Judicial review — appeal from Children’s Court to District Court — whether the District Court correctly construed and applied the provisions of s 106A Care Act — challenge to Children’s Court order placing child under parental responsibility of Minister until aged 18 years of age — the court must assess, at the time the application is before it, whether there is a “realistic possibility of restoration”, that is to say, whether the “possibility of restoration is real or practical [and not] … fanciful, sentimental or idealistic, or based upon ‘unlikely hopes for the future’”: In the matter of Campbell [2011] NSWSC 761 (at [55]) — relevance of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — what are the duties of a judicial officer to an unrepresented litigant.

Appeal unsuccessful application for leave to apply to rescind care orders — whether error of law on the face of the record or jurisdictional error established — whether District Court correctly applied provisions of the Care Act s 90 — whether judge biased in approach to assessing applicant’s case — whether there was a denial of procedural fairness — what are the duties of a judicial officer to an unrepresented litigant — relevance of international treaty obligations (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) to exercise of discretion — whether judge placed excessive or too little weight on applicant’s evidence.

Application by mother for parental responsibility — Care Act — Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) — treaty obligations under the CROC may be a relevant consideration to the exercise of discretion in determining care application — judge erred in failing to take into account CROC Articles in exercising her discretion.