care, and a subsequent order in 2020 dismissing an application to revoke these final orders. The appellant also sought to rely on fresh evidence and requested interim orders.

The Court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the Chief Magistrate's orders. This involved interpreting the operation and effect of section 467 of the *Children and Young People Act 2008* (ACT), particularly subsection (3), which governs applications for the revocation of final care and protection orders. Additionally, the Court had to consider the appellant's applications to adduce fresh evidence and for interim orders, assessing their admissibility and appropriateness in the appellate context.

The Court dismissed the appellant's applications to rely on fresh evidence and for interim orders. The fresh evidence was found to be largely irrelevant, not truly fresh, or unworkably broad. The Court also found that the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum for the interim orders. Regarding the appeal against the Chief Magistrate's orders, the Court found that the primary judge had not erred. The Court noted that the original orders, while perhaps lacking detailed reasoning, were based on sound evidence, including a psychiatric report diagnosing the appellant with delusional disorder that significantly impaired her parenting capacity and prevented her from accepting supervision. This diagnosis and its impact on her parenting were consistently noted in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remitted to the Childrens Court to be decided in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.