Twin infants had healing fractures at multiple sites — most probable cause was the application of excessive force by a parent — parents unable to explain injuries and children were assumed into care and placed with their maternal great aunt — non-exhaustive list of factors in assessing safety at [53] — parents are intelligent, educated and engaged with services as recommended by the Department — parents have made the children available for medical assessments and reviews and have personally undertaken medical tests in search of a medical explanation for the injuries — parents have both attended psychologists to address concerns about their capacity to support their children — exposure of the harm will cause both parents to reflect on the way they have handled the children and to closely observe the other when handling the children — children’s maternal uncle and grandparents will remain connected to the children and are alert to any signs of physical distress — children attend childcare three days each week and are supported by a nanny — risk of harm has been sufficiently mitigated such that the children are likely to be safe in the care of their parents — realistic possibility of restoration of children to their parents.

Judicial review in the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — challenge to Children’s Court maternal grandparent parental order — whether District Court applied correct provisions of the Care Act subject to relevant amendments in 2014 — whether error of law on the face of the record or jurisdictional error — child suffered life-threatening head injuries when with mother — mother diagnosed with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy — whether injuries were non-accidental — whether child in need of care and protection — mechanism of injuries unexplained – no realistic possibility of restoration — whether there had been failure to make an appropriate contact order — whether reasons adequate for permanency planning — role of independent legal representative in care proceedings.