Care Act s 90 application for leave to rescind orders — appeal from Children’s Court to District Court — no significant change in any relevant circumstances under s 90(2) — child secure in foster placement — child expressed wish to remain with foster parents — 3-month transition period for restoration too short — mother fails to understand damage done to child by being away from her for lengthy periods — appeal dismissed.

Care Act s 90 application for leave to rescind or vary previous care orders — father had drug addiction issues and history of criminal offending — mother is drug-free, maintains a safe home and is committed to contact with child — mother has separated from father — leave granted.

Application for leave to vary care orders — significant change in any relevant circumstances — appellant mother of four children in the care of Minister — appellant sought orders of allocation of sole parental responsibility of two children — leave required for application s 90 Care Act — appellant entitled to have court properly investigate care situation — judge erred in law failing to apply provisions of Act — orders set aside, remitted to District Court for appeal.

Application under Care Act for s 90 leave to vary or rescind care orders — relevance of arguable case for leave — consideration of Statement of Wishes by children — consideration of paramountcy principle in leave applications — discretion to restrict grant of leave to particular issue or issues — s 94(4) and granting of adjournments.

Application under Care Act for s 90 leave to vary or rescind care orders — significant change in relevant circumstances — “relevant circumstances” will depend upon the issues presented, but may not necessarily be limited to just a “snapshot” of events occurring between the time of the original order and the date the leave application is heard — realistic possibility of restoration — least intrusive form of intervention principle — Re Tracey (2011) 80 NSWLR 261 — proposal by carer for adoption.

Application to rescind a care order and restore one child to the father — application for restoration abandoned — application for a contact order sought instead — whether contact with the father is in the best interests of the children — father has a serious criminal record for sexual offences against children and for indecent exposure — children exposed to domestic violence between the parents — possible sexual abuse and sexual grooming of the children by the father — meaning of “unacceptable risk of harm” — meaning of “permanency planning” — no realistic possibility of restoration — whether permanency planning has been appropriately and adequately addressed — importance of maintaining contact between siblings who are not placed together — children with special needs — autism and post traumatic stress disorder.

Section 61 Care Act — application for rescission or variation of a care order — must establish a change of “sufficient significance” to justify the consideration of an application for rescission or variation of the care order — Children’s Court approached the issue in a limited and unduly technical way, failed to take account of material considerations — leave to appeal granted.