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.

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.

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.

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.

Care and protection — review of interim care responsibility orders — interim order conferring parental responsibility of children on Minister for Community Services — serious issue to be tried as to whether final order should be made — Director-General of the Department of Community Services obtaining discharge of contact order to enable Minister to send children to New Zealand prior to final order — whether this amounts to an abuse of process — ss 69, 70, 70A and 72 Care Act considered — legal practitioners — parties to proceedings — whether legal practitioners appointed by the Children’s Court pursuant to s 99 Care Act to represent children the subject of proceedings should be named as parties to proceedings in the Supreme Court.