Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
In the matter of Timothy - Mitchell CM
Commencement of Supervision Order deferred to the expiration of an order allocating parental responsibility to the Minister.
In the matter of Jordan, Joshua and Michelle - Zdenkowski CM
The Court does not require the availability of a permanent out-of-home placement in order to make a long-term order.
In the matter of May and Ben - Crawford CM
Unacceptable risk, binding effect of Family Court findings, conflict of expert opinion evidence-whether court in finding children to be in need of care if bound by ground in the application-relevant date when continuing situation-implications of s.72 -meaning of "sexually abused" in ground (c)-meaning of "domestic environment in which he or she is living" in ground (e).
A paper by Greg Moore, Barrister
In the matter of Bianca - Mitchell CM
The Department to pay fares and accommodation for parents on contact visits pursuant to section 15 of the Children’s Court Act 1987.
Re Tyrone  NSWCA 414
Issue as to the true construction of s74 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 not decided as the issue in these proceedings had become academic.
A paper by Robert McLachlan, solicitor.
In the matter of ‘Pamela’ - Schurr CM
Department of Community Services - Party status in care proceedings - s 98(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 - The Department of Community Services application to revoke the party status of Anglicare.
A paper by Deborah de Fina, Senior Solicitor, Legal Aid Commission
In the matter of Jordan, Joshua and Michelle (No 2) – Zdenkowski CM
Section 90 applications are not proceedings inter partes but can be opposed – contact arrangements constitute relevant circumstances within s 90(2) however in this case there was in fact no significant change in relevant circumstance.
In the matter of Tanya – Mulroney CM
Issue estoppel does not, strictly speaking, apply to this application for a care order.
Re: David and Ewen  NSWSC 279 - Campbell J
The exercise of the Supreme Courts parens patriae jurisdiction- s 247 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 - the attitude of the Supreme Court in an appeal from a discretionary judgment.
 4 All ER 371.
A paper by Barnardos staff
In the matter of Pamela (No 2) - Schurr CM
The use of a pseudonym to replace the name of a person referred to in the course of the evidence in care proceedings, that person not being a child or young person.
In the matter of Sasha - Zdenkowski CM
Formal non-compliance with the filing times of an application pursuant to s45 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 does not necessarily render the application invalid.
A finding of guilt in and the imposition of a penalty under s 33(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 amounts to a conviction, and the Children’s Court in those circumstances has power to impose a disqualification under the traffic legislation.
A paper by Robert McLachlan, solicitor.
Section 25 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 is a mandatory provision and requires a Juvenile Justice Report to be prepared.
In the matter of Ben and John – Mitchell CM
The operation of section 90 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
In the matter of Calvin – Mitchell CM
The meaning of ‘review’ in section 82(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
Police v Jennifer and Julie – Dive SCM
Neither s43 nor s234 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 could be relied on by the Police in this case to make their actions lawful.
In the matter of Pamela (No 3) – Schurr CM
The Court rejected tender of part of a document containing an interview of a five year old child purporting to set out the child’s wishes as it could not be satisfied that the child had an understanding of the nature of the questions being asked.
In the matter of Pamela (No 4) – Schurr CM
Where evidence of a child’s wishes has already been led by other parties there is no enforceable duty of the separate representative to lead additional evidence of the child’s wishes if the separate representative believes that it is not in the interests of the child to do so.
In the matter of Pamela (No 5) - Schurr CM
The court rejected the application for a further Children’s Court Clinic report sought so that there would be a clear expression of the child’s view of the rescission application. The court held that there was already evidence of the child’s wishes and that the application would force the child to become directly involved in the conflict in the court proceedings
In the matter of Simon and Patricia – Mulroney CM
The provisions of s82(2) permit a complete change in both the nature and the duration of an existing order.
In this the matter of ‘George’ it was held that s 15 of the Children’s Court Act 1987 does not provide a source of power for making an order that the Director-General pay the costs of travel and accommodation of the parents.
A paper by John Crawford, Children’s Magistrate
In the matter of Jackson–Mitchell CM
The court has power to deal to finality with different aspects of parenting at different times – the meaning of the term “the subject of care proceedings’ in s 86.
In the matter of Matthias – Mitchell CM
Whether documents that may cause a child over ten distress should be disclosed to the child or his legal representative; whether the court should appoint a guardian ad litem for the child
A paper by Children’s Magistrate Schurr.
Regina v JTB  NSWCCA 295
Whether a witness aged 8 years could give ‘evidence’ without being sworn and enquiries as to her understanding.
08 May 2023
We acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we work and we pay respect to the Elders, past, present and future.