Finn, Lincoln, Marina and Blake Hughes [2022] NSWChC 4

Children's Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Finn, Lincoln, Marina and Blake Hughes [2022] NSWChC 4 Hearing dates: 14, 15, 16 March 2022, 1 and 2 August 2022, 15 and 16 September 2022 Date of orders: 16 September 2022 Decision date: 14 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Care and protection Before: Children's Magistrate Sheedy Decision: The application for a supplementary Children's Court Clinic Report is granted. Catchwords: CHILDREN – Care and protection – application for supplementary Children's Court Clinic Report Legislation Cited: Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Cases Cited: Re in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Category: Consequential orders Parties: Ms Hughes (Mother) Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice Finn Hughes (Child) Lincoln Hughes (Child) Marina Hughes (Child) Blake Hughes (Child) Representation: Ms Hayward for the Secretary Ms Harrod for the mother Mr Hill for the Independent Legal Representative for Finn Hughes Ms Rutkowska as Independent Legal Representative for Lincoln, Marina and Blake Hughes File Number(s): 2020/164171 Publication restriction: Pseudonyms have been used for the children, family members and carers.

Judgment

Background 1. On 2 June 2020 the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice ('DCJ') filed an application for care orders for Finn Hughes (born …. 2009), Lincoln Hughes (born ….. 2011), and twins Blake Hughes and Marina Hughes (born …. 2012) ('the children'). 2. On 3 June 2020 Court made an interim order allocating parental responsibility to the Minister until further order for the children. On 10 July 2020 the children were found to be children in need of care and protection pursuant to s 71 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ('the Act'). 3. The children's mother is Ms Lisa Hughes. Their father, Mr Brian Lancer, sadly died in February 2019. 4. DCJ received twenty-five Risk of Serious Harm Reports ('ROSH') relating to the children between April 2011 and May 2020. The ROSH reports concerns were in relation to risk of psychological harm, exposure to domestic violence, alcohol abuse and risk of physical harm and neglect. 5. Ms Hughes has been known to the child protection agency, now DCJ, since 1999 due to safety and risk issues around her five oldest children from her first marriage to Mr William Paulson. These five children are now all adults. 6. Ms Hughes was referred to numerous services to address safety and risk issues since the children were young: * A family support service was engaged with the parents in 2018 until February 2019 when Mr Lancer died * Wesley Mission was involved with Ms Hughes from November 2018 until Wesley Mission ended their involvement due to Ms Hughes's inadequate engagement * Ms Hughes was inconsistent in taking the children to the appointments when Therapy 4 Kids arranged for them to address their loss and grief from their father's death * In February 2020 Ms Hughes and the children were referred for an assessment which was not conducted due to Ms Hughes's disengagement * DCJ had ongoing involvement with the family 1. On 28 May 2020 there was a police raid of Ms Hughes's house where drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the garage and in her bedroom. Ms Hughes was taken into custody and the children were assumed into care. 2. At the time the children were assumed into care Ms Hughes concedes that the home could properly be described as hoarded, and she was drinking to excess to address what she considered to be grief and depression. 3. Between 22 June 2020 and 22 October 2020 Finn and Lincoln were placed together in a kinship placement with kinship carers Ms Hughes's ex-husband Mr William Paulson and his wife Ms Lydia Paulson. Blake and Marina were placed together in a kinship placement with their sister Ms Tamara Paulson and her partner Mr Paul Flanagan. 4. Finn and Lincoln's placement broke down due to Ms Lydia Paulson's health. The twins' placement broke down due to the carers' work commitments and ability to commit to caring for the children. 5. On 22 October 2020 the placement and the case management of the children was delegated by DCJ to a Funded Service Provider ('FSP'), Life Without Barriers. The children were placed by Life Without Barriers together in 3-bedroom accommodation with staff rostered to supervise them during the day and night. 6. DCJ refer to this as an Interim Care Model (ICM). The DCJ Casework Manager's evidence was that the ICM model is the second least preferred model of care, and it is designed to be short term, usually up to 13 weeks. Children (other than those in the sibling group) can also be placed in an Interim Care Model placement. 7. On 7 October 2020 DCJ filed a Care Plan for each of the children, assessing there was no realistic possibility of restoration of the children to their mother's care. 8. On 12 February 2021 the Children's Court made an Assessment Order. The Children's Court Clinic report, authored by Ms Sunny Hong, was released to the parties on 23 April 2021. The Clinician recommended that the children remain in the parental responsibility of the Minister until 18, with a long-term placement in either kinship or foster care. The Clinician maintained this opinion when she gave evidence during the final hearing in March 2022. 9. On 7 June 2021 the twins transitioned to a short-term foster placement managed by Lifestyle Solutions in the [ ] area. The twins remain in this placement with their foster carer "Niles". 10. On 21 December 2021 Finn and Lincoln transitioned to a long-term foster placement. The case management was transferred from Life Without Barriers to Lifestyle Solutions. At this time the plan was for Marina and Blake to transition to live with Finn and Lincoln's foster carers once Finn and Lincoln had settled. 11. In March 2022 the matter was listed for final hearing. At the hearing DCJ was asking the Court to make a finding that there was no realistic possibility of restoration of the children to Ms Hughes and to make an order placing the children in the parental responsibility of the Minister until they were 18. The Permanency Plan was that the children would be placed together in the long- term placement where Finn and Lincoln had already been placed. The foster placement and the case management of the children would continue to be delegated to Lifestyle Solutions. Ms Hughes opposed the finding and orders sought by DCJ. She said the children should be restored to her care. 12. At the commencement of the hearing, on the application of Mr Hill for Finn's Direct Legal Representative, I appointed Mr Gonzales as Finn's Independent Legal Representative following a finding that Finn was not willing to engage with, or give instructions to, Mr Gonzales. 13. The hearing proceeded in March 2022 but was not completed and was adjourned until 1 August 2022. 14. Finn and Lincoln's long-term placement broke down in April 2022 and the boys were placed in what DCJ refer to as an 'Alternate Care Arrangement' case managed by Lifestyle Solutions. This means that the children are placed in motel or hotel accommodation or a serviced apartment or house staffed by agency providers. It appears from the evidence that when placed the boys were supervised by one, and sometimes two, staff members. 15. The DCJ Casework Manager gave evidence that the Alternate Care Arrangement was the least preferred model for placements for children. It is, she said, used in crisis situations and the expectation is that the child will be exited from this model as soon as possible. Finn and Lincoln had not been placed in an Interim Care Model because of lack of availability. 16. The DCJ Casework Manager's evidence was that no attempt has been made to obtain professional foster carers for these children as there are no current vacancies. For reasons which were not entirely clear to me, DCJ are not able to undertake a targeted recruitment for professional foster carers but in any case, even if professional foster carers were available, the Child Assessment Tool administered by the Department assesses these children as "low needs" and thus, in line with DCJ policy are not eligible for anything but general foster care. 17. The matter was not able to be finalised on the August dates for reasons which will become apparent later in this judgment. The hearing was adjourned until September 2022 by which time an application for a Supplementary Assessment Order had been filed.