Children's Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and Margaret and Richard [2024] NSWChC 7 Hearing dates: 4, 5 and 28 September 2023, and 9 and 10 October 2023 Date of orders: 06 May 2024 Decision date: 06 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Care and protection Before: Judge Skinner, President of the Children's Court of NSW Decision: Permanency planning has been appropriately and adequately addressed. Final orders at [67]-[69]. Catchwords: CHILDREN – Care and protection – Allocation of parental responsibility – Permanency planning – Section 90A – Special circumstances Legislation Cited: Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Margaret (The young person) Richard (The young person) The Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice The Mother The Father Representation: Counsel: Mr Anderson (The Secretary) Solicitors: Ms Olivier (The Secretary) Ms Lam (The Mother) Ms Ng (Direct Legal Representative for Margaret) Ms Leis (Independent Legal Representative for Richard) File Number(s): 2022/00166115 Publication restriction: Pseudonyms have been used to protect the identity of the children and family members. JUDGMENT 1. This is a decision about the allocation of parental responsibility and permanency planning with respect to two of four children. 2. On 10 October 2023, the Court made final orders with respect to the two older children, Catherine Beech and Alex Beech, allocating parental responsibility between their Mother, Ms Beech, and the Minister. This decision relates to the allocation of parental responsibility for the two younger children, Margaret Beech and Richard Beech, with consideration as to whether the care plans appropriately and adequately address permanency planning. The Secretary proposes that the Mother be allocated all aspects of parental responsibility, but for health, residence and contact, which are to be allocated to the Minister for periods of time before being allocated to the Mother. 3. On 10 October 2023, the Court determined there was no realistic possibility of the restoration of the four children to the care of their Father, Mr Beech, within a reasonable period. There has been no relevant change to the circumstances of the children or the Father since that determination. 4. The Father does not agree with the finding that there is no realistic possibility of the children to his care. He will not agree to any final orders that allocate any aspects of parental responsibility to the Minister, and accordingly, does not agree that permanency planning has been appropriately and adequately addressed. 5. The matter was adjourned for a significant period to enable the Department to review the necessary supports to accompany Richard's NDIS plan prior to filing a care plan. This delay provided an opportunity to observe contact between the Father and the children to assess the most suitable final orders regarding contact. 6. The parties were given directions to file submissions regarding the proposed final orders. The Father is not represented but is literate and numerate and capable of expressing his position. He has not filed any submissions. His position has been fixed throughout the proceedings and I assume he maintains his opposition to Ministerial and Departmental intervention in the lives of his children. 7. All other parties agree with the Secretary's proposal to allocate all aspects of parental responsibility for both children to their Mother, but for health, residence and contact. Parental responsibility for contact is sought to be allocated to the Minister until each child turns 18. Parental responsibility for health is sought to be allocated to the Minister for twelve months for Margaret. The Department seeks that parental responsibility for residence and health is allocated to the Minister for 24 months for Richard, but the Mother asks the Court to find special circumstances and allocate parental responsibility for residence to the Minister for 36 months for Richard. 8. The proposed orders have arisen due to strong communication and collaboration between all parties but the Father about the safety, welfare and well-being of the children. The only remaining dispute relates to the duration of the allocation of parental responsibility to the Minister with respect to Richard's residence. Background 1. Catherine was born in 2006 and is 17, Alex was born in 2008 and is 15 (and uses they/them pronouns), Margaret was born in 2011 and is now 12, and Richard was born in 2014 and is now 9. Richard has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, separation anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The Mother and Father separated in early 2021, and Family Law Orders dated 28 April 2021 provided for the children to live between their parents. 2. All four children were assumed into care on 2 June 2022 following concerns about excessive discipline of the children during the time their parents were together, which included allegations that the Father had assaulted Alex and Richard. After being assumed into care, all four children were placed with their Mother. 3. Catherine, Margaret, and Richard continue to be placed with their Mother. Alex was initially placed with the paternal grandparents and is now living with the maternal grandparents. Procedural History – Court Proceedings 1. On 7 June 2022, the Secretary filed an application initiating care proceedings pursuant to s 61(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) ('Care Act'). The children were placed under the interim parental responsibility of the Minister. 2. On 9 June 2022, the Children's Court made an interim s 90A order preventing the Father from contacting the children. The Local Court had previously made an Apprehended Violence Order restricting the Father from contacting the children due to the allegations of assaults against Alex and Richard. There were attempts to standardise the terms of the s 90A and AVO orders to clarify the Father's position regarding contact, but the Father was charged with breaching the AVO, then acquitted due to lack of clarity between the terms of the orders. 3. On 11 August 2022, the Children's Court made a finding that all four children were in need of care and protection pursuant to s 71(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Care Act. 4. The matter was listed for hearing in September 2023 and first mentioned before me on 22 August 2023. The Father was having difficulty sourcing and retaining legal representation, but was able to secure representation for the hearing. 5. On 5 September 2023, the Paternal Grandparents filed a joinder application. This application was adjourned to 28 September 2023. Following discussion with the grandparents the joinder application was dismissed. The paternal grandparents were granted leave to attend the proceedings and address the Court regarding matters that had a significant impact on them. 6. On 10 October 2023, on day 5 of the hearing, the Court made findings that: 1. There is no realistic possibility of restoration of Catherine, Alex, Margaret and Richard to the Father within a reasonable period; and 2. There is a realistic possibility of restoration of Catherine, Alex, Margaret and Richard to the Mother within a reasonable period. 1. On the same day, Catherine and Alex's matters were finalised. The Evidence: 1. This is a very unusual matter. The substance of the allegations is not in dispute. When the Mother and Father were together, they used physical discipline and isolation to address adverse behaviour in their children. This response can be characterised as severe or excessive and caused each of the children to suffer psychological harm. 2. The Father maintains a position that this level of discipline is an appropriate parenting response to adverse behaviour, noting there is a defence of 'lawful correction' to a charge of assault in s 61AA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He has struggled to distinguish between criminal liability and the risk of harm or actual harm to his children. He has also expressed frustration that this mode of discipline was implemented by him and the Mother, but she has been given the opportunity to change her practice and raise the children. He has stated that if he were told that he was not allowed to discipline the children in that manner, he would stop doing it and he seeks an opportunity to prove it. 3. The matter is further complicated by the Father's attitude to the Department. Sadly, he was taken into care as an adolescent due to his behaviour. He was placed in a care home and suffered physical and sexual abuse during his time in care. He does not trust the Department to make case management decisions in the interests of him or his children. 4. I acknowledge the harm he has experienced. His childhood experiences impact his attitudes and behaviour. During the hearing, his lawyer sought leave to withdraw from the proceedings and the Father has continued without legal representation. I have attempted to maintain a calm, polite, and respectful Court environment to assist him to communicate his position. I am conscious of his perception of the Department when assessing the role the Department will play in the future case management of the children. 5. By the hearing dates in September 2023, the Father had not seen the children for a significant period of time due to the criminal allegations, the AVO, and the s 90A order. Each of the children were displaying and continue to display behaviour that is consistent with having experienced trauma. Most notably Alex, who has had frequent hospital admissions due to self-harm prior to and during care proceedings, and Richard, who was, and can still be, violent, abusive and is prone to absconding from carers. During the proceedings Margaret's well-being deteriorated and she expressed a desire to self-harm. 6. Catherine was able to speak to her lawyer about the impact of her home environment on her well-being and she was adamant that she did not want contact with her Father. Alex took the same position. The Father accepted it would be difficult to shift the positions of Catherine and Alex due to their ages and their strength of character, so the focus of the hearing became an assessment of the risks and benefits of re-establishing a relationship between Margaret, Richard and their Father. 7. I note that the Mother alleges she experienced psychological harm and coercive and controlling practices while in a relationship with the Father. Due to a focus on the future needs of the children, these allegations have not been proven and are not required to be proven. The background is relevant for assessing the capacity of the Mother to manage the future contact needs of the children and to assess any attitudes she may have that impact the development of the children's relationship with the Father. But the primary focus for the Court is whether the Mother would be able to keep the children safe when they have contact with their Father. The primary consideration is the children's relationship with the Father, and what is required to ensure the children's physical and psychological safety. 8. The Mother and Father have managed to communicate effectively throughout proceedings. The Father has stated that he respects and values the Mother and if he were forced to choose between the Mother and the Minister having parental responsibility, he would accept the Mother having all aspects of parental responsibility. He seeks to manage contact with her directly. 9. For context, I will outline the child protection concerns that brought the children into care, noting that the Father does not agree with the details of each of the incidents but broadly agrees that the incidents occurred. In order to limit the terms of dispute, I advised the Father that I did not believe he posed a risk of sexual harm to any of his children as there was no evidence to support that concern. I also commented that in my view the risk of physical harm was limited to circumstances when the Father was in a care-giving role, but that psychological harm may arise through contact between the Father and children due to the children's previous experiences while in the care of their Father. Child Protection Concerns 1. The Department of Communities and Justice ('DCJ') had an open case plan with the Family from 4 November 2020 and took steps to support the parents to meet the needs of the children including service referrals, action plans and safety plans. 2. DCJ were notified of the following incidents through Risk of Significant Harm ('ROSH') reports and non-ROSH reports: 1. On 29 October 2014, a ROSH report was received for inadequate supervision of Catherine and Alex who were catching public transport to school alone at a very young age. 2. On 7 May 2019, a ROSH report was received for inadequate supervision. After taking some rubbish out, Richard walked approximately 500m away from the home and was located by police before Ms Beech found him. 3. On 22 October 2019, a ROSH report was received for physical abuse. The reporter believed to hear a 'slap' noise but did not witness Richard being slapped. 4. On 26 October 2019, a non-ROSH was received in relation to neglect. Mr and Ms Beech informed DCJ they wanted to relinquish care of Alex. 5. On 6 November 2019, two ROSH reports were received in relation to physical abuse. Ms Beech was observed to repeatedly smack Richard at the swimming pool before throwing him into the pool, where he appeared to be struggling to float. 6. On 17 July 2020, a ROSH report was received in relation to Alex being a danger to themselves/others. Alex absconded from the home after a fight with Ms Beech. Police were contacted by Mr and Ms Beech to help locate them. Alex was located around 12:15am in a caravan at the rear of the property. 7. On 3 November 2020, a non-ROSH report was received for both parents requesting to relinquish care of Alex. On the same day, a non-ROSH was also received for no parent being willing/able to provide care for Alex. 8. On 25 November 2020, two ROSH reports were received for physical abuse, psychological harm, and excessive physical discipline. Mr Beech was observed to be aggressive and talking over the top of Alex and Ms Beech at the hospital after Alex's admission. The report also raised concerns for Alex's mental health, domestic violence perpetrated by Mr Beech towards Ms Beech and ongoing physical discipline by including hitting with or without objects (e.g. wooden spoon). 9. On 10 December 2020, a ROSH report was received for physical abuse/excessive discipline. Mr Beech was angry at Alex for not having bedding on their mattress. Mr Beech made Alex wash the mattress on the lawn whilst hosing Alex. When Alex tried to run away, Mr Beech chased them, dragging them back to the mattress. This caused lacerations to Alex's back. As a result of this incident, an interim exclusionary AVO was taken out by police against Mr Beech. 10. On 11 December 2020, a non-ROSH was received for physical abuse. Catherine disclosed that Mr Beech had assaulted Alex by pushing them to the ground and dragging them, which caused injuries. 11. On 23 December 2020, a ROSH report was received for physical abuse. Mr Beech was reported to push Alex, who fell down the front steps and sustained injuries. 12. On 31 December 2020, a ROSH report was received for serious illness due to neglect. Alex overdosed on Ms Beech's prescription medication. 13. On 23 February 2021, a ROSH report was received for parental domestic violence. Ms Beech left her relationship with Mr Beech due to violence and took all four children with her. 14. On 12 March 2021, a ROSH report was received for a Alex being a danger to themselves and psychological harm. Alex presented to hospital five days prior having overdosed on medication. This was consistent with their other presentations to hospital over the past six months. 15. On 30 March 2021, a ROSH report was received in relation to psychological harm. Alex had several attempts to take their own life and was in hospital stating they did not want to go home or to school. 16. On 11 May 2021, a ROSH report was received for domestic violence. Mr Beech appeared to be taking over Alex's decision making in relation to their mental health. 17. On 27 May 2021, a ROSH report was received for physical and sexual abuse. Mr Beech was observed to be intimidating at school and requested Alex to kiss him on the lips. 18. On 29 May 2021, a non-ROSH was received in relation to physical abuse and psychological harm. Alex was admitted to hospital after an overdose, but Mr Beech is threatening to take them home and give them more medication. 19. On 2 June 2021, a ROSH report was received for psychological harm. Mr Beech was observed to be aggressive and intimidating at the hospital with Alex. 20. On 4 June 2021, a ROSH report was received for Alex being a danger to themselves. Alex overdosed and was admitted to hospital. Alex was scared to be released into Mr Beech's care. 21. On 8 July 2021, two ROSH reports were received, one for Alex being at risk from their own behaviour, and one for domestic violence. Alex felt insignificant, hollow, and numb, and was discussing taking their own life. Mr Beech was aggressive and attempting to take Alex out of the supportive school at St George Mental Health. 22. On 15 October 2021, a ROSH report was received for physical abuse and psychological harm. Alex called Ms Beech after walking in on Mr Beech hitting Richard with a belt. Richard could be heard whimpering and crying in the background of the call. 23. On 21 October 2021, a ROSH report was received alleging that Mr Beech struck Richard with a belt. This was witnessed by Margaret. In investigating this report, Mr Beech disclosed that he had struck Richard with the belt as a form of discipline for physically hurting his sister. 24. On 2 November 2021, a non-ROSH was received for physical abuse and psychological harm. The report alleges Mr Beech hit Richard with a belt. 25. On 18 February 2022, a ROSH report was received for neglect. Richard was taken to the Emergency Department in an ambulance with behavioural issues. He was hitting, slapping, and smacking Ms Beech, slapped the doctor in the face, and the hospital staff could not control him. He required sedation to settle. 26. On 20 February 2022, a ROSH report was received for psychological harm. Richard's behaviours had changed, and he had several violent episodes at school. He needed to be restrained. He started running away or onto roads. The report held concerns for Ms Beech coping with this behaviour. 27. On 10 March 2022, a ROSH report was received for Richard being a danger to himself/others. Richard was taken to Bankstown Hospital and needed to be sedated due to violence. 28. On 15 March 2022, a ROSH report was received for Richard being a danger to himself/others. Richard was observed to run across a busy road. Police found him. 29. On 3 April 2022, a non-ROSH was received for physical abuse. Richard had an unprovoked violent outburst at school causing injuries to five staff members and six students. 30. On 15 April 2022, a non-ROSH was received for physical abuse and excessive discipline and serious self-harming/risk taking behaviours. The report alleged Mr Beech said there was a lack of discipline for Richard at home and schools should be allowed to discipline students. Additional Background Reports 1. The Father was subject to criminal charges for the incidents involving Alex and the mattress in December 2020, and Richard and the belt in November 2021. There was an AVO that restricted contact between the Father and the children from December 2020. These circumstances caused the Navy to suspend his employment. During these proceedings, he was serving a community-based order and today tells me the appeal proceedings are pending. 2. On 17 May 2022, an interagency meeting occurred between DCJ, Health, and Education due to their shared concerns about the impact of the Father's behaviour on the children. 3. The Father attended Alex's netball game on 30 May 2022 which contradicted Alex's understanding of the AVO conditions. The next day Alex overdosed on ibuprofen. The Father advised the Department that he did not consent to his children working with CAMHS. 4. On 2 June 2022, all four children were assumed into care following concerns that the Mother was unable to keep the children safe due to Alex's critical mental health needs and an escalation of conflict between the Father, the children and their school and health services. Evidence from Katie Martens 1. Katie Martens undertook an assessment with the family and provided a report dated 16 January 2023, which recommended that the children be restored to their Mother with ongoing support from the Department. She recommended the resumption of contact between the Father, Margaret and Richard with supervision by an external agency and review of contact following an assessment as to the benefits of contact for the children. 2. In Ms Martens' report, she stated: 1. '…possible that a relationship could be rebuilt with Margaret and Richard, however Margaret has voiced wanting contact to be supervised and Richard has provided inconsistent responses, sometimes stating that he wants contact and on other occasions being unable to enter into conversations about his Father.' (p 42) 2. 'I hold concerns as to Mr Beech's firm and concrete view of the circumstances, and his difficulty to perspective take with respect to the children's experiences, provide empathic responses and modify his behaviour appropriately.' (p 44) 3. 'In relation to the child protection concerns, Mrs Beech presents with insight and acceptance. Mr Beech has evidenced a focus on proving DCJ incorrect, and on his discordance with the agency. This has undermined his ability to work effectively with the service, in order to address his behaviour, evidence reflective responses and develop new parenting practices.' (p 44) 4. 'Currently, I am unable to recommend restoration to Mr Beech, until such time as he is able to evidence genuine reflection on the impact of his behaviour on the children, and engage meaningfully with supports to enable more emotionally responsive and empathic responding.' (p 45-6) 5. 'Whilst it is my opinion that restoration is viable to Mrs Beech, I believe that she would benefit from support from DCJ over a longer term, due to the needs of the children and the reported past relationship dynamics between Mrs Beech and Mr Beech.' (p 46) 6. 'With regard to Mr Beech, I do recommend that contact resume with Margaret and Richard, and that this be supervised by an external agency (preferably by individuals known to the children).' (p 46) 1. Ms Martens attended Court on 5 September 2023 and 28 September 2023 and maintained her opinion regarding contact. Contact Since the Hearing 1. Following Ms Martens' evidence, the parties were asked to review the contact schedule and provide suitable child-focused options for renewing contact between Richard, Margaret and the Father. The Father resisted supervision and the paternal grandparents offered to supervise the visits. The Department maintained the discretion to determine the terms of supervision. 2. The Father loves his children, but he has been unable to place his relationship with his children above his hostility towards the Department. Miscommunications over contact arrangements have led to the Father being obstinate, obstructive and indignant. He has been incapable of being communicative, collaborative and flexible when making arrangements to see his children. 3. Despite that, there has been contact. The Secretary provided the following summary of concerns regarding contact: 1. Mr Beech's inappropriate conduct during visits. During a visit on 24 February 2024, Mr Beech was observed to be openly hostile to the family time worker and did not allow them to sit at the same table as him and Richard to effectively supervise the visit. Mr Beech was overheard saying to Richard that the reason he did not attend the visit on 27 January 2024 was because DCJ are "clowns... I was a street away and they didn't let me come". Ms Beech has also expressed concerns that Mr Beech has been attempting to manipulate Richard during contact visits. 2. Mr Beech's unwillingness to cooperate with DCJ to facilitate visits, and his failure to attend the visit scheduled on 27 January 2024. Mr Beech has at times refused to respond to DCJ's requests that he confirm his attendance at visits and has attempted to dictate the location and date of these visits. During a telephone conversation with Ms Colak on 22 January 2024, Mr Beech stated that he "did not agree", "does not want to participate", and "couldn't give a fuck" about the proposed contact schedule. 3. Richard's behavioural dysregulation following visits. Many of Richard's challenging behaviours have occurred following visits with Mr Beech or due to Mr Beech's failure to attend these visits. This includes each of the incidents outlined in the paragraphs above. During the incident on 16 February 2024, Richard explained to DCJ workers that since Mr Beech had failed to attend the visit on 27 January 2024, he had "not been able to control his emotions" and felt "sad and upset". Health Needs 1. Margaret has experienced freezing, dissociation, and suicidality. She currently sees a counsellor from the whole of family team each week. During the next year she will transition to the care of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service. The Department proposes to retain parental responsibility for health to ensure Margaret manages this transition and continues to receive health treatment. The Department has noted that Margaret may be able to access 22 sessions of counselling through Victims Services. 2. Richard received an NDIS package in 2023 that was exhausted within five months. A further package has been approved but the money has not yet been received. DCJ proposes to maintain parental responsibility for health for 24 months to ensure the implementation of the package with time to support the Mother to take control of the plan and review if Richard has any additional needs. Residence 1. The Secretary's submissions provided the following summary of issues that are relevant to an assessment of Richard's residential needs: 1. On 14 October 2023, Richard smashed a living room window in the family home and attempted to abscond from his support workers. 2. On 2 February 2024, Richard absconded from the family home. Police were contacted and eventually located Richard. Ms Beech informed the caseworker that it was "taking two officers to hold him down and prevent him from running away again". 3. On or around 3 February 2024, Richard refused to leave a shop with his support worker, which resulted in Police being called to assist. Richard threw a basketball at Police and attempted to abscond several times. Ms Beech eventually attended and was able to take Richard home. 4. On 12 February 2024, there was an incident at the family home following which Richard claimed that Ms Beech had hit him with a stick, and Ms Beech and Margaret claimed that Richard had been attempting to hit them with a stick. Richard then absconded from McDonalds whilst in the company of DCJ workers. Police assistance was required. 1. Richard's NDIS plan provides for respite for 10 weekday hours and four weekend hours each week. Richard's conduct changes the home environment for the Mother and his sisters. It is likely that additional respite will provide the Mother with necessary support to keep Richard at home and to keep his siblings safe. I am advised that regular funding for respite is only available if the Minister has parental responsibility for residence. 2. The Secretary acknowledges this is a significant intervention into Richard's life and resists the Mother's request to retain parental responsibility for residence for three years. The Secretary's representative notes that therapeutic supports have been arranged to deliver strategies to reduce the severity of Richard's behaviour. The Secretary submits that two years will provide sufficient time to support the placement and assess the success of the NDIS interventions, with oversight through reports to the Court. 3. The Independent Legal Representative supports the Minister holding parental responsibility for residence for 36 months. She is concerned the necessary respite funding will not be available once the parental responsibility for Richard's residence returns to the Mother, and does not agree that permanency planning has been addressed. Section 90A Order 1. The Court made a s 90A order preventing the Father from attending relevant locations (their home, school, sports grounds or health appointments) or contacting Catherine and Alex without the prior approval of the Department. This prohibition was sought by Catherine and Alex to improve their sense of safety by protecting them from unexpected and unwelcome contact with their Father in places they were entitled to feel safe. 2. The Secretary seeks the same s 90A order with respect to Margaret and Richard, submitting that contact with Margaret should only occur in accordance with her wishes. Richard has expressed a direct wish to see more of his Father but the section 90A prohibition leaves the Department as gatekeepers around contact arrangements. Richard's situation is more complicated due to his diagnoses and behaviours. The Mother and ILR have made no direct submissions regarding the s 90A order, other than to state that they support the Secretary's position. 3. Margaret's Direct Legal Representative filed a Views And Wishes Statement on 30 April 2024. Margaret does not want contact with her Father at this stage. She has a counsellor and has people she can speak to when she is ready to consider contact. She wants the Department to manage her contact with her Father. Margaret would like the Court to make the same s 90A order as the Court imposed in relation to Catherine and Alex. She supports the care plan as filed by the Department. 4. Richard's Independent Legal Representative filed a Views And Wishes Statement on 3 May 2024. Richard indicated that he would like to see his dad more frequently and for longer periods. When his lawyer asked if there was anything he would like her to tell the Judge, he said he would like her to tell the Judge to give him $1000. Application of the Law 1. Section 9(1) of the Care Act provides that in any action or decision concerning a child or young person, 'the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person are paramount'. 2. The children have been given the opportunity to express their views which will be given appropriate weight in accordance with their developmental capacity and circumstances (s 9(2)(a) Care Act). I acknowledge the need to ensure any action is the least intrusive intervention consistent with the need to protect each child and promote their development (s 9(2)(c) Care Act). I must consider the permanent placement principles and ensure any order is in the best interests of each child (s 9(2)(g) Care Act). 3. Permanency planning requires particular consideration when determining Richard's proceedings, as the Mother needs appropriate support and respite to ensure she can keep him safe in the home, and maintain the safety of herself and his siblings. Determination 1. Noting there has been no change in relevant circumstances regarding the needs of the children nor the capacity of the parents, I confirm the finding that there is not a realistic possibility of the restoration of Margaret or Richard to their Father within a reasonable period and there is a realistic possibility of the restoration of Margaret and Richard to the care of their Mother within a reasonable period. I note, both children reside with their Mother and have remained in her care throughout the proceedings. 2. The Father's experiences in care have understandably led to distrust when the State intervenes in the care of children, and his attitude has impacted his relationship with the caseworkers. He does not trust the case workers to make decisions in the interests of his children, particularly regarding the maintenance and improvement of a relationship with him. Unfortunately, he doesn't acknowledge his role in causing psychological harm to his children and lacks insight into their ongoing therapeutic needs. 3. Margaret and Richard are vulnerable and contact with their Father impacts their mental health and their behaviour. Accordingly, contact can only occur with therapeutic support for the children and therapeutic input into circumstances when it would be in the interests of each child for contact schedules to change. The Mother does not have the qualifications or experience to undertake these assessments, and if she's asked to manage the relationship between the Father and the children, she will be placed under unnecessary stress which impacts her ability to manage and support the children. Further, the Department will need to fund supervision during contact between the Father and children to ensure the children are not exposed to unnecessary pressure, inappropriate or inflammatory content or further psychological harm. 4. The Care Court is a Court of risk. Care orders should not be used to manage complex relationships between parents unless the potential for harm in a relationship between the parents presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the child/ren subject to the orders. The Mother and children must prioritise giving attention to the educational, social and therapeutic needs of the children above managing the Father's desire to control the terms of their relationship with him. I hope he gains better insight into the perspectives of others, the needs of his children, and the harm he causes through force of his personality. But until then, the risk to the children can only be mitigated through Departmental intervention in contact. 5. Given the circumstances of the children, and having regard to their age, developmental level, life experiences, personalities, health needs, emotional resilience and deficits, and their wishes, it is not in their interests for their Mother to manage contact with their Father at this stage. 6. Accordingly, I find there are special circumstances justifying the allocation of parental responsibility for contact to the Minister until each child attains the age of 18 years. 7. I note the agreement between all parties but the Father regarding the allocation of Health to the Minister for 12 months for Margaret and 24 months for Richard. Although intrusive, this intervention will be managed sympathetically and in collaboration with the Mother who requires support to transition each child into more stable therapeutic arrangements. I am satisfied that the term of each order meets the respective needs of the children. 8. The Mother and Secretary do not agree about the term of the allocation of residence. There is a real prospect that Richard's behaviour will not improve with the onset of puberty. Effectively, the Secretary has proposed a restoration plan with enough safeguards to provide the Mother with scaffolding for transitioning Margaret between health providers and settling Richard into NDIS supports. 9. I accept the position of the Secretary that twenty-four months provides the right balance for supporting the Mother to access and implement the service supports that are required to manage the safety, welfare and well-being of her children. If Richard's presentation deteriorates during adolescence, she may need to seek additional support, which the Department has a duty to provide to any children at risk. 10. The strong relationship between the Mother and the Department has given her a better understanding of the services the Department is able to provide, and knowledge about how she can access those services. The Court will oversee the implementation of those services through the Section 82 reports, and if further orders are required during the period when the Mother has parental responsibility for Richard's residence, the Mother knows how to access legal assistance to file an application. 11. I am apprehensive about the s 90A order that imposes a prohibition on contact with Margaret and Richard unless authorised by the Department. I note the s 90A is supported by all parties but the Father. The effect of an order can be measured by the comfort it provides the subject child or through the consequences of a breach. Given the nature of the accompanying orders, in this case a s 90A order provides the children with some assurance that there should not be unexpected or unauthorised contact and that will enhance their psychological safety. In the circumstances of these proceedings, Margaret needs to understand her voice has been heard and the Court has made prohibition orders to improve her safety, welfare and well-being. Richard has not expressly sought the s 90A order, instead seeking more contact with his Father. However, the order represents the Court's concern that neither Richard nor his Father have adequate insight into the lasting psychological impact of the Father's behaviour and there is a need to reduce further harm through carefully drafted and implemented contact arrangements. 12. I am satisfied that permanency planning has been appropriately and adequately addressed. 13. I accept the Father will feel disempowered and angry with the allocation of contact to the Minister and the s 90A order. I invite him to undertake further therapeutic work to gain a better understanding of the relationship between emotion and reason. I remain optimistic that he will slowly rebuild his relationship with the Department, which will assist in building the trust that will enable more satisfying contact between him and his children. 14. Consistent with the principles of the Care Act, all other aspects of parental responsibility will be allocated to the Mother to the exclusion of the Father. 15. The orders are as follows: Margaret 1. The Court orders: 1. Pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Margaret BEECH born on 28 November 2011 in relation to: 1. Contact 2. Health is allocated to the mother Ms BEECH to the exclusion of the father, Mr Beech until the child reaches the age of 18 years. 1. Pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Margaret BEECH born on 28 November 2011 in relation to: 1. Contact is allocated to the Minister until the child reaches the age of 18 years. 1. Pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Margaret BEECH born on 28 November 2011 in relation to: 1. Health is allocated to the Minister for a period of 12 months. 1. At the conclusion of order 1 and pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Margaret BEECH born on 28 November 2011 in relation to: 1. Health is allocated to the mother Ms BEECH until the child reaches the age of 18 years. 1. Pursuant to section 82 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice is to provide 2 reports to the Court at 5 month(s) (on or before 6 October 2024) and at 10 month(s) (on or before 6 March 2025) concerning the suitability of the arrangements for the care and protection of Margaret BEECH born on 28 November 2011 including, but not confined to, the following issues: 1. an assessment of progress in implementing the Amended Care Plan 2. Any matter as to Margaret Beech's health and well-being 3. Arrangements in place for contact between Margaret and significant persons, including the father Mr Beech, such as: 1. The frequency, duration, location and supervision of any contact, and any therapeutic supports provided to Margaret Beech to support her in rebuilding her relationship with the father Mr Beech. 2. Recommendations for future contact arrangements 3. The father, Mr Beech's, compliance with the ADVO 1. Pursuant to section 90A of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the father Mr BEECH is prohibited from 1. Attending any place where Margaret Beech may reside without the prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice 2. Attending any educational facility, sporting venue, medical venue or any other place that Margaret Beech is known to be, without the prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice 3. Contacting either directly or through a third party, including via electronic methods, Margaret Beech without the express prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice. Richard 1. The Court orders: 1. Pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, all aspects of parental responsibility for Richard BEECH born on 24 August 2014 are allocated to the mother Ms BEECH to the exclusion of the father, Mr Beech until the child reaches the age of 18 years except for: 1. Contact 2. Health 3. Residence 1. Pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Richard BEECH born on 24 August 2014 in relation to: 1. Contact is allocated to the Minister until the child reaches the age of 18 years. 1. Pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Richard BEECH born on 24 August 2014 in relation to: 1. Health 2. Residence is allocated to the Minister for a period of 24 months. 1. At the conclusion of order 1 and pursuant to section 79 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, parental responsibility for Richard BEECH born on 24 August 2014 in relation to: 1. Health and residence is allocated to the mother Ms BEECH to the exclusion of the father, Mr Beech until the child reaches the age of 18 years. 1. Pursuant to section 82 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice is to provide 3 reports to the Court at 5 month(s) (on or before 6 October 2024), at 10 month(s) (on or before 6 March 2025) and at 15 month(s) (on or before 6 August 2025) concerning the suitability of the arrangements for the care and protection of Richard BEECH born on 24 August 2014 including, but not confined to, the following issues: 1. An assessment of progress in implementing the Amended Care Plan 2. Any matter as to Richard Beech's health and well-being 3. The provision of any services to manage Richard Beech's behaviour and maintain the stability of his placement 4. Arrangements in place for contact between Richard Beech and significant persons, including the father, Mr Beech, such as: 1. The frequency, duration, location and supervision of contact, and any therapeutic supports provided to Richard Beech to support him in rebuilding his relationship with the father, Mr Beech. 2. Recommendations for future contact arrangements 3. The father, Mr Beech's, compliance with the ADVO 1. Pursuant to section 90A of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the father, Mr Beech is prohibited from 1. Attending any place where Richard Beech may reside without the prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice 2. Attending any educational facility, sporting venue, medical venue or any other place that Richard Beech is known to be, without the prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice 3. Contacting either directly or through a third party, including via electronic methods, Richard Beech without the express prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice. ********** Amendments 17 July 2024 - Amendment for typographical errors. 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: 17 July 2024