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. Issues and Representation 1. The substantive issue in these proceedings has always been and remains whether there is a realistic possibility of restoration of each of the children to their mother, Ms Hughes. 2. When the matter was listed for final hearing in March 2022 the Secretary was seeking a finding that there was no realistic possibility of restoration of the children to their mother and final orders of parental responsibility to the Minister to 18 for each of the children. The Secretary's position was supported by the Independent Legal Representative for the 3 youngest children. 3. The issue, the subject of this judgment, is whether there ought to be a further Assessment Order made pursuant to ss 53 and 54 of the Act. 4. The history of these children in care is highly relevant to the issue of whether a supplementary Assessment Order ought to be made and therefore that history is set out in some considerable detail. Placement with Life Without Barriers 1. Between 18 February 2021 and 21 June 2021 whilst Finn and Lincoln were placed in the Interim Care Model placement managed by Life Without Barriers, DCJ received 5 Risk of Serious Harm (ROSH) Reports: 1. On 18 February 2021 DCJ received a Report identifying that one of the children had been hit and strangled by a staff member 2. On 13 April 2021, DCJ received a Report which DCJ screened in under suspicious indicators consistent with sexual abuse. The Report identified that the children have used sexualised language and Lincoln has been reported to have access to pornography 3. On 23 April 2021 DCJ received a Report which identified several incidents where Finn and Blake were physically grabbed and pushed by a worker. The Report was screened in by DCJ as excessive discipline and significant psychological harm as the children have stated that they do not feel safe in the Life Without Barriers home. 4. On 11 May 2021, DCJ received a Report which was screened in under suspicious indicators consistent with sexual abuse. The Report identified that Blake has been observed to make sexual noises and Lincoln and Blake have been observed to be 'humping'. The children have been observed to be singing an inappropriate song and stated that they watch this video clip at mum's house 5. On 1 June 2021 DCJ received a Report which was screened in under risk-taking behaviours. The Report identified that on 31 May 2021 Lincoln smashed a glass timer which led to an escalation of his behaviours. Lincoln was using scissors to stab a tree and threatened to stab a teacher. 1. On 21 June 2021 an Alternate Assessment was undertaken. It is my understanding that the Secretary calls an assessment that is made following an allegation of abuse in care an Alternate Assessment. Some of the statements made by the assessor in that Alternate Assessment include: * Marina and Blake said there have been incidents where Blake or Finn have been pushed by a worker and where workers scream or swear in the house * Marina and Blake stated they don't want to be in the placement * Blake stated he is very sad and depressed * Blake cannot always remember all of the workers * Finn and Lincoln said they did not like the house and the workers scream and swear at them and the workers smoke in the house * Finn said he remembers one worker who pushed Blake and he could not give details about other incidents as he can't remember the details because there were too many workers * Lincoln is emotionally impacted by his experiences of abuse in the home and expressed he does not feel safe in the house and does not want to be there * Lincoln expressed he is very sad and depressed. Lincoln's mental health has deteriorated recently and he has expressed suicidal ideation. In April 2021 Lincoln was taken to hospital via ambulance due to suicidal ideation; "…DCJ are of the view that the current behaviours exhibited by Lincoln as a direct result of the ICM placement and the rotating roster of workers…." The same conclusion was made regarding Finn * The caseworker "has identified that Lincoln and his siblings have limited emotional safety in this is placement. This is due to limited stable and positive relationships with staff, the nature of the interim care model and that there is no current long-term plan for the family." * Finn is emotionally impacted by his experiences of this abuse in the home and has expressed he does not feel safe in the home. When a pocketknife was found in his bedroom Finn stated this is to protect himself as he does not feel safe 1. This Alternate Assessment resulted in DCJ substantiating psychological harm to the children from the care received by Life Without Barriers. This includes the impact of the rotating roster or workers and the lack of safe or positive relationships in the home, the impact of there being no primary attachment and the concerns about the lack of training of the workers. 2. The Alternate Assessment assessed the level of future risk in this placement as high and stated: DCJ notes that in the Alternate Assessment dated 14 April 2021 DCJ have substantiated risk of physical harm to Finn, Lincoln, Marina and Blake. The children continue to make disclosures of physical and psychological harm which has significant impact on their overall wellbeing and physical safety. ….DCJ are of the view that the psychological impact of this ICM Placement and the current concerns, have a significant impact on Finn and Lincoln's wellbeing. DCJ will be substantiating risk of psychological harm to Finn and Lincoln as they remain in this placement." [Blake and Marina had moved to their current short term foster placement.] 1. Despite the findings in the assessment Finn and Lincoln remained in this placement provided by Life Without Barriers. From 8 September 2021, whilst in this placement, DCJ received 3 Risk of Serious Harm Reports and 8 non-Risk of Serious Harm Reports. The reported concerns were: 1. serious self-harming/risk-taking behaviour 2. educational neglect 3. physical abuse; Dangerous Behaviour involving child 4. risk of significant physical harm 5. sexual act or exploitation 1. The ROSH Report of 16 November 2021 related to disclosures made by Lincoln of physical abuse from a worker. Lincoln disclosed an incident where a worker had swung his arm at him towards Lincoln's upper body/chest/neck area. Lincoln stated that it was "like a full on punch". 2. On 16 November 2021 another Alternate Assessment was undertaken. 3. The Alternate Assessment included the following statements: Due to the instability in Finn and Lincoln's life, the inconsistency of rosters and staff in their current ICM Placement the current care environment is a trigger for Lincoln and Finn Lincoln disclosed that the worker swung at his upper body/chest neck area. Lincoln said that he tried to block the worker and the worker hit his fingers and cracked his knuckles…..Lincoln stated it was a closed fist and like a full on punch……Lincoln said he called his mum and told her he didn't feel safe Finn at time will exhibit pain based behaviours that include property damage and/or yelling and swearing at staff. Finn is also diagnosed with encopresis and this has increased recently. The increase in this is believed to be due to the stress and anxiety around his placement, where he will be living and going to school and the current court proceedings. Lincoln and Finn have been in the Interim Care Model Placement for 12 months and this care environment has had a significant impact on their emotional well-being and emotional safety. At the time of the assessment, the level of future risk is assessed as high. This is reflective of the concerns that Finn has identified to DCJ whilst residing in the current Interim Care Model placement. Consideration was given to assessing the level of future risk as very high. At this time, foster care placement has been identified for Finn and Lincoln and they are planned to transition out of this placement on 21 December. Given there is an exit option, caseworker has selected high. Caseworker notes that if there was no identified exit option, the level of future risk would have been selected as very high.….Since Finn has resided in this placement, Finn has struggled significantly with the rotating roster of workers, the changes in his life, his emotional regulation skills and his mental health…. Due to the rotating roster of workers in the Interim Care Model placement and not all workers being trained as required, workers have at times struggled to maintain behaviour management strategies or be up-to-date with the processes and routines in place to support Finn's well-being which contributes to the future risk for Lincoln and Finn in the current placement… 1. On 23 November 2021 the Life Without Barriers National Reportable Allegations Investigations Team advised that they were assessing the incident as Reportable Conduct and would complete an investigation. 2. On 30 November 2021 a ROSH Report was received in relation to Finn relating to disclosures he made in a Snapchat group about actions he was going to take. 3. On 8 December 2021 a safety assessment was undertaken with the outcome of "safe". The assessment however identified that Finn was at risk of self-harm due to his escalating behaviours and his decline in mental health. 4. The DCJ caseworker Ms C provides a summary of Finn and Lincoln's experience in the Interim Care Model managed by Life Without Barriers in her affidavit of 8 February 2022 as follows: * both Finn and Lincoln struggled significantly with the care environment and the rotating roster of workers * Finn and Lincoln consistently expressed that they did not like their placement and did not wish to live in the placement * Finn and Lincoln both at times exhibited heightened behaviours in the Interim Care Model placement including yelling, verbal abuse towards staff and property damage. The caseworker noted in her affidavit that these behaviours were responses to the challenging care environment that they resided in. Events since March 2022 1. After three days hearing in March 2022 to decide whether the children should be restored to their mother's care the hearing was not completed and was adjourned until 1 August 2022 with further days allocated to finalise the matter. 2. On 21 July 2022 DCJ filed an affidavit authored by the allocated caseworker, Ms P. Ms P referred to the case management of all four children being allocated to Lifestyle Solutions on 21 December 2021 and Finn and Lincoln having transitioned to their proposed long-term placement with Lifestyle Solutions foster carers on that date. Ms P's affidavit outlined an appalling neglect of Finn and Lincoln's needs whilst under the case management of Lifestyle Solutions and the failure of Lifestyle Solutions to provide for the boys' short term and long-term needs. Her affidavit included the measures DCJ took to address the neglect, measures which appear to have met with little or no success. 3. On 19 April 2022 Lifestyle Solutions reported to DCJ that Finn and Lincoln's placement had broken down. After a few days with family the boys were placed in an Alternative Care Arrangement, managed by Lifestyle Solutions. 4. It became apparent during the resumed hearing on 1 and 2 August 2022, that the DCJ contracted the Funded Service Provider Lifestyle Solutions to provide care for Finn and Lincoln and Lifestyle Solutions had sub-contracted some of the care to another provider, Connecting Families. The contracts were not made available to the Court so the allocation of contractual responsibility between the contracting parties is not clear. What is clear however is that the Court made an order of interim parental responsibility to the Minister and it is therefore the Minister (and the Minister's delegate the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice) that have been entrusted by the Court to comply with the Principles for administration of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 particularly ss 9(1), (2)(a) (2)(d), (2)(e ), (2)(f) and (2)(g). 5. Ms P is a caseworker with DCJ and in that role has no decision-making authority. Ms P has been diligent in attempting to address the needs of these children. The evidence discloses the many and various attempts she has made to try and address the lack of care provided by Lifestyle Solutions. This has included following up on issues of concern and referring matters to DCJ management. I note that there was an agreement that Lifestyle Solutions would prepare an updating affidavit for the Court, presumably because the relevant evidence was on their files. However it seems that DCJ then agreed to do the affidavit and Ms P wrote to Lifestyle Solutions on 20 June, 22 June, 24 June and 27 June 2022 seeking some information to complete her affidavit. She received no response at all. Her manager then wrote to Lifestyle Solutions on 27 June 2022 in the following terms: …Please provide the requested information by COB today. This affidavit was meant to be prepared by LSS …..We have undertaken to now do the Affidavit ourselves and will need your cooperation to have this filed on time. Finn and Lincoln's Placement 1. Ms P gave evidence in relation to the breakdown of what was to be the children's long term foster placement. Finn and Lincoln's carers had informed Lifestyle Solutions of the boys' extreme behaviours and difficulties in regulating their emotions. The carers stated they did not feel adequately supported by Lifestyle Solutions to manage the conflict between the siblings and therefore, on 14 April 2022 they relinquished the care of the boys. 2. In a meeting on 20 April 2022 including DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions, DCJ "expressed concern that Lifestyle Solutions had not provided any (my emphasis) supports to Lincoln and Finn's carers." 3. During a meeting following the breakdown, Lifestyle Solutions stated they knew the carers were struggling, had not reported it to DCJ and when the DCJ Manager Casework asked Lifestyle Solutions what supports had been put in place, Lifestyle Solutions had replied that it was "early days" and there was no opportunity for supports to be initiated. 4. Although Lifestyle Solutions were aware of the complexity of the boys presentation and the overwhelming importance of a stable and secure long term placement for these children and although Lifestyle Solutions knew the carers were struggling Lifestyle Solutions chose not to give the children or carers any support to maintain the placement in four months. No cogent explanation for this failure has been offered. Finding of a short-term foster placement 1. Finn and Lincoln had been placed in the 'Alternate Care Arrangement' with Lifestyle Solutions on 20 April 2022. At a meeting between DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions on 21 April 2022 Lifestyle Solutions advised that broadcasts seeking short term placements for Finn and Lincoln had not taken place due to "IT issues." 2. As at 16 June 2022 when there was a further meeting between DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions. Even though about 8 weeks had elapsed since the boys were placed and since Lifestyle Solutions told DCJ that IT issues prevented the broadcasts taking place, those broadcasts still had not begun. There was no explanation recorded in the evidence for the ongoing and unacceptable delay. 3. In a meeting of 4 July 2022, after more than 10 weeks since Lifestyle Solutions reported that broadcasts were delayed due to IT issues, Lifestyle Solutions advised DCJ that weekly broadcasts seeking a short-term placement had begun. Finding a long-term placement 1. At the time when the failed long-term placement foster carers had been identified, three other applicants had expressed an interest in providing long term care to the four children. At the meeting on 21 April 2022 between DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions, Lifestyle Solutions agreed to follow up the three other applicants who had previously requested an assessment for long term care for all four children. Despite requests by DCJ to do so in meetings on 16 June 2022, 20 June, 4 July 2022, 10 July 2022 and 14 July 2022 Lifestyle Solutions did not pursue these placement opportunities. 2. In response to the ongoing failure of Lifestyle Solutions to carry out the task of following up the potential long term placement options DCJ facilitated a Group Supervision on 1 June 2022. The purpose was to determine how Lifestyle Solutions, alongside DCJ could secure permanency for all four children (this meeting was attended by 6 DCJ officers and 4 officers of Lifestyle Solutions). 3. The urgency in this endeavour was, as Ms P stated in her affidavit, that both children were deteriorating in the Lifestyle Solutions placement in relation to their behaviour, school attendance and overall wellbeing. DCJ voiced concern that "Lifestyle Solutions is required to act with more urgency to secure a placement on a short term basis; alongside permanency planning for both children" 4. It was decided that a Family Group Conference should be facilitated to explore permanency options for the children and to ensure children remain connected to family whilst in current placement. The children's well-being 1. In her affidavit filed 21 July 2022 Ms P states that on a visit to Finn and Lincoln in their placement on 31 May 2022 she noted that: * "both children appeared as distressed and angry, where they were observed to be yelling and swearing at one another, as well as the support worker within their home." * Finn expressed that he felt incredibly isolated within his current placement and was consistently bored and was frustrated that there was only one allocated support worker within the home which robbed him of the opportunity "to be a kid" 1. In a meeting on 1 June 2022 between DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions concern was expressed in relation to the deterioration of both children's behaviour, school attendance and overall well-being since entering the placement 2. In a meeting on 4 July 2022 DCJ expressed concerns to Lifestyle Solutions surrounding the lack of boundaries currently in place regarding Lincoln's Xbox usage which resulted in his not eating or using the bathroom, exhibiting frustration towards any forms of social interaction due to this disrupting his playing time and his use of his Xbox for more than 12 hours per day 3. On 14 July 2022 the DCJ caseworker and case manager from Lifestyle Solutions spoke with Finn in his placement following a non-Risk of Serious Harm Report. The caseworker noted that Finn had escalated over the previous weekend due to being frustrated with Lincoln's use of their Xbox and he had snapped a broom over his leg and used that broom to repeatedly hit the walls of the home causing significant damage to the walls. Finn said he and his brother continued to argue both verbally and physically due to being unable to share their Xbox and this continually made him angry. 4. On 14 July 2022 at a meeting with DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions "it was acknowledged that both Lincoln and Finn's well-being had significantly (my emphasis) deteriorated upon entering into the Alternative Care Arrangement placement." It was noted that "additional supports were required to be implemented by Lifestyle Solutions to meet the needs of both children." 5. Finn and Lincoln's deterioration had been noted on 1 June 2022 as had concerns regarding the conflict in the relationship between them. There is no evidence of action taken to address that deterioration, save for an application for an additional support worker three days a week being made on 4 July 2022. 6. In the meeting of 14 July 2022 Lifestyle Solutions stated that they are "now progressing with urgency to implement strategies to improve the children's experiences" within the placement. Lifestyle Solutions advised that they had "held a consultation with a psychological service to determine how to best provide targeted supports to both children." So, some six weeks after the children's deterioration had been noted by DCJ, there is no evidence of any changes or strategies put in place to assist these children, save for an extra worker 3 days per week. Therapeutic support for the children 1. The DCJ caseworker reported attending the home of Lincoln and Finn's former carers on 14 April 2022. The carers reported that from the time the children had entered into their care, in December 2021 the children had not been engaged with any psychological supports or therapeutic interventions. The carers said they were of the opinion that both boys required ongoing psychological support due to experiences of trauma and the tension between the siblings. 2. The former foster carers reported that an appointment had been made for the CICADA Clinic via Telehealth (the Clinic is run by the Children's Hospital at Westmead to provide assistance for children and families affected by drugs and alcohol issues) however the appointment was cancelled by Lifestyle Solutions because it conflicted with a family visit with Ms Hughes. No further appointments were made by Lifestyle Solutions. 3. The DCJ caseworker stated that on 8 April 2022 she attended the home of Marina and Blake's carer. The carer stated that since the twins were placed with him in June 2021 neither child had engaged in any therapeutic support services. The carer told the caseworker that he was uncertain as to why the twins were not being provided with any therapy and he had queried this with Lifestyle Solutions. 4. In her report of 21 April 2021, the Children's Court Clinician Ms Hong stated in her recommendations: Ensuring that these four children receive ongoing psychological treatment would be paramount for their recovery and emotional support 1. There are many references in the evidence filed in these proceedings to the decline in the mental health of Finn and Lincoln when they were placed in Life Without Barriers Interim Care Model. The children have experienced, since removal from their mother in a police raid, multiple placements, multiple carers, separation from siblings, abuse in care, a lack of stability and ongoing uncertainty. It is likely that the children's need for therapy has intensified in the more than one year that the Clinician's report was published. It is of overwhelming concern to this Court and unconscionable that these children have had their therapeutic needs, therapeutic needs that are well known to DCJ and to Lifestyle Solutions, ignored for so long. 2. Lifestyle Solutions were not providing any therapeutic support to Finn or Lincoln despite this being identified as a current need. This was raised by DCJ with Lifestyle Solutions on 1 June 2022 and Lifestyle Solutions agreed to make efforts to remedy this. The DCJ caseworker wrote to Lifestyle Solutions in relation to this issue on 20 June 2022, 22 June 2022, 24 June 2022 and 27 June 2022. No reply was received until 27 June 2022. The reply stated that a referral had been completed to Concept Psychology for weekly therapeutic support to be provided to Finn and Lincoln. It was reported that the sessions were to begin in late July. Educational needs of Finn and Lincoln 1. Lincoln is in Year 6 at the same primary school attended by Marina and Blake. 2. Lincoln's school principal advised the case worker on 25 May 2022 that: 1. Lincoln school's attendance has significantly declined since entering his current placement; his attendance is only approximately 1 to 3 days per week. 2. The majority of absences are unexplained and despite her efforts to reach Lifestyle Solutions she had been unable to get Lifestyle Solutions to provide reasons for Lincoln's absences 3. Lincoln's attendance whilst in foster care was close to 100% 1. On 26 May 2022 the principal of Lincoln's school wrote to the DCJ caseworker, Ms P, informing her that the school had not heard from Lifestyle Solutions in regards to her request for emergency contact information for Lincoln. She told the DCJ caseworker that the school "still have no word on the whereabouts of Lincoln yesterday and he was away again today with no notification." 2. Ms P replied to the principal at 6:15 pm. In her reply she stated: "Thank you for letting me know, and I am so incredibly disappointed to hear this has continued. This matter has been escalated to my Manager Casework, and her manager who is the Manager Client Services of our office and we are having a joint meeting with Lifestyle Solutions on Wednesday to discuss our joint worry that the kids needs aren't being met. I will also forward this email to my manager, but I am increasingly worried that we still don't know where Lincoln is and why he has not attended…." 1. Later communication between DCJ caseworker and the school principal took place with the school principal advising that Lincoln continued to miss school; said Lifestyle Solutions continued to fail to notify the school of Lincoln's absences and Lifestyle Solutions continued to fail to provide any reasons why he did not attend school. 2. On 1 June 2022 the DCJ caseworker interviewed Lincoln who told her that he was not willing to attend school because of the distance required to travel; he had to wake up too early and he felt too cold to attend school as he did not own a winter uniform. 3. Information obtained from a mandatory reporter on 13 June 2022 regarding Lincoln included the following: * since his removal from the foster placement there has been a significant drop in Lincoln's attendance with multiple full days unexplained in partial days unexplained * often the carers from Connecting Families bring Lincoln to school late and can be up to 45 minutes late collecting him in the afternoon * the carers who collect Lincoln don't have any official identification or documentation to inform the school they are from Connecting Families and the school feel concerned that anyone could be collecting Lincoln from school. The school repeatedly asked Lifestyle Solutions to provide a list of contacts for who will be driving and collecting Lincoln each day * recently when Lincoln was bought to school late the assistant principal asked the carer why they were so late and why they were using the travel route they were. The carer informed the assistant principal it was because the boys are living in [ ]. The school were not updated with an address and thought Lincoln and Finn were still living in a hotel in [ ]. 1. Finn is in Year 7 and, like Lincoln, his school attendance has significantly declined from near perfect attendance when he was in foster care. 2. Finn was also interviewed by the DCJ caseworker on 1 June 2022 and he too told the caseworker he did not want to attend school because of the distance and because he did not have a winter uniform and felt too cold. 3. The evidence provided to the Court was that if one of the boys did not wish to attend school then, because there was only one worker, neither of the boys could go to school. 4. A DCJ child protection caseworker, Ms J, wrote to Lifestyle Solutions on 3 June 2022. Ms P, her manager Ms A, Ms R (DCJ Permanency Co-ordinator), and Ms G (DCJ Manager Client Services) were copied into the email. "… It has been brought to my attention that Lincoln and Finn are again not at school today. It has now been three days that the boys have not attended school. The school are very concerned as no one has contacted them to advise the boys would not be attending. It is my understanding from GS on Wednesday that Lifestyle Solutions were going to contact the school to organise winter school uniforms for the boys but this has not occurred. Lincoln's principal [ ] has contacted me today and expressed significant concerns regarding the lack of communication from Lifestyle Solutions to the school. She advised that she was notified on Monday by an agency worker that the children had moved to accommodation in [ ] and that [ ] was no longer the caseworker. She further stated that she has no emergency contacts for Lincoln. I propose that the following next steps occur immediately; LSS to contact both Finn and Lincoln schools today to advise them of reasons for non-attendance LSS to arrange today purchase of winter school uniforms for both Finn and Lincoln to allow them to attend school on Monday LSS to provide emergency contact details to both Finn and Lincoln schools LSS to provide a roster of workers that will picking up the boys each day If you could please action these tasks today and provide me a response by 3 PM. 1. The evidence filed was that the case manager at Lifestyle Solutions "coordinated" obtaining winter uniforms for the boys on 3 June 2022 and obviously only after the intervention of the DCJ caseworker. 2. It is both shocking and unacceptable that children in care of the State are too cold to go to school because they do not have a winter uniform. Sibling Contact 1. Lincoln has been having contact with the twins when he has contact with Ms Hughes. Finn has however refused to have contact with Ms Hughes. 2. Lifestyle Solutions did not arrange for Finn to see his siblings Marina and Blake between Christmas 2021 and the beginning of May 2022. 3. The contact between Finn and the twins appears only to have been arranged after a consultation between DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions where "the Department expressed concern" that Finn had told DCJ he had not seen his siblings since Christmas and there was no Sibling Family Time routinely scheduled. 4. Despite the request of DCJ in meetings on 22 April 2022, 18 May 2022, 1 June 2022, 16 June 2022, 20 June 2022 for Lifestyle Solutions to create a Sibling Family Time Schedule to prevent Finn feeling isolated from his siblings and to preserve the sibling connection whilst separated, and despite DCJ requesting this be addressed urgently and despite Lifestyle Solutions agreeing to DCJ's request, no Sibling Family Time Schedule was confirmed until 4 July 2022. Unauthorised Care 1. The children's siblings/extended family offered to provide respite care to the children. Although DCJ raised with Lifestyle Solutions in April 2022 that the respite carers needed to be assessed, no assessments were arranged by Lifestyle Solutions to occur until the third week of July 2022. In an email to Lifestyle Solutions caseworker on 16 June 2022, the DCJ caseworker Ms P wrote: "I just wanted to note if it is possible for us to receive a timeframe in relation to these assessments occurring. I want to reinforce my worry that these children are having weekend and regular respite with persons that are not authorised, yet parallel to this it is unethical for us to restrict the children's access to their family. This has been an ongoing issue since I took carriage of this matter in April, and I am hoping that we are able to move forward with some urgency to resolve this." 1. Extended family members who had been providing respite advised the DCJ caseworker that they had not been receiving the appropriate payments from Lifestyle Solutions for that respite care. The DCJ caseworker in her affidavit stated that Ms Melanie Paulson told her that this was the experience of all the family members providing respite and that "she commonly needed to "threaten" to no longer provide respite in order to receive these payments from Lifestyle Solutions." 2. On 16 June 2022 Lifestyle Solutions advised that none of the family members that have been providing respite care are authorised to do so and that is the reason for the problems with payment. 3. On 16 June 2022 Lifestyle Solutions advised that the family members who had been acting as respite carers would be assessed. Carers 1. The day-to-day care of the boys was not being provided by Lifestyle Solutions but instead by the employees of Lifestyle Solutions' sub-contractors, Connecting Families. 2. There was reference in a Report from a mandatory reporter that the persons actually providing the day-to-day care for these boys are 18 year old university students. 3. DCJ understood, by 31 May 2022, that only one worker was allocated to work within the home and concluded that this severely limited capacity to provide for the needs of both children. 4. On 6 June 2022 Case Manager at Lifestyle Solutions advised DCJ that "a request had further been actioned for an additional worker to be within the placement to allow the children to pursue their individual interests". This statement proved to be untrue as, on 4 July 2022, that same Case Manager at Lifestyle Solutions said the application for a further worker had "not" been actioned "due to an administrative error." It was not until a meeting on 10 July 2022 that Lifestyle Solutions noted approval had been granted for an additional support worker 3 days per week, though it is unclear when that additional worker started. 5. Connecting Families told DCJ that the workers who look after Finn and Lincoln are required to maintain a Certificate III or IV in a qualification relevant to Youth Work or maintain experience in relation to working with children and young persons. There is no evidence as to whether this level of qualification is sufficient to provide the appropriate level of care to these children. There is no evidence as to what supervision or support the staff receive in the day-to-day care of the children. However, the evidence of the neglect of the children including the failure to get them to school and allowing Lincoln to play Xbox for more than 12 hours per day raises a concern that the staff are not appropriately qualified or experienced or supervised. 6. Connecting Families provided a list of 20 workers who provide care to the Finn and Lincoln and their following qualifications. On the evidence provided it would appear that the majority of staff do not have the minimum qualification Connecting Families stated is required. The evidence filed in this regard however is limited. * 6 have a Diploma in Community Services * 1 has a Certificate IV in Community Services * 1 has a Diploma of Counselling * 1 has a Diploma and Bachelor In Criminal and Community Justice * 1 has a Bachelor of Policing * 1 has a Certificate IV in Individual Support * 1 has "a certificate of completion in the Introduction to the joint protocol to reduce the contact of young people and residential out of home care with the criminal justice system" * 1 has a Certificate "Child Protection Awareness, Child Protection Update." * 2 workers do not appear to have the necessary Certification and there is no information provided as to whether those 2 workers or the remaining 5 workers have the requisite experience in lieu of the required qualification. Food 1. On 14 June 2022 a Non-Risk of Significant Harm Report was received by DCJ providing information that there were concerns in relation to Finn's absence from school. It was reported that Finn had not attended school for approximately three days due to a lack of appropriate school uniform and inadequate food within the home. 2. Finn told his legal representative that they run out of food at his home; that the carers buy food on a Tuesday which is meant to last a whole week but the food usually runs out by Friday and they have to wait until the following Tuesday to shop for food. 3. In the monthly home visit form prepared by Lifestyle Solutions dated 16 June 2022 it states as follows: The kitchen was observed to have basic essentials, milk, bread and vegetables. However, there was not an adequate amount of food for full meals as they consisted of frozen foods. Case manager discussed with Connecting Families staff when the shopping day occurs. Case manager was advised that he was unsure when the shopping day occurred but that he may do shopping tomorrow for additional groceries. 1. On 25th of June 2022 Lincoln's school principal advised DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions that Lincoln had reported often feeling pain in his stomach which was attributed to hunger. The school principal stated she believed that the food being provided to Lincoln was not the type of food that he consumed and thus he was not eating throughout the day whilst at school. The email from the school principal to DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions on 25 June 2022 is reproduced. In conversation with Lincoln yesterday he was telling me he often has a pain in the stomach. We talked about this for a while and it would appear that he is hungry a lot of the time. He hadn't eaten his sandwich for lunch as it had cheese and butter on it, which he does not eat, I am unsure that the boys are being consulted about what they would actually like to eat. In an effort to support Lincoln we made the attached list. Could you please ensure this is provided to the daily carers and that the boys are included in their food choices. 1. The notes of the meeting which took place on 4 July 2022 records that feedback "re-house" was that there isn't enough food. Funding 1. DCJ provided to the Court the quote dated 28 April 2022 for looking after Finn and Lincoln. DCJ did not indicate that the quote was not accepted. 2. Lifestyle Solutions quoted $232,668.61 to look after Finn and Lincoln for 90 nights in the period 24 May 2022 to 22 August 2022. 3. On the basis of the quotation I have calculated the weekly and then daily rates. I have also calculated the daily rate of allocation of funds based on information from Connecting Families. 4. Lifestyle Solutions' quote sought payment from DCJ of approximately $18,096.45 per week to look after Finn and Lincoln. 5. Lifestyle Solutions quote sought payment from DCJ of approximately $1,292.60 per day per child to provide care for Finn and Lincoln. 6. On 1 August 2022 Connecting Families informed DCJ that "the allocated and approved budget by Lifestyle Solutions in relation to groceries and activities (my emphasis) for the children…was $80 per child per week." 7. Out of the $1,292.60 daily payment quoted by Lifestyle Solutions to DCJ to look after Finn, Finn was allocated $11.43 daily for food and activities. 8. Out of the $1,292.60 daily payment quoted by Lifestyle Solutions to DCJ to look after Lincoln, Lincoln was allocated $11.43 daily for food and activities. 9. No specific sum or funds were sought by Lifestyle Solutions for therapy for either Finn and Lincoln and it appears that no funds were spent on therapy. 10. Finn told his legal representative that he needs new clothes and new shoes, in particular sports shoes as his are worn out. He told his legal representative that he had raised this with Lifestyle Solutions who have told him they do not have money for these items. The governance by DCJ 1. It is clear that management of DCJ have been well aware of the ongoing issues of abuse and neglect for these children in care as DCJ management has been involved in many meetings discussing the ongoing concerns. Ms P, the DCJ caseworker was doing everything she could, within her means, to have Lifestyle Solutions meet their obligations in relation to looking after the boys. Despite the ongoing and determined efforts of Ms P the care of the boys did not significantly improve. The power to make a real difference to these boys' lives was with senior management within DCJ. Although there were regular meetings and ongoing requests to Lifestyle Solutions these measures did not produce significant positive change and no decisive or effective action was taken by DCJ. 2. Although DCJ were aware of the extent of the neglect of these boys in the care of Lifestyle Solutions, on the first day of the resumed hearing, 1 August 2022, DCJ filed Amended Care Plans for Finn and Lincoln in similar terms. I have reproduced part of Finn's Amended Care Plan. Parental responsibility to the Minister is being sought. DCJ remain concerned for Finn's well-being should he return to Ms Hughes's care, it is expected he will continue to be exposed to cumulative harm, particularly as Ms Hughes is yet to accept the child protection concerns which require addressing. Parental responsibility to the Minister is being sought to support Finn's proposed long-term placement with Lifestyle Solutions. In this placement, it is expected he will not be exposed to abuse and neglect and will receive appropriate supports. One of the main supports which will be put in place will be therapeutic intervention, much like his siblings. Finn has grief due to the loss of his father and his mother's mental health. Finn also requires consistent access to a child psychologist and paediatrician to monitor his treatment plans. It is expected an agency carer will be able to provide this level of care and ensure Finn is able to focus on his school and managing the soon to be challenges of adolescence. 1. DCJ are well aware of the significant neglect of Finn and Lincoln and of Lifestyle Solutions failure to provide appropriate supports or therapeutic intervention. DCJ have filed extensive material in these proceedings about the children's experience of abuse and neglect in care, their deteriorating behaviours and mental health in the residential care models, their lack of education and lack of appropriate sibling contact and their unhappiness. There is absolutely no basis for the statements made in the Amended Care Plan about the level of care Finn can be expected to receive from Lifestyle Solutions. The statements made by DCJ are disingenuous. It is alarming that these statements have been made by a department who should be a model litigant. I am not in a position to make a finding whether these statements, made without a proper basis, were intended to mislead or whether they were simply aspirational. 2. On the morning of 1 August 2022, and only a matter of hours after the filing of the Amended Care Plans, DCJ was asked to explain why the neglect of Finn and Lincoln by Lifestyle Solutions had been allowed to continue and what steps were to be taken to put an end to that neglect. After a short adjournment the Court was told that DCJ would immediately take back the case management of Finn and Lincoln from Lifestyle Solutions. I infer from that decision that the Secretary accepted that Lifestyle Solutions was not taking appropriate care of Finn and Lincoln. 3. Ms P filed an affidavit on 2 August 2022 in response to issues raised in Court on 1 August 2022. Ms P provided some detail as to how the care of Finn and Lincoln would positively change after DCJ's decision made during the course of the proceedings on the previous day to resume case management of Finn and Lincoln: * DCJ will have direct contact with the children and with their Connecting Families youth workers * DCJ will have direct oversight and hold responsibility in relation to the expedition of carer assessments of family members for respite care * DCJ will remain in direct communication with the children's psychologists to determine their progress and any additional supports required * DCJ will seek guidance from the in-house psychologist to provide guidance and training to Connecting Families in relation to the children's Behaviour Support Plans and needs for ongoing therapeutic intervention * DCJ psychological support will be implemented to encourage both children to attend school * DCJ will hold responsibility in relation to the allocation of funding in relation to the placement in care of both Finn and Lincoln; inclusive of funds allocated to Connecting Families' youth workers, accommodation for the children and all other required provisions for the children * DCJ will request further funding approval for an additional worker to be present each morning to allow for Lincoln to attend school in the event that Finn is not willing to attend. This arrangement will be put in place until such time as Finn move schools and/or starts attending school consistently * DCJ will seek funding approval for both children to receive tutoring. This application will be lodged within a week * DCJ will consistently communicate with both children schools on a direct basis to provide direct feedback to Connecting Families during weekly meetings * Should there be any ongoing concerns with Connecting Families regarding the care of the children which remain unaddressed for two consecutive weeks, DCJ will give notice to Connecting Families and seek to change the funded service provider * DCJ will undertake a review of current budget being allocated to the children and amend this as required * DCJ will ascertain how Connecting Families share information amongst their staff to ensure that the children are receiving consistent care from the allocated youth workers within their placement; as well as looking at how many persons are involved with the care of the children in order to create a sense of consistency for the children * DCJ will undertake a review of the current Family Time Schedule in place to ensure that there is a consistent routine in relation to sibling family time and family time across the children's familial networks * DCJ's caseworker and manager casework will address the presenting issues regarding a lack of food available within the home, school attendance, routines and structure surrounding Xbox usage and outline the minimum expectations regarding the care provided to the children 1. In her evidence, Ms G, who holds a senior management position in DCJ, gave evidence that DCJ, having resumed case management, will take the lead on finding a permanent placement for the children. Although DCJ will have to continue to work with Lifestyle Solutions as they have case management of the twins, DCJ will be in the lead. 2. The Court raised with Ms G another area of apparent neglect of these boys, namely the seeming lack of recreational activities provided to them. There is no evidence that the staff took the children to any recreational activities except for taking Finn to the skate park. There is no evidence of swimming lessons, taking the children to the movies or bowling or to watch a game of football. There is no evidence of engaging the children in any fun activities or any activities which might bring them some joy. Ms G's evidence was that recreational activities are very important for children, particularly so for children that are not in a family or foster placement. She acknowledged that the $80 currently allocated for food and activities was an insufficient allocation of funds and this would be remedied. Marina and Blake 1. Since 2 August 2022 DCJ have been case managing Finn and Lincoln and Lifestyle Solutions continue to case manage Marina and Blake. 2. In her affidavit of 2 August 2022 Ms P, in recognition of the twins not receiving therapy stated that DCJ "will continue to advocate for therapeutic supports to be reintroduced in relation to Marina and Blake via Lifestyle Solutions." 3. I can confidently find on the evidence filed by DCJ that DCJ's view is that it is undoubtedly in the best interest of each of the children that they be engaged in counselling or therapy. It is the Minister who holds parental responsibility (exercised by DCJ). It is the Minister (DCJ) who is bound to, in any action or decision, make the safety, welfare and well-being of the child the paramount consideration. It is DCJ who has contracted Lifestyle Solutions to care for the children. In such circumstances it is not clear to me why DCJ has to "advocate for therapeutic supports" instead of directing Lifestyle Solutions to provide such supports. 4. Ms X caseworker from Lifestyle Solutions told the Court that Lifestyle Solutions had undertaken a home visit for Marina and Blake in May 2022. No home visits took place in June, July or August 2022. 5. In her affidavit of 6 September 2022 Ms X stated that the initial Lifestyle Solutions Facebook campaign for targeted recruitment designed to expedite Finn and Lincoln's exiting their Alternative Care Arrangement placement did not go ahead as case management was transferred to DCJ. I find this statement to be quite disingenuous. Lifestyle Solutions knew that a permanent placement would be required by 14 April 2022 but by 14 July 2022 had only just "almost finalised" the launch of a targeted Facebook ad. The Case Management transfer on 1 or 2 August 2022 was not the cause of the failure to launch a campaign for carers for the children. 6. In Ms X's affidavit of 6 September 2020 she wrote that "Targeted recruitment for Marina and Blake is due to start on 12 September 2022. " 7. Ms X was asked to produce the targeted recruitment document which had, if her affidavit was to be believed, begun a few days earlier. She could not produce it as she said it was still in draft form and further that she had no information as to when the targeted recruitment would be launched. She had included the information about the start date on 12 September 2022 as this was information she received from one of her colleagues. 8. The DCJ Casework Manager gave evidence that DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions were meeting weekly about placement and working closely together on the issue of placement. The Casework Manager however did not know anything about the targeted recruitment for Marina and Blake planned by Lifestyle Solutions which they said was due to start on 12 September 2022 because no decision had been made to permanently separate the children in a long-term placement. In any case, she said, Lifestyle Solutions should have discussed this plan with DCJ. 9. Ms X was not able to offer any explanation as to why DCJ were not informed in the weekly meeting. Ms X said Lifestyle Solutions was duty bound to look for another placement for the twins as their current placement is not secure as their current foster carer wants to care for a baby instead of Marina and Blake. 10. Ms X did acknowledge that it was within the control of Lifestyle Solutions as to whether to offer Marina and Blake's current carer placement of a baby and she gave an assurance to the Court that Lifestyle Solutions will not offer the foster carer a baby to foster to replace Marina and Blake, at least until the hearing of this matter. 11. Ms X then deposed: [62] Authorisation panel for Alex and Niamh, potential long-term carers who live in [ ], is scheduled for the last week of September. 1. Ms X was asked a number of questions about these potential long-term carers who were, according to her evidence, due to go to the Panel in just a couple of weeks' time. The questions were posed on the understanding that carers only go to Panel for authorisation after a positive assessment and matching of the children to the carers. Ms X was unable to answer any questions regarding these carers or their assessment or authorisation. 2. The DCJ Casework Manager was asked about this placement option with Alex and Niamh. She stated she was not aware of it and there were no current long term placement options for the children and nor were there any options "on the horizon." 3. The Court asked for clarification of Ms X's evidence. Lifestyle Solutions, Head of Foster Care and Permanency Programs then wrote to the Crown Solicitor that the carers Alex and Niamh were not recruited for the Hughes children; the carers are "still undertaking a carer assessment" and further that from initial discussions and interactions, Lifestyle Solutions do not believe the carers would be suitable for the Hughes children. The inclusion in Ms X's evidence of the carers Alex and Niamh was misleading. 4. It is of great concern to this Court that Ms X's affidavit contained at least three statements which were not accurate. At best Ms X was careless as to the accuracy of the information contained in her affidavit and ignorant of the harm that could result to the children if the Court makes decisions based on evidence that is incorrect or misleading. Conclusion 1. The evidence is that since DCJ have resumed case management of the case the situation for Finn and Lincoln has improved but is still not good. 2. The twins appear to be in a better position than Finn and Lincoln because they are in a short-term foster placement, presumably receiving good care. In reaching this conclusion the Court is relying on the reporting of Lifestyle Solutions for that reporting has not been proven to always being reliable. I note to that their reporting regarding the welfare of the children was made in the context of their not having seen the children for 3 months. The Lifestyle Solutions caseworker is expecting that the foster carer will soon no longer be willing to care for the children and there is no foster placement available to them at this stage. 3. The Secretary's latest affidavit states that Ms Hughes has started to take steps towards addressing the issues that led to the removal of the children. The Casework Manager gave evidence that DCJ has, since 1 August 2022, begun to reconsider the mother for restoration and that a further expert assessment is required to inform that assessment. The other parties support the Secretary's views. 4. In deciding whether restoration is a realistic possibility within a reasonable period, s 83 of the Act states that regard must be had to both: 1. The circumstances of the child; and 2. The evidence that the mother is likely to be able to satisfactorily address the issues that led to the removal from her care. 1. The children have been separated from one another and have suffered ongoing abuse and neglect in care. The children have complex needs. Finn has been unwilling to have contact with his mother. The short-term placement of the twins is not secure, the continuing placement of Finn and Lincoln in the current model of care is not appropriate and the evidence of the DCJ Casework Manager is that there are no long term foster carers available for any or all of the children and there are none 'on the horizon' though the search for a long-term placement will be ongoing. 2. The current assessment of DCJ and the Children's Court Clinic Clinician is that there should be no restoration. Neither of these assessments take into account the recent gains the mother has made or the deficits of the children's current placements and lack of future placement options. 3. In the UK in a series of judgments relating to adoption the Court of Appeal has stressed the need for the courts to conduct an holistic balancing exercise, in which each of the realistic options for the child's future is assessed against each other. In Re In Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 (at paragraph 54) Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division described the required approach: "What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options." That formulation was approved by the Court of Appeal in Re B-S at paragraph 44 and again in Re R at paragraph 69. This court has, in like manner, consistently cautioned against judges applying a 'linear' approach when determining which of two or more competing options best meets a child's future welfare needs. In Re G (A Child) I described the linear approach in these terms at paragraphs 49 and 50: "In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option. The linear approach … is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare." 1. The terms of s 83 of the Act which require me, when considering whether restoration is a realistic possibility, to consider not only the actions of the parent but the circumstances of the child, leads me to conclude that I should not take a linear approach. I must analyse and weigh the positives and negatives for the children if they are restored to their mother and the positives and negatives for the children if they are to remain in care. 2. There are four children, each with complex needs. Both DCJ and the Clinician have assessed there to be no realistic possibility of restoration to their mother. These assessments were undertaken before the mother's reported gains and when there was expected to be a real prospect of the children being able to be placed in a suitable long- term placement together. This has proven not to be the case. The children have been separated and they have suffered harm whilst in care. Their futures in care cannot reliably be predicted at this stage. The circumstances of the case are further complicated by Finn's refusal to have contact with his mother. 3. A supplementary Clinic Report is likely to provide relevant information that is unlikely to be obtained elsewhere. The information that may be obtained has the very real potential of being of extremely beneficial in assessing and weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the options before the Court. The current Clinic assessment was undertaken almost 18 months ago and there have been significant developments that need to be taken into account. The children have not been exposed to multiple assessments and the future hearing dates set aside for this case will provide just enough time for the Clinic Report to be served without causing further delay. In all the circumstances an Assessment Order should be made. Order 1. The Application for a supplementary report from the Children's Court Clinic, made by DCJ and with the consent of all the parties, is granted. ********** Amendments 20 October 2022 - Addition of Catchwords DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 October 2022