Plaintiff (mother) seeks to quash orders for want of jurisdiction under Care Act — parental responsibility under s 90 Care Act granted to carers — Aboriginal children — carers non-Aboriginal — plaintiff (mother) applied for contact orders — carers' visas expired and they returned to UK with children and remained there due to COVID — laws conferring jurisdiction are to be construed broadly particularly for the Care Act which requires a maximal, beneficial and practical approach — once final care order has been made, the Children's Court has jurisdiction — s 90 does not indicate that a jurisdictional fact, other than the existence of the final order, must be found — if the existence of a final care order is insufficient of itself to establish jurisdiction under s 90, the same result pertains due to proper construction of s 4(c) — a person who resides outside of Australia can be a suitable person under s 79(1) Care Act — s 9(1) paramountcy principle governs application of all other principles, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principles in s 13.

Section 90 — interim order – Court has power to make an interim order prior to leave being granted — jurisdiction — cannot rescind or vary an order that is not in existence — unacceptable risk is not determinative of best interests — determination of “best interests” — Consideration of “least intrusiveness” and “placement principles” — guardianship order made.

Summons for judicial review seeking to quash the orders made in KH v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWDC 498 — reasons of the primary judge do not form part of the record as they do not constitute an “ultimate determination” — District Court decision (realistic possibility of restoration of child to mother) not the “ultimate determination” — no more than a step towards an ultimate determination, and issues of parental responsibility, contact orders, and permanent care plans remain to be determined — no error of law disclosed — summons for judicial review dismissed.

Applicant sought declaration by Supreme Court that removal of children was unlawful due to defective warrant — care proceedings on foot in the Children’s Court — Children’s Court unable to grant declaration but able to determine same question as part of ascertaining its own jurisdiction — granting declaration would merely be an advisory opinion — leave to appeal refused.

Supervisory jurisdiction — application for summary dismissal of application for review — challenge to interlocutory establishment decision of Children’s Court Magistrate — grounds for review are untenable and summons for judicial review reveal no reasonable cause of action — proceedings for judicial review summarily dismissed.

Amended summons sought 13 separate declarations with respect to four aspects of proceedings — summons did not concern real issues in dispute between the parties — attempt to re-litigate proceedings not in accordance with rules and procedures — abuse of process — no identifiable common questions of law or fact — proceedings dismissed.

Section 71 Care Act — Secretary, the parents and the Direct Legal Representative (DLR) reached agreement to allow child to return home immediately — Magistrate refused to make findings and orders by consent — s 9(1) Care Act requires that in any decision the court makes, the safety, welfare and well-being of the child are paramount — parental responsibility allocated to the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services until the child attains 18 years of age.

Application by ILR for a prohibition order under s 90A Care Act against placing an infant child with the mother in a residential rehabilitation facility — Secretary proposes to move the child to join the mother to evaluate prospects of restoration while the mother is in a supportive environment — mother argues prohibition orders cannot be made against her as she no longer has parental responsibility as required under s 3 Care Act definition of “parent” — consideration of Re Josie [2004] NSWSC 642 — Re Josie applies to prohibition orders under s 90A equally as it did to s 47 orders — court has jurisdiction to make a prohibition order against the mother, under s 90A, in her capacity as a parent notwithstanding the definition of “parent” in s 3 which says that a parent is “a person with parental responsibility” — s 90A applies to a broad category of persons, including a person from whom parental responsibility has been removed — court does have jurisdiction to make a prohibition order against the mother — practical effect of such a prohibition order will derogate from the Minister’s exercise of parental responsibility in respect of residence and have the effect of removing from the Secretary a placement option — application dismissed.

Judicial review — error on the face of the record — jurisdictional error — denial of procedural fairness — orders sought in relation to proceedings in Children’s Court for care and protection — orders of prohibition and declaratory relief sought in relation to proceedings still being heard in the Children’s Court — Supreme Court cannot resolve any factual issues unresolved in Children’s Court — basis for orders sought not established — no error in conduct of Children’s Court proceedings established — no jurisdictional error regarding provision of care plans — denial of procedural fairness in relation to the care plan not established — Supreme Court does not have power to direct removal of documents from Children’s Court file — orders refused — summons dismissed.

Care Act s 76(4) — supervision order made pursuant to s 76 — late filing of the supervision report — extension of time for filing of supervision report not permissible — finality of litigation and extinguishment of jurisdiction beyond date of the supervision order — parties to file draft Orders and matter relisted.

Jurisdiction of Children’s Court — extension of time sought to file a s 82 report — the extension of time was made outside the 12-month period mandated in s 82(2)(a) — court may extend the date for the provision of the report, so long as that extension does not go beyond the 12-month period from the date of the Final Orders — court has no authority when the statutory time period has expired — parties to file any draft Minute of Order they wish court to consider within 14 days and the matter will be relisted.

Care Act ss 80, 83(7), 93, 107 — obligation on court not to conduct proceedings in adversarial manner — procedural fairness required adjournment where trial judge departed from case put by appellant — respondent sought to adduce further evidence— denial of procedural fairness — application refused — matter relisted for hearing in the District Court.

Children taken overseas by father in breach of parenting order — primary judge made interim order for children’s return pending further relocation orders — father’s appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court dismissed — father’s appeal to the High Court that the primary judge failed to take into consideration the views of the children in relation to the interim parenting orders — court not required to seek the views of the child but is required to consider any expressed view under s 60CC(3)(a) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — court not obliged to take into consideration the children’s views in the case of interim, temporary arrangements — parenting order may be made in favour of a parent of the child or some other person making interim orders in circumstances of urgency under s 64C Family Law Act — appeal dismissed.

Application to transfer case management from NSW to Victoria — parental responsibility allocated to grandmother — grandmother and children moved to Victoria — children listed in AVO as persons in need of protection — orders sought by Secretary that care orders be rescinded, parental responsibility transferred to Minister and then to Victoria — court does not have jurisdiction to hear s 90 application where children not present in NSW or who are subject to a report — risk of harm reports not filed, so court unable to exercise function of the Care Act — appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mother sought rescission of final Care orders — Secretary of Department consented to exercise of jurisdiction by Family Law Court (FLC) — mother sought FLC parenting orders for shared parental responsibility and for children to reside with her — father applied to Children’s Court for varying contact arrangements but not to vary parental responsibility allocation — mother withdrew Children’s Court application — mother and Secretary sought dismissal of father’s application — matter is a private dispute not requiring involvement of the Care Act, the Children’s Court or the Department — FLC is the preferable forum — case dismissed.

Application to vary orders for parental responsibility — orders sought for specific financial assistance — orders sought to transfer proceedings from Children’s Court to NSW Supreme Court — Minister in better position than father to discharge parental responsibilities — father’s financial request beyond Ministerial responsibilities — Supreme Court should not intervene, unless in exceptional circumstances, in proceedings that are ongoing in a specialist Tribunal which has been established to hear them.

Jurisdictional error — whether Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Director-General of the Family and Community Services to not grant certain persons the responsibility for the daily care and control of the child — whether decision is one in relation to the preparation of a permanency plan or the enforcement of a permanency plan that has been embodied in, or approved by, an order or orders of the Children’s Court — need for court to make a finding that permanency planning has been adequately addressed and approved of before final orders made — ex tempore judgment — urgent matter — finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application.