New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Re Jessica [2002] NSWSC 745 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5206/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 22 and 23 August 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 August 2002 Minister for Community Services (P1) PARTIES : Director-General of the Department of Community Services (P2) Name suppressed (D) JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J G W Moore (P1 & 2) COUNSEL : Ms D De Fina, Solicitor (D) Ms K Renshall, Solicitor (Child) I V Knight (P1 & 2) SOLICITORS : Kim Cull (D) Kathryn Renshall (Child) CATCHWORDS : FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE [108] - Child welfare other than under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Wards of Court - Supreme Court - Inherent jurisdiction to protect infant - Orders for detention and medical treatment of infant using reasonable force if necessary. LEGISLATION CITED : Guardianship Act 1987 s 35(1)(c) & (1A) CASES CITED : Re Jessica [2001] NSWSC 1207 DECISION : Further order for detention and treatment of young person made. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION HAMILTON J FRIDAY, 23 AUGUST 2002 2981/02 Re JESSICA JUDGMENT - CLOSED COURT 1 HIS HONOUR: I described this in my judgment of 13 December 2001 as "a distressing and extreme case": Re Jessica [2001] NSWSC 1207 at [1]. The young person, called for the purposes of the proceedings "Jessica", has continued until now detained in the hospital referred to in my orders made on that day. Further evidence before me indicates that the pattern of her behaviour has improved somewhat over that period, but her behaviour continues at times to be irrational and violent and, as recently as last week, sedative medication had to be administered to her on a number of occasions. 2 Two developments have occurred. One, which needs simply to be noted, is that the psychiatrist principally responsible for her treatment sees greater indication than anyone has previously of an underlying psychotic condition, although not able at this stage to identify the condition. The other is that the hospital premises in which Jessica has been detained have ceased to be available. The arrangements that have now been made are for her to live and be cared for in a house available to DOCS in the Newcastle district, with a large staff totalling 16 people, full time or part time, employed to take care of her. The new accommodation is no further from Sydney, indeed, rather closer, than the hospital where she is at present. I am now asked to make orders, essentially in the same terms as the orders of last December, for her transport to the new premises and her detention and treatment there, including the administration, as necessary, of sedative medication and to authorise reasonable force to effect her transport, detention and treatment. 3 Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that a continuation of the above regime is necessary and I propose to make orders as sought by reference to short minutes which have been brought in. The young person has been represented in court by Ms K Renshall, who has appeared for her for some time, and the mother has also been represented. They raise no opposition to the orders. 4 Ms Renshall has travelled to Jessica's present hospital to discuss the matter with her. She has informed the Court that Jessica is "happy to go" to "the new premises", but draws to the Court's attention in a precautionary way that Jessica expressed that view on the basis that she believes that this will afford her more freedom. At least in the first instance, it seems unlikely that that will be so. The mother, through her representative, has expressed herself worried about Jessica's belief. However, as I have said, no opposition has been raised to the making of the orders and, despite the fact that the Court does not see that the belief will be fulfilled, there is no realistic course available other than to make the orders. The orders, at Ms Renshall's request, provide for the matter to come back before the Court in two months, as well as reserving liberty to apply in the meantime. 5 Mr G W Moore, of counsel for the plaintiffs, has drawn to my attention that, as Jessica has now turned 16, Part 5 of the Guardianship Act 1987 relating to medical and dental treatment now applies to her. However, there is no question on the facts of this matter as they stand of the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Court being affected: see Guardianship Act 1987 s 35(1)(c) and (1A). It may be that the Minister may now have power to authorise treatment, including the administration of sedative medication, but the Court's authorisation of forceful administration, if necessary, is probably still necessary, as is its authorisation of transport to particular premises and detention there, with the application of any necessary force. 6 For the above reasons I make the orders set out in the short minutes initialled by me and placed with the papers. ********** Last Modified: 09/09/2002 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.