PH v Children’s Court of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 589
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Ground of review other than procedural fairness — No evidence — Decision to refuse application to revoke appointment of guardian ad litem for plaintiff mother
CHILDREN - care and protection – allocation of parental responsibility – permanency planning – Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (“Care Act”) – appeal from a decision of a Presidential Children’s Court – four children of a separated couple are assumed into care in June 2022 – care orders made in August 2022 that the children were in need of care and protection under Care Act s 71(1)(a),(b) and (c) on the grounds that both parents were involved in physical abuse or ill-treatment of the children, threatened serious psychological harm to them and were not meeting their psychological needs – orders made by a Presidential Children’s Court in October 2023 allocating parental responsibility between the mother and the Minister for the two older children and in May 2024 orders were made allocating parental responsibility for the two younger children to the mother to the exclusion of the father – father appeals against all findings and conclusions of the Children’s Court – by the time of the appeal hearing the eldest child is 18 and outside the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court under the Care Act – whether the three children are in need of care and protection within Care Act s 72 – whether there is a realistic possibility of the three children being restored to the father within a reasonable period within Care Act s 83 – what orders should be made or continued under Care Act s 79 in relation to the parental responsibility of the children – whether prohibition orders made under Care Act s90 in relation to the father should be varied.
SH v Department of Communities and Justice [2025] NSWSC 1419
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE — Where application is one for leave to appeal and to set aside a previous decision by the Children’s Court refusing leave to apply for rescission and variation of care orders under s 90 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW) — Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain such an application on a basis apart from its parens patriae jurisdiction or under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Final or interlocutory judgment — Where in first judgment Children’s Court refused leave to apply to vary some existing care orders and allowing leave in respect of others — Where in second judgment Children’s Court considered the substantive application to vary care orders on grounds for which leave was granted in first judgment —Where appellant now appeals seeks to set aside both judgments — Whether appellant has done so in a manner which directly challenges the first judgment on its own, rather than on the grounds that said judgment affected the final result in the second judgment
SH v Department of Communities and Justice (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 302
CHILDREN – Care and Protection – Contact Order – Appeal – Ambit of appeal limited by nature of order the subject of the appeal
The Adoption of Robbie Tallis-Turner [2025] NSWSC 1514
CHILD WELFARE — Adoption — where proposed adoptive parent is child’s current foster parent —whether adoption order is in child’s best interests — whether birth parents’ consent should be dispensed with — whether change of name should be approved — whether adoption plans are in the best interests of child and proper in the circumstances — HELD — adoption order is clearly preferable and in child’s best interests — consent dispense orders are in the best interests of child — change of name approved — adoption plans are in the best interests of child and proper in the circumstances — adoption plans registered
WS v Department of Communities and Justice [2026] NSWSC 337
CHILD WELFARE — Jurisdiction — Supreme Court of New South Wales – parens patriae jurisdiction – plaintiff is the paternal grandfather of a child assumed into care shortly after her birth and who was placed with a long-term carer under the parental responsibility of the Minister – after contested proceedings the Children’s Court grants parental responsibility for the child to the Minister – plaintiff commences appeal proceedings in the District Court – plaintiff brings a summons in this Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction against the Secretary of the Department, seeking similar orders to those sought in the District Court appeal proceedings – the defendant brings a motion into strike out the plaintiff’s summons as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process – the plaintiff discontinues the District Court appeal proceedings – the defendant presses forward with the motion – whether there are exceptional circumstances sufficient to enliven this Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction – whether these proceedings are frivolous and vexatious or abuse of process.
AG (a pseudonym) v Department of Communities & Justice [2025] NSWDC 492
CHILD WELFARE – Appeal filed pursuant to s 91 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 – appeal from an interlocutory order of the Children’s Court refusing a stepfather leave to be joined to proceedings – whether plaintiff stepfather has relevant standing – whether plaintiff stepfather has a genuine concern for the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the child the subject of the proceedings – s 98(3) – whether stepfather’s claim has reasonable prospects of success – leave for joinder granted – COURTS AND JUDGES – application by the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice for recusal on ground of apprehended bias – application refused
Department of Communities of Justice and the Holmes Children [2026] NSWChC 2
CHILD WELFARE — Care proceedings — s 256A — s 104A
Re Olsen Children [2025] NSWChC 12
CHILDREN — Care — Section 90 — The power to grant leave is only triggered where the Children’s Court is satisfied that a significant change in circumstances has occurred — Apart from clause 4 matters, the usual test as to whether there is a significant change in any relevant circumstances is to answer the following questions: is the child/young person now exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm? or is permanency planning now not appropriately and adequately addressed? or is there a change to a court’s previous finding regarding an unacceptable risk of harm (relevant to the orders sought)?
LF v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2026] NSWSC 212
CRIMINAL LAW – bail – release application – 14-year-old offender – confronting and difficult application – ten sets of offences – resort to violence – inability to control and regulate emotions – more positive recent progress – where sentencing proceedings in Children’s Court imminent – where defended hearings delayed
Rex v Dates and Dates [2025] NSWSC 415
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – improperly obtained evidence – allegation of murder – vulnerable person – LEPRA and regulations – 18 year old Aboriginal accused – where conduct of police calculated to infringe rights provided under legislation and regulation – where prosecution concedes impropriety – relevant considerations – assessment of police explanations for conduct – suggestion that questions asked out of “fairness” not accepted – whether impropriety deliberate or reckless – accused interviewed despite clear email from Aboriginal Legal Service that he wished to remain silent – grave impropriety – evidence excluded
T C v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] NSWSC 86
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction —appeal by rehearing — appellant was found guilty of property offences after a trial before judge alone
CRIME — appeal against conviction — offence of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 — presumption of doli incapax — whether Crown rebutted presumption on the available evidence — whether applicant understood that his acts were seriously or gravely wrong and not merely naughty or mischievous — RP v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 641 considered — evidence as to the applicant’s contemporaneous character or maturity not sufficient to rebut the presumption beyond reasonable doubt — appeal allowed
NSW Police v Evan [2025] NSWChC 10
CHILDREN — CRIME — interim orders – forensic procedure application —intimate and non-intimate forensic procedure — balance of public interest — unauthorised forensic procedure
CHILDREN – Criminal Law - Fitness to Plead
R v David, George, Roger [2025] NSWChC 13
CHILDREN — Jurisdiction — Nature of Forensic Procedure Applications
CHILDREN — Criminal Procedure — Whether the charges may not properly be disposed of in in the Children’s Court — Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020
Last updated: