GSF v William Campbell Foundation

Background

1. The Group A children have been in the care of the Applicants as long-term foster carers since about September 2017. In Child 3's case, she was taken into care and placed with the Applicants just weeks after her birth. Her brothers, Child 1 and Child 2, were placed with the Applicants at around the same time as Child 3 when they were then aged about five and three, respectively.
2. Prior to being placed in out-of-home care, Child 1 and Child 2 were the subject of numerous reports of both physical and psychological harm. From the documentation available to the Tribunal on the interlocutory hearing, it is clear that they had been the subject of severe mistreatment and abuse by their biological parents; before they entered care, they had been exposed to domestic violence, inadequate supervision, various manifestations of psychological harm, both had experienced bone fractures in circumstances which appeared to be related to neglect or mistreatment, and both were malnourished. Concerns had been raised to the Department about Child 1's welfare since he was just two weeks old. It is fair to conclude that children subjected to the trauma of abuse are particularly vulnerable and require care of the highest quality. Additionally, each of the Group A children has been diagnosed with neuro-developmental disorders and Child 1 and Child 2 have been diagnosed with coeliac disease. The Group A children have other siblings who are not presently relevant as they were not in the care of the Applicants.
3. The Group B children have been in the care of the Applicants since they were babies. Child 4 entered care and was placed with the Applicants when she was about ten months old in September 2021. Child 4 exhibits challenging behaviours, including towards food, that are consistent with early-life trauma. Child 4 has been diagnosed with a Global Developmental Delay and has a sufficient level of disability to receive funding under a NDIS plan. Child 5 entered care a year later, in September 2022, when she was only five months old. The Group B children have other siblings, including a younger brother whose care status is not known, though it appears in March 2024 that GSG was making inquiries of the Respondent about whether this younger sibling of the Group B children would be placed with the Applicants.
4. The Minister has parental responsibility for all of the children until they reach 18 years of age. Accordingly, I consider that the Minister, represented by Department of Communities and Justice (Department), should be joined as a party to these proceedings and will make orders to that effect.
5. Given the current age of the Group A children and Child 4, and the fact that they appeared to express views concerning their placement with the Applicants, I will make orders for separate representation for those children to assist the Tribunal in understanding what they wish the Tribunal to know when the matter comes to a final hearing.

Jurisdiction

1. Since the Respondent is a designated agency accredited by the Children's Guardian to provide statutory out-of-home care in the form of foster care in New South Wales pursuant to the Children's Guardian Act 2019 (NSW), s 72. I consider it to be a relevant decision-maker for the purposes of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (Care Act), s 245.
2. A decision by the Respondent, as a relevant decision-maker, to remove from authorised carers the responsibility for the daily care and control of a child or young person is an administratively reviewable decision: Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act s 245(1)(c). The Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW), s 28(1)(a), provides that a person may apply to the Tribunal for administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 9 in respect of an administratively reviewable decision of the kind made by the Respondent: see also the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 30.
3. I am satisfied that the Applicants are interested persons in the decisions for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(1). Accordingly, I consider that they have standing to bring an application for review.
4. Therefore, the two decisions to remove all five children are the decisions now before the Tribunal.
5. Since I have concluded that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Respondent that are the subject of these proceedings, I am satisfied, too, that I may proceed to determine the Applicant's application for interim orders filed on 30 October 2024.

Dealing with the application absent an internal review

1. The general rule is that an application to the Tribunal under the Administrative Decisions Review Act may not be made unless the applicant has applied for an internal review and the review is taken to have been finalised: Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(3). However, where an application for internal review has not been made or determined, the Tribunal may deal with the application if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to protect an applicant's interests and the application was made within a reasonable time: Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(4).
2. At the hearing of the interim application, the Respondent submitted that it had given the Applicants notice of either decision in writing as is required under both the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 48 and the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act, s 234. However, critically, in my consideration of whether to deal with the application absent an internal review, the Respondent failed to advise the Applicants that they had any review rights - internal or external - concerning the Respondent's decisions to remove the children.
3. The Respondent expressed in its notice concerning the first decision, which permanently ended the placement of the Group A children with the Applicants, the decision had been principally based on the findings of a Safety in Care assessment conducted by the Department, which substantiated that; 1. some or all of the Group A children were at risk of being, or had been, physically abused, 2. some or all of the Group A children had been or were at risk of psychological harm, 3. the Applicants do not protect the Group A children from harm; and 4. some or all of the Group A children were at risk of, or had, experienced harm from "pain-based behaviour".
4. In particular, the Safety in Care assessment found that the Applicants had physically and psychologically harmed Child 1 and Child 2: "[Child 1 and [Child 2] are fearful of being injured by [GSF] and feel unsafe to express themselves. They exhibit significant distress about their relationships with [GSF] and [GSG], and they are prevented from having a normal sibling connection with [Child 3]."
5. The Safety in Care assessment also found, in relation to Child 3, that: "Although [Child 3] has not experienced clear psychological harm, she is aware of [Child 1] and [Child 2] being treated differently to her; she has also been exposed to 'loud screaming' by both [GSF] and [GSG]. [Child 3] is aware that her brothers feel sad about how they are treated."
6. Taking into account the findings of the Safety in Care assessment and in summary, the Respondent concluded that the Group A children had to be removed from the Applicants because: The respondent has assessed risk to these children as serious risk, intermediate risk and cumulative risk of harm. The risks of harm have been substantiated by the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and are now referred to a reportable conduct investigation. The respondent's position is that these risks cannot be mitigated at this time.
7. In relation to the decision to remove the Group B children, the Respondent pointed to the conclusion of the Department's Safety in Care assessment in relation to those children, which concluded that the Applicants did not have the capacity or intention to make the changes required of them to provide a safe and protective environment for the Group B children. The notice of decision summarises, to some extent, the findings of Safety in Care assessment for the Group B children that the Group B children were at risk of being, or had been, physically abused; were at risk of being, or had been psychologically harmed; and that these the Applicants as carers had not protected the Group B children from harm by others.
8. The Applicants deny that they have physically harmed any of the children. The Applicant's submissions are silent in response to allegations of psychological abuse or harm; however, the first affidavit of GSF read on the interlocutory application denies allegations of psychological harm made against him (though he is silent about any allegations made against GSG) and he denies that either Applicant treats Child 3 preferentially from Child 1 and Child 2.
9. In submissions filed in support of their application for interim relief, the Applicants refer the Tribunal to the decision in FQT v Key Assets (No 1) [2022] NSWCATAD 416 in relation to the failure of the Respondent to provide adequate reasons or inform the Applicants of their rights of review. That was a proceeding where a different designated agency had removed children without notice of reasons for the decision being given. In that case, the Tribunal observed at [21]-[22] that: The providing of reasons for decision and internal review process provides an opportunity for an agency to examine and assess all the relevant information and explain the decision. Further, it was not suggested by the respondent that the children had been removed from the placement pursuant to any of the emergency powers which are available to them under the relevant legislation. The independent assessor report is dated over a month prior to the respondent advising the applicant that they are removing the children. In those circumstances it is peculiar and inappropriate, that an agency with case management of a matter, as sensitive as the care of children, should circumvent that process and not give to the applicant a notice of the decision in writing together with notice of her right to have the decision reviewed, as is part of the respondent's obligation under s 48 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act.
10. The observation of the tribunal in FQT at [21] is a practical one; the failure of the Respondent to observe the need to provide people such as the Applicants with an opportunity to seek internal review is a serious matter. This is particularly so in circumstances where the same Respondent has come before the Tribunal previously this year in circumstances where it made a decision to remove children from an authorised carer and failed to advise the authorised carer of her review rights: GHR v William Campbell Foundation [2024] NSWCATAD 120.
11. The issue of internal review aside, however, the facts in FQT are quite different from the present case: while the Group A children were removed without prior notice on a respite basis, the Applicants at least were provided with notice and, to some extent, reasons for the decision to remove the Group A and Group B children permanently.
12. However, as with FQT, the Applicants in this case have not sought internal review of the decisions to remove the children. This is contrary to the general rule under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(3). Accordingly, I must consider whether the circumstances set out in the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(4)(b) arise, that is: whether it is necessary to deal with the application to protect the Applicants' interests and whether the application was made within a reasonable time following the administratively reviewable decision.
13. The Applicants have applied for interim orders on an urgent basis to protect their interests and the interests, as they perceive them, of each of the children. In relation to Child 3, Child 4 and Child 5, the Applicants have been the sole carers of each of those children since their infancy. In the case of Child 1 and Child 2, the Applicants have been their carers for over seven years. It is apparent from the submissions made on their behalf and from GSF's evidence, as well as from general human experience, that the removal of the children from the Applicants has caused them significant turmoil and, more significantly, the Applicants fear that the removal of the children from their care may have a detrimental impact on their relationship with each of the children. While there is controversy over the level of attachment, particularly between the Applicants and Child 1, Child 2 and Child 4, it seems agreed between the parties that stability concerning where the children will reside is a matter that is closely linked to their well-being. Thus, I have concluded that it is necessary to deal with the application absent an internal review and the expedition such a course brings to the proceedings, so as to protect the Applicant's interests.
14. Further, having regard to the material before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that it is necessary to deal with the application absent an internal review because the Applicants have acted within a reasonable time, particularly with regard to the unexplained failure of the Respondent to inform them of their rights to internal and external review.
15. Having regard to the above matters, including the absence of written reasons, the fact that the Respondent did not advise the Applicants of the rights of review available to them, as well as having regard to the fact that each of the children has been removed from the care of the only parental figure they have known, the fact that it is not known, at least in the case of the Group A children, when a final decision will be made, much less when that decision will be subject to internal or external review, I find the matter does have a degree of urgency requiring the Tribunal to deal with the application to protect the Applicant's interests.
16. For those reasons, and most reluctantly, I have decided to deal with the application, notwithstanding that the Applicant did not apply to the Respondent for an internal review of the decision. In doing so, I note that the Respondent submitted that it did not oppose the Tribunal proceeding to deal with the application absent an internal review and went so far as to agree that, in the circumstances, that course was warranted. With great respect to the experienced representative who made that submission, the Respondent's attitude to the question is irrelevant, and I do not take it into account. However, I am not aware of any matter preventing the Respondent, when making an administratively reviewable decision, from adhering to the fundamental precepts of fairness in administrative decision-making; that is to say, it should set out its reasons, give the people affected the opportunity to be heard and advise those interested in the decision making of any rights they may have to internal and external review. Absent compelling reasons for departing from the normal course, the Tribunal would expect a Respondent to take that approach.

Principles concerning interim relief

1. The Tribunal has a statutory power to make orders affecting or staying the decision under review: Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 60(2).
2. At common law, the purpose of interim relief, particularly by way of interim injunction, is to preserve the status quo of the parties pending the final determination of the matter; Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC) v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 at [9]. The right to such relief lies in the need by the Applicants to ensure that a continuation of the alleged breach does not practically destroy their rights; Lenah at [12].
3. However, in proceedings involving the care of children who are in the out-of-home care system, the preservation of rights must be considered in light of the objects of the legislation which are set out in the Care Act, s 8: The objects of this Act are to provide - (a) that children and young persons receive such care and protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-being, having regard to the capacity of their parents or other persons responsible for them, and (a1) recognition that the primary means of providing for the safety, welfare and well-being of children and young persons is by providing them with long-term, safe, nurturing, stable and secure environments through permanent placement in accordance with the permanent placement principles, and (b) that all institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children and young persons provide an environment for them that is free of violence and exploitation and provide services that foster their health, developmental needs, spirituality, self-respect and dignity, and (c) that appropriate assistance is rendered to parents and other persons responsible for children and young persons in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities in order to promote a safe and nurturing environment.
4. Both the final review and consideration of interlocutory orders should also take account of the principles set out in Care Act, s 9, the paramount of those principles being at s 9(1): This Act is to be administered under the principle that, in any action or decision concerning a particular child or young person, the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person are paramount.
5. I note that the paramount principle relates to any action or decision, which must include a decision of this Tribunal, including a decision such as this, made on an interlocutory basis.
6. The Applicants seek interim orders, which are in the nature of reinstatement rather than stay, the children having already been removed from their care. In AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 81, the Court of Appeal, per Campbell JA at [96]-[97], noted that the powers of the Tribunal under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 60(2) are wider than the power to grant merely a stay. That case concerned the reinstatement of a licence, but the analysis of the text of the provision is apt in this case.
7. In addition to the objects and principles under the Care Act, the considerations to which the Tribunal should have regard in exercising its powers under s 60(2) are set out in the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 60(3). The operation of those provisions was considered in QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAP 113 at [31], where the Appeal Panel of this Tribunal set out the considerations that may be applied in considering an application, noting that such considerations can overlap or be related in a particular case: The Tribunal recently considered the power under s 60 of the ADR Act in Loveday v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 80 (Loveday). In that decision, it was held at [8]: "… Section 60(2) and (3) give the Tribunal a single discretionary power to make a stay order or to refuse to make such an order taking into account all relevant considerations. Secondly, the words "to secure the effectiveness of the hearing" include a situation where the applicant will suffer irreparable loss in the sense that no recompense for it can be obtained if the application is ultimately successful: Re Pelling and Secretary, Department of Aviation [1984] AATA 179; (1984) 5 ALD 638 at 639. It is not confined to the situation where a hearing would be pointless because the applicant will go out of business if a stay is refused. …" The relevant considerations in deciding whether to make an order under s 60(2) include: (1) whether the order is appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the determination of the application for review: ADR Act, s 60(2); (2) whether the order is desirable taking into account: (a) the interests of any persons who may be affected by the determination of the application for review: ADR Act, s 60(3)(a), Loveday at [10], Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798 (Re Scott) at [4]; (b) any submission made by or on behalf of the administrator who made the decision to which the application relates: ADR Act, s 60(3)(b), Loveday at [10], Re Scott at [4]; (c) the public interest: ADR Act, s 60(3)(c), Loveday at [10], Re Scott at [4]; (3) the applicant's prospects of success on the application for review: AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 81 at [129], Loveday at [10] and [11], Re Scott at [4].
8. Accordingly, in considering the factual findings made below and the submissions of the parties, it is with those principles that the Tribunal must engage.
9. I note that the application and its hearing concerned an interim - not a final - determination. An interim order intends to preserve, subject to the paramount principle of the Care Act, the interests of the parties and others, not to determine the matter finally. Neither the Applicants nor the Respondent have been given the chance to prepare, file and serve all evidence relevant to the proceedings on which they would want to rely. The material before the Tribunal has not been subject to thorough challenge or testing. For their part, as I note above, the Applicants challenge many of the allegations made against them.

The evidence in support of the application for interim relief

1. On the interlocutory application, the Applicants rely on two affidavits from GSF that were read at the interlocutory hearing and a 540-page bundle of documents.
2. GSG did not give evidence. In that regard, the Tribunal did not have the chance to be informed directly from GSG of her views on the application in circumstances where, according to the documents available to the Tribunal, she is the principal carer on a day-to-day basis of the children, it is she who often the subject of verbal and sometimes physical attacks by Child 1 and Child 2. It is she who has previously expressed, on many occasions, a desire that the placement for Child 1 and Child 2 be ended.
3. In his first affidavit, which is dated 11 November 2024 but, in fact, seems to have been made on 4 November 2024, GSF provided some background about his working life, his marriage and family with GSG and their experience as foster carers. GSF then described the family life with the children, noting that GSG is the primary carer, and set out the involvement of GSG's mother in their care, who is also an authorised carer with the Respondent. GSF states that the children refer to his parents as "nan and pop". GSF then describes each of the children in largely positive terms.
4. GSF then describes the removal of the Group A children into respite care on 9 September 2024. GSF also states that the schooling of the Group A children has been disrupted, that important medical and other appointments have been missed or postponed because of the removal, that the Applicants have only had one Facetime call with the Group A children since and that it is his understanding that Child 3 is not allowed her favourite foods and is instead being required to eat the same food as Child 1 and Child 2, both of whom have coeliac disease and therefore must not be allowed to eat food containing gluten.
5. GSF states that after the Group A children were removed, the Group B children remained in the Applicants' care until they, too, were removed on 17 October 2024. GSF says the Group B children were scared and crying when they were removed. The Group B children were initially placed with the same carers as the Group A children, but this arrangement did not last, and the Group B children are now placed in a separate placement. By his first affidavit GSF says neither he nor GSG have had any contact with the Group B children since their removal - a period of nearly three weeks.
6. GSF then goes on to address the findings made in the Safety In Care assessment conducted by the Department, which GSF refers to as allegations. GSF informs the Tribunal that he understands the Respondent will also conduct a reportable conduct investigation. GSF expressly denies the findings of physical assault that have been made against him; he points to the fact that some of the alleged physical harm events described would not be possible given, for example, the set-up of Child 1 and Child 2's bedroom. GSF states that any time there has been a problem, including where Child 1 and Child 2 have hurt each other, he and GSG have reported it to the Respondent. GSF stated that until they experienced difficulties in the behaviour of Child 1 and Child 2 in February 2024, they had never sought respite care for the Group A children.
7. GSF also denies all findings of psychological harm made against him and the allegations that the Applicants have failed to meet the basic needs of the children. He states that neither he nor GSG have treated the children differently from each other but instead have provided support for each child's interests and have supported all the children educationally, emotionally, medically, and socially. He has cooperated with the Respondent. GSF did acknowledge that "[Child 1] and [Child 2] did miss out on some things as a consequence of their behaviour" but insisted this would be an approach to the same behaviour of the girls (i.e. Child 3, Child 4 and Child 5).
8. GSF did acknowledge that his mother had reported her concern that Child 1 and Child 2 were exhibiting some sexualised behaviours that were not age-appropriate, including touching each other's genitals, exposing their genitals, pulling at clothing (theirs and that of other children at school), and he stated that the Applicants reported any concerning activity to the Respondent as it arose. GSF stated that he and GSG "do not leave [Child 1] or [Child 2] with the girls. We tell the boys not to touch the girls and engage in boundaries and not intruding on personal space." GSF stated that he was taken aback by the allegation that the Applicants and GSF's mother had labelled Child 1 and Child 2 as being "sexual predators". I cannot place great weight on GFS's evidence that he was surprised by this comment when the records indicate that he has previously expressed significant concerns about Child 1 and Child 2 sexually touching other children, the Applicants have installed a surveillance camera in bedroom of Child 1 and Child 2, the Applicants have enforced a rule about those children should not be in the lounge room unsupervised and where GSF has indicated that he considers Child 1 resembles his biological father who is the subject of some suspicion of carrying out child sexual abuse.
9. In addressing the finding that the Applicants, in particular, GSG, had failed to protect the children, GSF then stated that, as far as GSG was concerned, she could not have failed to protect the children from harm because no harm had occurred.
10. GSF nonetheless offered to move out of the home so that all the children could be returned to the care of GSG. In those circumstances, the Tribunal would have been assisted to have received evidence from GSG relating to her ability to cope with the care of five children, all of whom have complex needs, on her own in circumstances where GSF stated they worked as a team, and to have understood from her what she had to say about the allegations and findings made in the Safety In Care assessment.
11. GSF also stated that he and GSG were willing to undertake whatever training was required and to take whatever assistance was offered in order to have the children returned to their care. GSF noted that, at least in 2022 and 2023, he and GSG had been discussing guardianship and adoption of the children and had "made it clear that the children are welcome in our home forever, including after the age of 18 years".
12. The large bundle of material was subsequently duplicated, in large part, by the Respondent's materials. I will refer to key documents from the Applicants' bundle in my findings below.
13. In his second affidavit, GSF gives evidence about a face-to-face visit that he and GSG had with the Group B children on 5 November 2024. GSF stated that there were rules placed around the level of physical interaction allowed between the Group B children and the Applicants and that GSF's father, who happened to be passing by, was asked to leave the visit. GSF stated that the girls appeared poorly dressed and were distressed when they had to leave.
14. GFS also gave evidence in his second affidavit of the Applicants' first face-to-face contact with the Group A children, which took place the day after the Group B children's visit. In summary, GSF stated that: 1. He felt the Group A children were guarded in what they said and that he is aware the Group A children had been told, after the application before the Tribunal had been commenced, that they would not be returning to the Applicants' care. 2. Child 2 appeared to be limping and injured, which he reported as being the result of Child 1's conduct. Child 2 also had long, dirty fingernails. 3. Child 3 was disappointed that she could not celebrate Halloween and was concerned about her pets; 4. Both Child 1 and Child 2 were "quieter" than usual, and Child 3 was "not herself at all". However, GSF stated each child made express indications of their wish to be reunited with the Applicants, including that Child 1 and Child 2 were seeking to ensure they had contact details for the Applicants so they could get in contact or reunite when they turned 18, and what would happen if, by that stage, GSF and GSG had ended their relationship. With respect to the relationship issue, GSF stated, "I am concerned about this and where it is coming from as [GSG] and I have a very strong relationship, and there is no doubt about the status of our relationship".

Findings from the Applicants' evidence

1. From the Applicant's evidence, I am satisfied that: 1. The children have been distressed and upset by their removal from the Applicant's care. 2. The Applicants have been given limited contact with the children since they were removed, and this has impacted on the well-being of the Applicants and, more importantly, on the well-being of the children who have been distressed at times. 3. The children have missed some important medical and other appointments. 4. The Group A children have had to change schools and have experienced the usual stressors associated with such a change. 5. While in their care, the Group A children, particularly Child 1 and Child 2, have presented behavioural and other challenges to the Applicants, which have not been resolved in a manner that is satisfactory for the safety and well-being of those children. 6. All of the children have an emotional attachment to the Applicants, which arises from their lengthy placement. 7. The Applicants are very determined to proceed to a review before the Tribunal of the decisions to remove the children.

The Respondent's evidence opposing interim relief

1. In anticipation of the Tribunal making orders under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(4), the Respondent had filed two sets of documents pursuant to the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 58; the first bundle which covered in excess of 100 documents and over 600 pages concerned the Respondent's decision to remove the Group A children from the Applicants' care (Group A Bundle), and the second bundle, also voluminous, concerning the Respondent's decision to remove the Group B children from the Applicants' care (Group B Bundle).
2. A significant document is the Department's Safety in Care assessment concerning Group A children, which comes in two parts. The first part, in the Group A Bundle, shows an extensive investigation of the care arrangements for the Group A children. As noted above, it substantiated the findings of harm to each of the three children.
3. Part one of the Safety in Care assessment concludes in the following terms: Immediate Safety [Child 1], [Child 2], and [Child 3] are currently safe in their respite placement. Long-term placement with [GSF] and [GSG] Several harm and risk types have been substantiated for [Child 1], [Child 2] and [Child 3] in their placement with [GSF] and [GSG], including harm related to prohibitive practice. Considering the history of protective supports provided by WCF, it is unlikely that further protective supports would produce an acceptable level of safety for children in this placement. The children cannot safely return to placement with [GSF] and [GSG].
4. In the course of the interlocutory hearing, the Respondent also supplied the second part of the Safety In Care assessment, which set out two suggested outcomes as a result of the assessment process: 1. The first was that there should be a change of placement for the Group A children, i.e. they should not remain in the care of the Applicants. In that regard, the assessment stated, among other things, that the Group A children "must remain together, in a household with no other children, to allow their carers to focus on their need for reparative parenting". Child 1 and Child 2 needed their own bedrooms as well as carers who had a demonstrated knowledge of and ongoing commitment to trauma-informed parenting and reparative care. The assessment records that the Group A children needed immediate access to therapeutic support to manage the transition provided "by a psychologist with significant experience in out-of-home care". As to the Applicants, this suggested course included the suggestion that their authorisation as carers be reviewed and that the benefit of ongoing contact with the Group A children "be reviewed according to the children's wishes"; or 2. The second suggestion considered the possible restoration of the Group A children to the Applicants but only after the Applicants had undergone significant assessment and training and were able to "clearly demonstrate willingness and capacity to change, and to maintain improvements over time" and where the Group B children were removed from the Applicants' care to ensure that the Group A children were the only children in the house. 3. The Safety in Care assessment concluded with the recommendation that the Applicants have no further children placed with them.
5. The Respondent also read four affidavits from two of its employees, both of whom are permanency support program team leaders with knowledge of the circumstances of the children. While neither of these witnesses is the assigned case worker for either the Group A children or the Group B children, it appears the assigned case workers report to these witnesses, and as such, I am satisfied that I may give weight to the matters they depose to: 1. Renae Dowd made two affidavits, the first dated 5 November 2024 and the second dated 12 November 2024. Ms Dowd gives evidence based on her direct knowledge of the care of the Group A children. 2. There were also two affidavits from Kerry Roddam, also dated 5 and 12 November 2024. Ms Roddam gives evidence based on her knowledge of the care of the Group B children.
6. In her affidavits, Ms Dowd addresses the care and removal of the Group A Children, and in doing so, she provides a chronological account from, relevantly, about January 2024. She states that: 1. In January 2024, the Applicants reported that they were experiencing difficult and challenging behaviours from Child 1 and Child 2. 2. In February 2024, GSG told the Respondent's case worker that GSF and GSG were considering separating and wanted to know about how to co-parent Child 3, Child 4 and Child 5, that she did not want to continue a relationship with Child 1 or Child 2. I note that in his affidavit, GSF refers to Child 1 and Child 2 inquiring about what might happen if the Applicants are no longer in a relationship, to which GSF says he is concerned about the source of the children's information. Ms Dowd replied in her second affidavit that GSG had contacted the Respondent's caseworker about separating from GSF. Further, Ms Dowd refutes any suggestion that Respondent's employees have discussed the Applicant's relationship with any of the Group A children. 3. GSG also sought respite care for Child 1 and Child 2 because the Applicants were under pressure due to challenging behaviours exhibited by those children. While at respite, Child 1 and Child 2 told their respite carers that they wanted to stay with the respite carers "as they felt they mattered here". 4. In March 2024, the Respondent conducted a complex case review. The review appears to have been initiated because of Child 1 and Child 2's increasingly challenging behaviour, which involved targeting and insulting GSG and having daily, hours-long meltdowns and dysregulation. Ms Dowd states that the review was to address concerns about Child 1 and Child 2's placement with the Applicants and to address concerns (presumably of the Respondent) that the Applicants lacked attachment to Child 1 and Child 2 and had unrealistic expectations of their behaviour. I note that the records of interview of Child 1 and Child 2 in the Safety in Care assessment report those children as feeling unsafe when they are dysregulated. Ms Dowd also states that the review was in response to GSG's belief that Child 3 would benefit from not living with Child 1 and Child 2 and the respite carer's reports that Child 1 and Child 2 did not feel loved and were treated differently from Child 3. Recorded in the complex review notes are the following: 1. GSG told the Respondent that it would be better for Child 3 if she did not live with her brothers because their behaviour prevented the family from doing activities together. 2. GSG disclosed that she was considering leaving her relationship with GSF if he continued to insist that the placement continue. 3. Child 1 and Child 2 had also told their respite carer that they did not feel loved and were treated differently from Child 3 when under the care of the Applicants. 1. After the complex case review, Ms Dowd states that the Applicants were given greater support and Child 1 and Child 2 were enrolled in some further mentoring programs. The support given to the Applicants included family therapist Rose Mackey. In reviewing Ms Mackey's reports and other documentation adjacent to the March 2024 review, I note in that many of the incidents reported by the Applicants about Child 1 and Child 2 concern allegations that they are acting dishonestly, being sneaky, being inauthentic (in relation to Child 1) or acting manipulatively. This is a repeated theme and Child 1 and Child 2 reflect those themes in their Safety in Care assessment interview. One example was that they "convinced" their mentor to buy them milkshakes or iced drinks and then had the mentor chip in some extra money to purchase a game console. There is a range of responses to behaviours of this type - some parents and carers might regard this kind of behaviour as enterprising, clever or even charming. In this case, the Applicants regarded the behaviour as being manipulative and dishonest and warranting consequences: the game console was confiscated, and Child 1 and Child 2 were required to consume only food that had been packed for them. Another example was when Child 2 was trying to remove wrappers of food he and Child 1 had consumed from the household pantry that contained gluten by placing the wrappers in a box of construction bricks that his biological father had given him. When challenged about wanting to throw the box away, there appears to have been some confrontation by GSG, who suspected Child 2 was being deceitful, which resulted in Child 2 running off, having been "found out", i.e. that the box was full of wrappers of food he was not allowed to eat. In a different context, such behaviour may have been regarded as being appropriately dealt with using a low-intensity approach. Another example is reports from the Applicants to the Respondents about Child 1 and Child 2 telling on each other about misbehaviour - where the child who told on the other appears to be as much the subject of criticism as the child said to have misbehaved. All of these examples suggest that, from early in 2024, the Applicants' relationship with Child 1 and Child 2 was characterised by mistrust and conflict. 2. Ms Dowd states that the Respondent provided carer support sessions to the Applicants with Ms Mackay of Relational Minds Social Work Services. In the six months between the beginning of May and the end of September 2024, the Applicants, who were meant to attend fortnightly, managed to attend eight sessions due to the Applicants cancelling or scheduling appointments. Ms Mackey's reports from each session are the Group A Bundle; they show the Applicants being unusually focused on the apparently sexualised behaviours of Child 1 and Child 2, and there are repeated quotations from the Applicants describing those children in highly negative terms. The Applicants show, in the documentation, both exhaustion and a sense of determination to retain care of Child 1 and Child 2. The Applicants also express concerns about the negative impact of Child 1 and Child 2's behaviours on the other children in their care. In her final report, Ms Mackay noted two issues concerning the Tribunal, which the Applicants say reflect comments they made that are out of context. The matters of concern are quoted from Ms Mackay's report as follows: 3. Firstly; Constant monitoring can affect children's interna[l] working models. Children often internalise their parents'/carers views of them, which can have a profound impact on their self-esteem and self-worth. The use of a camera in the bedroom may be a restrictive practice as may not be allowing the boys to enter the lounge room unless [GSG] or [GSF] are present. It may also be psychologically abusive. This needs to be considered and clear guidance provided on these actions continuing should the children be placed back with [GSF] and [GSG] 1. And secondly, in Ms Mackay's concluding remarks; The conversations in the carer support sessions have demonstrated a largely negative view of James and Mitchell mainly by [GSG] but also by [GSF]. How the girls, especially [Child 3] are discussed by [GSF] and [GSG] is different and positive compared to how the boys are discussed. 1. In August 2024, the Respondent conducted a second complex case review. Mr Dowd states that this was because the Respondent had ongoing concerns about the placement of Child 1 and Child 2 with the Applicants. In the course of this review, the Respondent noted, for the first time, that the Applicants were divided in their parenting and that GSF was over-vigilant of Child 1 and Child 2 because he was concerned that Child 1 and Child 2 might be sexually touching Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5. Those concerns are reflected in Ms Mackay's report and are referred to in paragraph 62(7) above of these reasons. 2. On 5 September 2024, before a meeting with the Applicants to discuss the second complex care review had been arranged, Child 2 disclosed to a responsible adult that he was being physically harmed by GSF and emotionally harmed by GSG. 3. By 10 September 2024, the Respondent had decided to move the Group A children into respite care while the Department conducted a Safety in Care assessment. When the Group A children arrived at respite care, the female respite carer reported that she noticed a disparity in the quality and size of the children's belongings; specifically, Child 3 had a substantial amount of "brand name" clothes including properly marked school uniforms and electronic devices, whereas her brothers had worn generic clothes from a discount department store without properly marked school logos on their uniforms and very few belongings. The respite carer also reported that Child 1 and Child 2 were hyper-vigilant about keeping Child 3 happy and meeting her demands; they told the respite carer that they couldn't upset Child 3 or else they would get into trouble and have to be sent to their room. 4. After they were removed from their care, GSF sent an email to the Respondent setting out his fears, and apparently, that of GSG and his mother, that Child 3 was not safe because she was at risk of being sexually abused by her brothers. Ms Dowd states that in response to the email, the Respondent's caseworker for the Group A children consulted Ms Mackay about this issue, who informed that case worker that: It had been difficult for [Ms Mackay] to understand what has actually happened in the household to warrant [GSG] and [GSF]'s fears because they have never been able to provide actual examples of incidents that demonstrate [Child 1] and [Child 2] displaying inappropriate sexualised behaviours. It is [Ms Mackay]'s belief that the boys lack nurture, touch and connection and that they are seeking this from the three younger female children in the home. [Ms Mackay] stated she thinks that [Child 1] and [Child 2] lack boundaries, but only because of the circumstances and the fact that they have not been taught what is appropriate and what is not. When looking at what is considered inappropriate sexual behaviours, [Ms Mackay] had not had anything stand out to her to suggest this is the case with [Child 1] and [Child 2]. 1. On 4 October 204, the Group A children were each interviewed by the Department as part of the Safety in Care assessment. Ms Dowd states they attended the interviews with their caseworker. In the course of his interview, Child 2 disclosed that: 1. when Child 2 was having a meltdown, GSF would restrain him by squeezing him tightly enough that it hurt, and sometimes GSF would dig his nails into Child 2 while holding him tightly; 2. that GSF would also cover Child 2's mouth and tell him to shut up - when Child 2 is yelling; 3. forcibly removing Child 2 from Child 1's bed at night, squeezing him on the floor and then removing Child 2 from the room, catching Child 2's head as he passes him through the door; 4. GSG has told him that no one would want him because he is naughty; 5. that GSG has told him not to speak to her; 6. that GSG required Child 2 to leave the lounge room whenever she is present and that Child 2 is required to go then to his bedroom where GSF "has taken all the toys out ages ago and I have nothing to do in there except read and I have read all the books already". 7. Child 2 also disclosed that he and Child 1 were treated quite differently from Child 3 and the Group B children, for example, Child 1 and Child 2 had been left out of a family holiday to Canberra because they had misbehaved. 8. Ms Dowd states that on 18 October 2024, the Group B children were removed from the same respite placement as the Group A children because the respite carer notices that the Group A children had regressed and, in particular, Child 3 had seemed less confident and needed reassurance after the Group B children arrived. At about this same date, Ms Dowd says the respite carer made the following disclosure of concern to the Respondent: … she and the kids were talking and eye masks for sleeping came up in the conversation. [Child 1] and [Child 2] told her that they used to have them, but not for sleeping, they were for them to wear in the car because [GSG] said they stared at her too much.
7. While GSG's conduct has not been the subject of specific findings, it is nonetheless highly concerning, and both parties will need the opportunity to address these issues at a hearing.
8. In her affidavits, Ms Roddam addresses the care and removal of the Group B children, and in doing so, she provides a chronological account of the placement from, relevantly, about August 2023. Contrary to the Applicant's submissions, the events leading up to the removal of the Group B children appear to have been extant more than a year ago. In her affidavit, Ms Roddam states that: 1. Throughout the placement of Child 4 with the Applicants, there have been reported difficulties in attachment between GSG and Child 4; 2. The former caseworker who reported to Ms Roddam up to June 2024 had discussed with Ms Roddam, on multiple occasions, that the Applicants were considering ending the placement because they could not manage Child 4's behaviours and because GSG was unable to form an appropriate emotional attachment with Child 4. 3. In August 2023, the case worker documented a concern from the staff at the daycare centre that Child 4 attended that Child 4 was being left in daycare for eight and half hours a day, four days per week and that the Applicants had requested an additional fifth day of care. Around this time, GSG stated to the case worker that Child 4 was "miserable in the placement and would be better off in a 1:1 placement". 4. The fragility of Child 4's placement with the Applicants was noted separately on two occasions last year: the first in Child 4's therapeutic case at the end of September 2023 and again, in December 2023, at an appointment with Child 4's paediatrician, where the doctor noted that the Applicants were struggling with Child 4's behaviours and were considering relinquishing her. 5. Ms Roddam states that Child 4 had her medication increased in late May 2024. Still, by August 2024, in the course of a review of the restrictive practices available to care for Child 4, the Respondent became concerned that Child 4 was being routinely administered an additional dose of her medication at lunchtime that was intended to be administered only on an "as-needed" basis. In her second affidavit, Ms Roddam states that she has reviewed the medication log of the day care centre, which shows that the lunchtime dose was administered every day instead of as needed. In her second affidavit, Ms Roddam also notes that the current carers have found that Child 4 suffers from several side effects of her medication and that the child experiences sensations in her hands and feet associated with the medication. 6. Ms Roddam states that the Respondent remained concerned, in August and September 2024, about the amount of medication being provided to Child 4 and the fact that she was now attending daycare from 9 AM to 5 PM five days per week. 7. According to her affidavit, Ms Roddam states that arising from the outcome of the Safety in Care assessment concerning the Group A children, she and the new case worker assigned to the Group B children completed a risk assessment. Pausing there, I consider that this step was entirely necessary and appropriate. The Respondent, having received notice of a Safety in Care assessment which found harms to be substantiated in respect of one group of children in the care of the Applicants, was duty-bound to make sufficient inquiries concerning the safety of any other children in the Applicant's care. 8. Separately, Ms Roddam stated that the Department had conducted a Safety in Care Assessment for the Group B children the findings of which she summaries in the following terms: There were three areas of substantiated risk of harm identified for [Child 4] and [Child 5] in the [Safety in Care] assessment. The outcome of the assessment was that [GSF] and [GSG] do not have the capacity or intention to make the changes required to provide a safe and protective placement for [Child 4] and [Child 5]. The assessment also identified that [GSF] and [GSG] have not demonstrated they can meet their obligations as outlined in the Charter of Rights for children in Out of Home Care. Recommendations from the assessment: WCF commence recruitment of long-term carers who can meet the needs of [Child 4] and [Child 5]. 1. Ms Roddam states that the Group B children were first placed with the same respite carers as the Group A children but that this placement was not conducive to the wellbeing of the Group A children. The Group B children were placed with other carers who indicated that they were willing to provide ongoing care in the event the Group B children were not returned to the Applicants' care. While in respite, the Group B children, in particular Child 4, appear to be comfortable and happy. The respite carers have reported that Child 4 does not require the additional dosage she was receiving while under the Applicants' care. 2. Ms Roddam states that Child 4 said "no" when told she was to have a visit with the Applicants and that she became "highly dysregulated and upset". The report annexed to Ms Roddam's second affidavit records that both Child 4 and Child 5 returned home after the contact visit and hid under their beds, calling the respite carers "poo poo heads" which the respite carers interpreted as meaning that the Group B children felt confused about not being at home with the Applicants and that they missed the Applicants. 3. In her second affidavit, in particular, Ms Roddam states that the Group B children were settled in their placement. In particular Child 4, who had a history of sleep difficulties, is sleeping soundly and was responding positively to increased praise and co-regulation strategies adopted by the respite carers. 4. Ms Roddam then refers to a case note of an incident of concern to the Tribunal, which is that: On 9 November 2024 [Child 5] (2 years) soiled her pants, which [Child 4] commented was 'really naughty'. The respite carer's commented that it's not naught it was just an accident. [Child 4] replied to say her mum (referring to [GSG]) says its naughty to go to the toilet in your pants. The respite carers reassured [Child 5] that she was not in trouble and accidents happen. …

Findings from the Respondent's evidence

1. The Respondent's evidence shows that, up until about January 2024, the Applicants appeared to have been coping with what many would consider a herculean task of caring for five children, most of whom have complex needs and challenging behaviours. Prior to January 2024, it seems the placement of all the children with the Applicants seems to have proceeded without any substantial incidents, and they appear to have been adequately supported by the Respondent in carrying out their role.
2. It is clear from the material filed by the Respondent that the Applicants have struggled with the burden of caring for Child 1, Child 2 and Child 4, throughout the last 12 months and that this struggle has had ramifications on the other children in their care.
3. To the extent necessary on an interim application, I am satisfied that the Department's Safety in Care assessment's conclusions that the Group A children are at risk of physical and psychological harm if they remain in the placement and its recommendations that all the children be removed are sufficiently based in fact and are consistent with the prior documentary record, which is both lengthy and detailed. The allegations are set out at length above.
4. The Department's Safety in Care assessment concludes that the Group A children cannot safely return to a placement with the Applicant. It then, in part two, suggests a possible path forward that is predicated on significant training and change taking place in the Applicants' approach. In circumstances where the Applicants are unable or unwilling to meet the recommended changes, there is a real question of whether the proceedings, at least with respect to the Group A children, have any utility - but that is a matter that the Tribunal does not need to determine on an interlocutory basis.
5. Also, the extent necessary on an interim application, I consider the Department's Safety in Care assessment for the Group B children was a sufficient basis upon which the Respondent's decision to move those children into respite care was made.
6. I am also satisfied that further information collected from the respite carers of both the Group A children and the Group B children suggests that all of the children are safe, happy, comfortable and, to a large extent, thriving in their respite placements. While I accept the Applicants' submission that respite care can feature a so-called honeymoon period for children in out-of-home care, and while I do not consider the growth spurts of Child 1 and Child 2 to be anything more than co-incidental to their removal, I am nonetheless satisfied that those placements are the most appropriate place for the children to be while the proceedings are underway.
7. I note that the Applicants contend that all of the children have reported to the Applicants during their supervised contact visits that there have been behaviours of concern by the respite carers, including injuries, food issues, discipline and being exposed to potentially restrictive practices. I do not accept that the evidence rises as high as this. Moreover, the Respondent has produced evidence which adequately answers those matters.
8. I find that the Applicants should, however, have greater continued and more extensive contact with both the Group A children and the Group B children to ensure that, in the event that any or all of the children are returned to the Applicants, they are not further traumatised and to ensure, in the event the Applicants are not successful, that the children do not feel abandoned and have a sense of on-going connection with the Applicants who have been a very significant part of their young lives.

Public interest considerations

1. While neither party made submissions as to where the public interest lies in this case, I have had regard to the objects and principles set out in the Care Act, ss 8 and 9 and the following observations of Brereton J in Secretary of Family and Community Services v Allana Pearl Smith [2016] NSWSC 1384 at [30]: "… there is consideration public interest in the welfare of children in out-of-home care'
2. Accordingly, I have considered there is public interest in making orders in the advancement of the welfare of the children.

Safety and welfare of the children

1. I note that the Department's Safety in Care assessments for both the Group A and the Group B children have concluded that the Applicants should only have children returned to their care after they have shown the ability to adapt and change their approach and have received adequate training and support in that regard. It seems that while the proceedings are underway, this would be the optimal time for the Applicants to take steps to address that recommendation.
2. On the evidence available, and at this early stage in the proceedings, the Respondent's decisions to remove the children was made in response to long-running concerns that culminated in a detailed investigation by the Department and the conclusion, arising from that investigation, that the risk of harm to the Group A children was substantiated. With regard to the decision to remove the Group B children, that appears to have been based on, again, long-term concerns about the stability of the placement and the risk assessment, which took into account the Department's findings about the Applicant's continued suitability to be authorised carers.
3. Having found that the children are safe in their current placements, I consider that the safety and welfare of the children are best served by their remaining in their current placements and not in the care of the Applicants at this time.
4. Based on the factual findings above, I turn now to address the principles applicable to an application for interim relief of this kind.

Conclusion on whether it is desirable to make orders

1. Having considered the material before the Tribunal and having considered the public interest in this case, I am satisfied that there is a present risk to the safety, welfare and well-being of the Group A children and the Group B children in being returned to the care of the Applicants. I, therefore, cannot be satisfied, having regard to the material before me, that the welfare of the children is best served by making orders for them to be returned to the placement pending the determination of this matter.

Are the orders necessary to secure the effectiveness of the determination?

1. I accept that if the children remain out of the Applicants' care until this matter is finally determined, they will have adjusted to their new placements. While they are all currently in temporary placements, all the evidence points to the Respondent not having them returned to the Applicants - indeed, the Group A children have been told they will not return.
2. In circumstances where the children are placed elsewhere and adjust to those new placements, it may well be the case that, by the time the matter is finally determined, it will not be in the best interests of the children to be returned to the Applicants - even where the Tribunal concludes that the decision under review is not the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal, in those circumstances, would have regard to the potential harm caused to the children by moving them from another placement where they are safe, happy and settled. This would cause irreparable loss to the Applicants as it would mean they would permanently lose the care of the children irrespective of the outcome of these proceedings: DHJ v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2018] NSWCATAD 45 at [55]. However, the prejudice to the interests of the Applicant cannot overcome the clear findings of the Department that the Group A children have been harmed and are likely to be subjected to further harm.
3. The Applicants' interests in proceedings such as these are not paramount. I am satisfied to the extent necessary on an interim application that, while the Applicants are determined and motivated and sincerely wish to have all the children returned to their care, their conduct during the placement with respect to the Group A children, in particular Child 1 and Child 2, has caused the children harm and is likely to cause further harm to those children and Child 3 into the future.
4. In that respect, the facts in the present case differ from the facts in cases of DHJ, FQT or GHR, I note for example that: 1. In DHJ, the Department sought to move a child to the care of grandparents who were also the caring for that child's siblings - there were no allegations concerning the conduct of the foster carer. 2. In FQT, the agency sought to remove children where there were vague allegations of sexualised conduct between children in care and some matters concerning the foster carer's level of supervision around water and housekeeping. 3. In GHR, there were no findings of harm against the authorised carer against the children, the subject of the proceedings, and an alternative assessment prepared by the Department found the children were not at risk of harm.
5. Neither party submitted that it would be acceptable for any child in either of the sibling groups to be returned on their own to the Applicants (for example, have Child 3 or Child 5 returned only). Had such a submission been made, I would have rejected it. Sibling bonds are life-long and significant, and where possible, siblings should be cared for as a group. Indeed, the Safety in Care assessment promotes the view that differential treatment between Child 1 and Child 2, on the one hand and Child 3, on the other, is a source of particular psychological harm to each of those children.

Conclusion

1. Having heard from the parties, considered the material tendered and considered the public interest, I have concluded that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to make an interim order to have the children returned to the care of the Applicants.
2. I do consider it desirable that there be in place a regime to attempt to preserve as far as possible the position of the Applicants while ensuring the continued safety of the children. That is that regime should be, at least: 1. The Applicants have Facetime contact with the Group A twice-weekly and Group B children, separately, also twice-weekly. 2. That the Respondent arrange for in-person supervised visits to occur each fortnight with the Group A children and each fortnight with the Group B children. 3. That a social story, particularly for the Group A children, which should include pictures and contact details of the Applicants and GSF's parents who they refer to as grandparents and should also include information about GSG's adult children who were a feature of the children's lives.
3. The substantive review of the matter should proceed with expedition. I note that the Respondent has already filed the Group A Bundle and Group B Bundle and so directions will need to be made for the filing and service of the Applicants' evidence and any expert evidence. I will have the Registry place the matter in the next available Community Services directions list for the purpose of establishing a timetable for the matter to progress.
4. I will make orders that the DCJ be joined as a Respondent and notified of the next directions hearing.
5. As noted above, having regard to the fact that the Group A children are of an age where their views may be of assistance to the Tribunal and in circumstances where they have interests which may differ from the Applicants and the Respondent, I will order that the Group A children be separately represented.

Orders

1. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 1. The application for administrative review of the Respondent's decision to remove the children the subject of these proceedings from the care of the Applicants is to be dealt with by the Tribunal notwithstanding that the Applicants have not applied for an internal review of the decision. 2. The application for an interim order that the children be returned immediately to the care of the Applicants is dismissed. 3. The Respondent is to ensure that the Applicants have continued supervised contact with the children on at least the following basis: 1. The Applicants have Facetime or other, similar audio-visual contact with the Group A twice-weekly. 2. The Applicants have Facetime or other, similar audio-visual contact with the Group B twice-weekly. 3. The Respondent is to arrange for in-person supervised visits to occur each fortnight between the Applicants and the Group A children. 4. The Respondent is to arrange for in-person supervised visits to occur each fortnight between the Applicants and the Group B children. NOTE: Either, or all, parties are at liberty to file with the Tribunal an application for miscellaneous matters seeking to vary or revoke the interim orders at (3) concerning the nature, mode and extent of supervised contact. 1. The Respondent is to ensure that a social story for the children includes pictures and contact details of the Applicants and their extended family who have featured in the children's lives. 2. The Group A children and Child 4 are to be separately represented. 3. Department of Communities and Justice is joined as a Respondent. 4. Pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64(1)(A), the publication or broadcast of the names of the children the subject to of these proceedings and the Applicants is prohibited. 5. Pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 65, the publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant, any person who appears as a witness and any child referred to in these proceedings is prohibited NOTE: A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar 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: 13 December 2024