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.

Child assumed into care as newborn — parent has drug and mental health issues — unacceptable risk of significant harm — no realistic possibility of restoration — permanency planning — a plan must be realistic, reasonable and achievable and not underdeveloped, vague or aspirational to satisfy ss 78A(1)(b), (2A) and 83(7A) — child is of Ethiopian and West African heritage — permanency plan must sufficiently identify or address cultural needs — permanency planning not appropriately and adequately addressed.

Guardianship — two children being cared for by maternal cousin who did not want an order of guardianship — mother died, father relinquished care of younger child — no realistic possibility of restoration — care plans suggest Department would like to progress towards guardianship in the future — ILR for the younger child opposes care plan because permanency planning has not been addressed — Department of Communities and Justice and Teddy [2020] NSWChC 1 applies — meaning of the expression “a permanency plan involving guardianship” is one that has guardianship as a necessary or integral part or result, there must be a reasonable degree of inevitability about a guardianship order being made at an appropriate time in the foreseeable future — the plans proposed are not plans involving guardianship as permanency planning must be addressed — Department directed to file new permanency plans.

Adoption — child placed in a kinship foster care placement with the proposed adoptive parents after birth — no realistic prospect of restoration to parents — interim order allocating all aspects of Parental Responsibility to the Minister — Secretary filed a Care Plan proposing adoption — IRL not satisfied with permanency planning — found that adoption is premature and court cannot be satisfied the Care Plan addresses all the needs of the child — Plan not approved and Secretary invited to prepare a further Care Plan.

Care Plan to place child permanently with paternal aunt and uncle who have cared for child on an interim basis since birth — no realistic possibility of restoration to either of the parents — parents and ILR oppose making a short-term order which is proposed in Care Plan — permanency plan does not include guardianship, it merely proposes to consider guardianship in six months’ time — two conditions precedent to the making of a guardianship order: the consent of the proposed guardians, and a positive guardianship assessment — held that permanency planning has not been appropriately and adequately addressed and Secretary invited to prepare and file a further Care Plan.

Care Act s 91 — three children removed from parents and parental responsibility allocated to Minister — parents unsuccessfully appealed to District Court — no realistic possibility of restoration of children to either parent and permanent placement was determined to be in best interests of children — NSWCA has power of review in its supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to s 69 Supreme Court Act 1970 — no jurisdictional error nor any error of law on the face of the record in District Court — summons for judicial review dismissed.

Adoption — children placed with carers with a view to adoption — no realistic possibility of restoration to parents — Secretary proposed short-term care orders of parental responsibility to the Minister for two years with a view to adoption — parents opposed adoption — ILR contends that permanency planning is not achieved — proposed adoptive parents are highly regarded foster carers with extensive experience in caring for children in short-term, respite and emergency capacities as well as caring for children with delays or disabilities — adoption plan is real and not simply aspirational, not a case of a mere intention to adopt — unlikely adoption process will finalise within two years — Care Plan should place an onus on the Secretary to bring an application for rescission under s 90 Care Act if adoption is delayed or does not proceed — the permanency planning has not been appropriately and adequately addressed unless Care Plan has a mechanism to ensure a s 90 application is made — Secretary directed to prepare a different permanency plan.