Re Anna, Bruno, Courtney and Deepak [2001] NSWSC 79

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Re Anna, Bruno, Courtney and Deepak [2001] NSWSC 79 revised - 30/03/2001 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1396/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 13 February 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 February 2001

Department of Community Services - plaintiff Anna - first defendant PARTIES : Bruno - 2nd defendant Courtney - third defendant Deepak - fourth defendant JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson CJinEq at 1

Mr. Singleton for plaintiff COUNSEL : Mr. Viney for 1st defendant Mr. Rogers (s) for 2nd & 3rd defendants Ms. Defina (s) - children's representative SOLICITORS : I.V. Knight, Crown Solicitor for plaintiff No appearances filed for other parties CATCHWORDS : FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - Parens patriae jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Proceedings in Children's Court - Interim order made by Children's Court - Interference by Supreme Court - Relevant principles. LEGISLATION CITED : Children & Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), s.247 DECISION : See end of judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

CORAM: HODGSON, CJ in Eq.

Tuesday 13th February 2001

NO. 1396 OF 2001 RE ANNA, BRUNO, COURTNEY AND DEEPAK

JUDGMENT

1 These proceedings concern four children who, for the purpose of these proceedings, are known as Anna, Bruno, Courtney and Deepak. Anna and Bruno are aged respectively nine and eight, and they are children of the second defendant. Courtney and Deepak are aged respectively five and three, and they are children of the second and third defendants. 2 Those four children have for some time been in the care of the first defendant, who is their grandmother. However, those four children and two older children, who are children of the third defendant, have since 19 November 1997 been wards pursuant to s.72 of the Children (Care & Protection) Act, 1987, and thus under the control of the plaintiff. 3 In recent times the plaintiff, the Director General of the Department of Community Services, has been proceeding in the hope of being able to restore Courtney and Deepak to the care of the second and third defendants. 4 On 15 January 2001, the first defendant lodged an application with the Children's Court, seeking orders which would have the effect of ensuring that Courtney and Deepak remained in her care. That application apparently was adjourned on that day to 2 February 2001, when it was further adjourned to 8 February 2001. However, after the Court hearing had taken place on 2 February 2001 the Department removed Courtney and Deepak from the care of the first defendant and placed them with their maternal aunt and her husband, those being the persons who were already caring for the two oldest children, that is, the two children of the third defendant. 5 When the matter came back before the Children's Court on 8 February, the learned Magistrate made interim orders to the effect that Deepak and Courtney should continue to reside with the first defendant, and that the first defendant should have responsibility in relation to medical treatment and education, with other aspects of parental responsibility being left with the Department. 6 On the Department's application, that order was stayed with the view to an application being made to the Supreme Court, resulting in these proceedings. There was a short hearing before Simos, J. on 9 February 2001, and on that day his Honour made orders to the effect that Courtney and Deepak could remain with the maternal aunt and her husband up to and including today. The plaintiff has today sought that in effect I extend that provision until some other order is made by the Children's Court, or alternatively until the Children's Court finally disposes of the first defendant's application. 7 The plaintiff also seeks orders authorising the plaintiff to organise the professional assessment of the four children by a qualified psychologist, and organise the professional assessment of Courtney and Deepak by a qualified speech pathologist; and, as I understand it, that aspect of the application is not opposed. 8 I have been provided with a considerable amount of material but, having regard to the nature of these proceedings and the absence of cross-examination, it will not be possible for me to come to any conclusion on disputed questions of fact.