DCPL v Powers (a pseudonym)[2025] QChCM 2

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

On 22 May 2024 the six children of the respondent parents went into the care of the State. Although there are many contributing factors, the immediate cause of the children coming into care was a decline in the mother’s mental health, which began after the birth of the youngest child. The father was, by that time, separated from the mother and living in his own accommodation. Although the father had lived with the mother and children until relatively recently, he never assisted the mother with the physical work or household tasks involved in parenting. Importantly, despite being aware of the children’s increasingly precarious circumstances as the mother’s mental health declined, the father did not step in to assist the children prior to Child Safety’s involvement.

The children have different placements, needs and some are not the subject of this trial:

When the matter came on for trial, I was advised that the parties had agreed to orders in line with the application, placing each child in the custody of the Chief Executive (Child Safety) for two years. On considering whether to make the orders consented to by the parties, I indicated that I was reluctant to make orders in the cases of the older boys, aged 8, 6, and 2 (‘the boys’), because they were being cared for in a residential placement (‘resi’). I was concerned that was a real risk that the boys would remain in resi for the duration of the order.

The applicant, the DCPL, indicated that in those circumstances, it would seek to satisfy me that the order was nevertheless appropriate by leading evidence demonstrating the quality of care available to the boys in their residential home and emphasising the risks posed by the parents. The matter was adjourned to the following day for hearing on that basis. When the case resumed, the father indicated that he had changed his position and opposed any order being made in the case of the boys and ran a positive case that the boys should come back into his care immediately, as he is a parent willing and able to care for the boys. In that way, the matter proceeded to trial in relation to the boys only.

Issues

The respondent mother is not asserting that she is a parent who is able and willing to care for the boys.^[4]

The respondent father puts himself forward as a parent who is presently willing and able to care for the boys. The DCPL and the separate representative argue that the father is not presently able to care for the boys because:

1. The father lacks basic parenting skills and has not previously demonstrated any real motivation to care for the children. The DCPL and separate representative emphasise that the father was so ‘hands off’ that he has never really been involved in caring for the children, even when he lived in the home with the children and his involvement since the children went into care is unsatisfactory.  
2. The children have high needs because of their various disabilities. Even if the father was capable of caring for children, generally, which the director and separate representative dispute, the father’s standard of parenting to date suggests that the father would not be able to cope with therapist appointments, behavioural issues, etc.
3. There are serious issues about the father’s character, raising the prospect that he is a risk to the safety and well-being of the children. Although he has only limited criminal and domestic violence histories, there is evidence that I should accept suggesting that he has been physically violent towards the mother and practiced serious and prolonged coercive control against her.

The father submits that while he was a ‘hands off’ father, he is willing and able to step up now that there is a clear need. He also points to evidence that he has been unfairly sidelined by Child Safety since the children went into care. The father emphasises that Child Safety has provided poor care for the three boys since they have come into care. He points to the excessive number of placements the boys have had and to the unsuitability of resi as a model for looking after children aged 2, 6 and 8. The children have been in institutional care since October 2024 and there is no realistic prospect of a change in that arrangement if orders for custody to Child Safety are made. The submission is, in effect, that the institutional care the boys are receiving is inherently damaging to children of their age.

The DCPL, emphasised the positive features of the boys’ resi and argued that the placement is well suited to the boys’ needs. The separate representative was less enthusiastic about the placement, though she argued resi was still better for the boys than an immediate return to their father’s care. The DCPL and the Separate Representative argued for a cautious and staged return of the boys to their father’s care, which would best be facilitated by the proposed 2-year order.

I am required to, and do, apply are the principles and provisions of the CP Act, particularly sections 4, 5A, 5B, 5BA, 9, 10, 59 & 61. A substantial aspect of the decision I am required to answer in this trial is whether the risk of harm to the boys be lower in resi or with the father.

The Father.

The respondent father was born overseas, in a deeply authoritarian country where historic gender roles were entrenched during his upbringing. Citizens in his home country have no expectation that the state will treat them fairly. The father left that country as an adult. The circumstances of his departure suggest that, at that point of his life at least, he possessed moral courage and considerable drive and ambition. The boys clearly like their father and enjoy his company. There is no evidence that he has ever directly harmed them or been physical with them in any inappropriate way. The relationship with the mother is over but during the relationship it appears that the father did almost none of the ‘work’ in the house, i.e. food preparation, feeding, cleaning, washing, etc.^[5] As concerning as that is, the father’s conduct is even more concerning when the mother’s mental health got particularly bad in mid-2024. As the mother became increasingly unwell and openly contemplated suicide, she stopped providing care for the six children. The home became filthy, there was little to no food and the children were not being provided with most of their basic needs. The father was aware that the mother was not coping because he was visiting the home in the relevant period and would have seen the state of the house.^[6] Any interaction with the mother or the house at this time must have made it clear to him that the mother was psychologically very unwell, and he must have understood his children were in desperate need of his assistance.^[7] Despite this, the father left it to Child Safety to intervene.

I am not confident that I fully understand the father’s reasons for not assisting his children at that point, but it is consistent with his longstanding shirking of his caring responsibilities and is likely to be linked to this pattern of controlling and violent conduct against the mother.^[8]

There is evidence of domestic violence (‘DV’)  in the parents’ relationship. DV by the father towards the mother is relevant to whether the boys would be safe with the father, even if there is no evidence that he has been violent towards them. Evidence of his DV towards the mother comes primarily from disclosures by the mother to Ms Davies, who wrote a report on the parents’ capacity to look after the children.^[9] The allegations made to Ms Davies by the mother are serious and concerning.^[10] In circumstances where the mother did not file an affidavit or give evidence, I have considered whether Ms Davies second-hand evidence is sufficiently cogent to make findings that the father has committed serious DV against the mother and I ultimately find that the father has committed serious DV against the mother because:

1. The allegations echo other information in the material.^[11]
2. The mother had no reason to lie to Ms Davies. She supported the immediate return of the boys to the father, even though she was separately represented.
3. There was no obvious hostility between them, suggesting that the father did not perceive the mother as maliciously accusing him of falsehoods, though there may be many other, tactical, reasons for the lack of hostility in his conduct of his case.
4. The mother could not be cross examined by the father’s barrister, who submitted that the father denied the substance of the most serious the allegations, yet the father elected not to give evidence. Counsel for the father noted the father’s very limited criminal history comprising only a 2018 wilful damage (DV offence) involving a different woman and a 2021 dangerous operation whilst adversely affected. He was fined for each offence. The father also has a single no contact DV order involving a different person.^[12]
5. Importantly, in his conversations with Ms Davies, the father made limited but telling admissions that tend to corroborate some of the conduct the mother had mentioned to Ms Davies. For example, in his discussion with Ms Davies:^[13]

1. He criticised the mother for falling pregnant so often and not always agreeing when he suggested terminations but admitted that he never wore condoms because he didn’t like them.
2. He spoke to the mother in ways that were critical of her figure, eating habits and parenting, He believed these criticisms were legitimate attempts to help the mother.
3. He agreed that he had threatened to harm her ‘at times’.
4. When she confronted him about having an affair, he denied it and said the accusation indicated she ‘needed to speak with someone’ (inferentially an accusation that she is crazy) but his conviction for a domestic violence related wilful damage offence and the existence of a DV order between him and another person, when put with the mothers comments to Ms Davies, strongly suggest that he did in fact have an affair. This is a serious incident of ‘gaslighting’.
5. He admitted to one incident of violence against her.
6. He was repeatedly critical of her for not taking his ‘advice’ about a range of matters.

Despite the findings above, I do not find that the father is entirely responsible for the mother’s mental health issues concerning hopelessness and self-harm, and threats of self-harm. There is good evidence that this conduct predates her relationship with the father. The mother had an older child, not the subject of any proceedings, with another man. At the end of that relationship the mother threatened to self-harm and to harm that child if the father refused to continue the relationship. Ultimately, likely as a result of that conduct, that child has been raised exclusively by its father.^[14] The fact that the mother’s underlying mental health issues are not caused by the father does necessarily make her description of DV to Ms Davies less reliable. Similarly, the absence of any DV order or convictions for DV offences against the mother does not necessarily point towards an absence of domestic violence, particularly where the evidence as a whole points towards the father exercising a high degree of control over the mother, making complaints to the authorities less likely.

The father is not alleged to have committed acts of violence directly against the children,^[15] although they are likely to have been greatly harmed by being raised in a home where the father dominated the mother through violence, fear and humiliation. I am concerned, because of the myriad reasons men commit domestic violence, that the boys may at some point become the focus on the father’s conduct. There is a possibility that the children have avoided being direct victims of his violent and controlling conduct only because, up to this point, they haven’t been central to his identity. This could change when he becomes more involved in their lives. This risk, though real, is difficult to quantify. For completeness I note that the only child to meaningfully express his views and wishes in a way that is captured in the evidence, the 6-year-old, would like to live at home with dad.^[16] I give this some weight because it is likely to mean that the child feels safe with dad.

How has Child Safety cared for the boys since they came into care?^[17]

The children went into care on 22 May 2024. The older girls and the youngest boy were placed with in three separate foster placements.

The eldest boy, who has ASD (level 3), went into residential care, essentially immediately, in a resi run by a company named Direct Care Resources.^[18] The younger two boys had a series of family-based placements (foster care) until entering resi on 1 October 2024. Those foster placements were as follows:

One can only imagine how distressing going into foster care must have been for the two-year-old and the five-year-old but the additional distress of having to change placement five times between 13 September and 1 October must have been profound. While I accept that Child Safety tries to minimise disruption to children in care, such disruption appears to be ‘a feature, not a bug’ of our current system and is one of the risks that I must consider when deciding this matter.^[19]

Once it became clear that stable foster placements for the two younger children were unlikely, Child Safety decided to ask DCR for a new resi, solely for the three boys. As a result, on 1 October 2024 the eldest boy was moved from a different DCR resi and all three brothers moved into a new resi together.^[20]

Ms Rao of DCR, the operator of the resi, gave evidence about the model of care: two carers live and work with the children for a full week on a 24/7 basis (‘a swing’), with two different carers living and working with the boys for the next swing. The carers from the first swing then return for another seven days. In this way, the three boys should have a stable living environment with only 4 carers looking after their needs on an ongoing basis. Any leave that a carer takes is supposed to be covered by a carer from the other swing, although this is not always possible. In March 2025, it was decided that one of the four carers should not work at the resi anymore and she was replaced with a new carer. Ms Rao, who has had direct responsibility for case management of the boys, gave evidence that between 1 October 2024 and April 2025 the children had no more than 6 carers: the original four carers, the replacement carer and one other carer who covered leave. When asked about the risk of staff departures and the risk that the children would have their care further disrupted by new carers, Ms Rao said that the average length of time that staff remained at a particular resi was 3 years and that, on average, staff remained with DCR for 5 years. Ms Rao committed to providing the Court with the actual records so that her belief on this matter could be the subject of more concrete evidence.

Ms Rao gave a description of the physical set up of the house, the care given to the children and how the children appear to be responding to that care. Ms Rao gave evidence, which I accept, that the boys are well looked after and that their day-to-day needs are met. It seemed a point of pride to Ms Rao that the two-year-old had taken to calling one of the female carers ‘mummy’. There remains the substantial issue of whether the model of care is appropriate for the boys’ long-term psychological well-being.

There are three principal difficulties with the boys’ care:

• The evidence suggests that the model described by Ms Rao is not, in fact, being implemented.
• Placing children of the boys’ age in resi is not permitted under Child Safety’s own policies unless certain safeguards are in place and these safeguards are not in place.
• Evidence that resi (or even this model of resi) is safe for children of this age ought to be easily available to Child Safety and no evidence of this sort has been led and all indications are that Child Safety has no evidence of his kind.

The model described by Ms Rao is not, in fact, being implemented.

Shortly after the hearing but before submissions, Ms Rao, through the DCPL, provided documents which set out the number of carers who had cared for the boys and staff retention at DCR. That material showed that the boys have had a total of 17 carers in the resi.^[21] The table below shows the number of hours each carer cared for each child, though in practice all carers present at the resi will assist with all children:^[22]

Table of Carers & Hours

Although the bulk of the caring has been carried out by 5 ‘core’ carers, the evidence shows that 9 carers did more than 100 hours of care and a total of 17 carers have been involved at the resi between October 2024 and April 2025. This is quite a different basis to the maximum of six carers considered by Mr Thomson when he gave evidence.

The other documentary evidence provided by DCR in relation to staff turnover was limited in scope. Ms Rao said to the Court that she could provide documents about both the average length of time carers average length of employment by DCR and now long carers remained in a particular resi but DCR provided no evidence about the length of time carers remained in a particular resi, which is by far the more important statistic. Furthermore, the documentary evidence about average length of employment suggests that Ms Rao’ evidence about both issues was wildly wrong. I can only say “suggests” because the documents provided only relate to ‘length of service’, inferentially covering only staff who are currently with DCR, who may or may not remain with DCR for some time to come. An accurate assessment of the average length of employment would require data about staff who have already left. I do not have that data. The data I have is as follows:

As noted above, there are limits to the inferences that can safely be made from this data but it must be vanishingly unlikely that Ms Rao’s evidence is correct, i.e. on average, a carer will remain at a particular resi for 3 years and be continuously employed by DCR for 5 years, if 59% of employees have been with the company for less than 3 years and 72% for less than 5 years.

In relation to the boys’ placement, one of the original ‘core’ carers started in October and was removed in mid-March, after 5.5 months. Ms Rao also gave oral evidence about how long the current core team of four carers have been with DCR, two carers for 4 years, one for 1.5 years and one for less than 1 year. Given how wildly wrong Ms Rao’s oral evidence was concerning the number of carers, I cannot place a great amount of weight on that evidence but even taking it at its highest it does not support a finding that the children’s relationships with their present carers will be stable or long-lasting.

Important mandatory safeguards are not in place at the residential placement.

The Separate Representative tendered Child Safety’s policy on residential care (Policy 606-4). When typographical errors are removed, the policy relevantly states:

A residential care placement may only be considered for children younger than 12 years if:

• comprehensive assessment indicates that their safety, wellbeing and belonging may best be met by placement in residential care and/or
• they are one of a sibling group that would benefit from being placed together^[23] and/or
• the service model has been explicitly developed and approved for children younger than 12, for example Indigenous Community Residential Care and Family Intervention Services (“Safe Houses”).

At a minimum,^[24] the policy requires that before children under 12 can be placed in resi there must be a comprehensive assessment indicating that their safety, wellbeing and belonging may need best be met by placement in residential care or the service model at the resi has been explicitly developed and approved for children under 12.

When the Child Safety Officers (‘CSOs’) gave oral evidence about the policy one CSO knew of the policy but thought that it had been complied with (it had not), one CSO knew of it but did not know whether it had been complied with and one CSO did not know about the policy. Despite detailed questioning by counsel for the Separate Representative, there is no evidence that a comprehensive assessment was ever done nor any evidence that the service model was explicitly developed and approved for children under 12. In fact, the impression I got from the evidence was that it is probable that neither of these things is ever done when a child under 12 is being placed in resi.

Ms Rao and other witnesses described the process by which children are placed in resi. Broadly speaking, the evidence is that resi is a last resort. After a decision has been made that a child will be placed in resi, a branch of Child Safety, known as the Placement Services Unit (‘PSU’), sends a request for placement to resi care providers. This request includes the details of a child’s particular needs. Various resi care providers reply to that request with a proposal. A successful resi provider is chosen and a placement meeting takes place between PSU and the successful bidder. After the meeting, a document is created outlining the children’s current and future needs.^[25] The resi provider then puts together a team of carers to staff a house where the children will live and be cared for. Ms Rao gave evidence, which I accept, that DCR’s carers are all highly trained and that, as far as is possible, a care team matching the child(ren)’s needs is put together. I also accept that various changes were made to the physical environment in which the boys live, in terms of décor and safety, to ensure it is suitable for young children.

The model of care for the boys, where 4 carers do the bulk the caring, is not a standard model. I infer that was designed to try to ensure that the children are not subjected to a high rotation of carers. I infer from this goal that there is a general acceptance that it is particularly harmful for young children to develop relationships with carers, only for the carers to disappear from the children’s lives.

In addition, approximately two months after the boys were placed in the resi, the boys’ parents were allowed to visit the resi separately on three evenings per week^[26] to cook for the boys and to take part in the boys’ evening routine. This is an extremely important innovation that is a protective factor for the children’s psychological well-being. In addition, there is a weekly opportunity for the children to meet their three siblings, who are in separate foster placements. Equally, as of October 2024, the only realistic way for the boys to be together was to be placed in resi. It is likely that being placed together is also a protective factor for the boys psychological well-being.

The evidence supports a finding that that Child Safety has stringent standards for the physical safety of resi homes, the screening and training of resi staff and has systems for ensuring compliance with these standards. The evidence supports a finding that DCR upholds these standards and any deviation from these standards is dealt with appropriately.

Nevertheless, the “comprehensive assessment” and “service model” as required by Child Safety’s own policy took on a degree of prominence in the trial and the fact that neither could be produced in the course of the trial or between the trial and the making of submissions a month later is a substantial concern. I would expect that either or both requirements, had they had been written or properly considered would have addressed the most obvious issue in this trial, i.e. it seems highly likely to be very damaging for children of 2, 6 and 8 to live in resi for anything more than a fleeting amount of time. I infer that the point of the policy requirements is that these care arrangements are inherently dangerous for psychological wellbeing of a child under 12 and that there needs to be extreme care in the design and operation of a resi for children under 12 to avoid significant adverse consequences.

If this form of care is safe for children this age, such evidence ought to be available to the State but there was no such evidence.

The CSOs could not identify any research or training about the effect of residential care on the well being of children. Their evidence was that resi is used only when no other option is available. The system itself evidently sees resi as generally worse for a child than being in the care of extended family and worse than placing children in foster care. Mr Thomson gave evidence that despite a concerted effort on his part he could not find any research about the effect of residential care in Queensland on children’s wellbeing but he could say that international research showed that children cared for in resi typically have poorer general health outcomes and have developmental delays when compared with other children. There is no evidence that children in residential care receive poorer nutrition or are accommodated in buildings that compromise their physical health. The difference between the forms of care must be driven by the psychological effect of having fragmented relationships with caregivers.

Mr Thomson said that Child Safety in Queensland now spends over one billion dollars annually on residential care. I find it alarming that the applicant, representing the State that spends those dollars, was unable to produce evidence that resi is psychologically safe for children, despite the issues’ centrality to the trial.

Nevertheless, there are several positive aspects to the boys’ current placement, including the following:

• Although the plan to have only four carers is not working out, the boys are not exposed to as many carers as they might be in other models of resi.
• The fact that the parents visit three times a week and are allowed to care for the boys under the supervision of resi staff means that the disruption of the boys’ attachment to each parent not as bad as it might otherwise be.
• The children appear happy in the placement and have formed meaningful attachments with their carers.
• Since one of the core carers was removed, all remaining core carers appear extremely kind and devoted to the children and they are appropriately supportive of the children’s relationship with their parents.^[27] 

Ultimately, although I am more than satisfied that resi is bad for most children and particularly children as young as the boys, I am unable to quantify how bad. There appears to be no effort to meaningfully or scientifically design resi placements and absolutely no effort to track child well being as a way of testing whether particular forms of placement work. Of particular concern to me are the following aspects:

• The parents get no input into how a resi is designed, generally or in this particular case. My experience is that Child Safety will keep parents out of resi homes to the extent that they think the Courts will let them get away with, despite the resi providers being willing to include parents in any way that is safe for the children.
• The CSO, who, apart from the parents, is most likely to know the child does not appear to be allowed or required to participate in the design of the resi or the decision about where to put the child.

• No one from PSU ever meets the child and the internal workings of PSU appeared a mystery and frustrating to the CSO’s.^[28] PSU works anonymously and there is no accountability nor any apparent expectation of accountability.^[29]
• PSU seems dedicated to creating rules for foster carers, resi homes and parents but has, without explanation, failed to comply with the most basic Child Safety policy for placing children under 12 in this case.
• No one from the resi provider meets the child before the child is placed with them.
• DCR, despite employing approximately 300 carers, does not employ or use the services a single psychologist, let alone a child psychologist. Insofar as DCR contributes to the design of a resi, they have no one with any expertise in child psychology to assist. 
• Despite the prominence of this issue in the trial, there is no evidence that PSU employs or otherwise involves a psychologist when designing and contracting resi placements.
• None of the CSOs are aware of any research on the effect of residential care on the psychological well-being of children in Queensland, despite international research showing that resi leads to bad physical health outcomes and developmental delay in children. It is not possible to mitigate the risks posed by resi to child wellbeing unless those risks are understood.
• DCR would, on Ms Rao’s evidence, implement any design given to them by Child Safety, so there are no administrative barriers to a better form of care for the boys. In particular, Ms Rao’s evidence is that DCR would allow the father and the mother to spend more time than presently allowed in the resi, including spending overnight time (separately) with the boys, provided it is approved by Child Safety.
• The boy’s resi placements costs Child Safety around $1m per annum,^[30] so there is unlikely to be a cost barrier to better care for the boys.

In truth, there is no evidence that resi placements are even ‘designed’ in any real sense of that word. It seems to me that the “design” of resi care in Queensland involves anonymous, under-qualified people making hugely expensive decisions about traumatised children they have never met. The institution making the decisions displays no curiosity about the effect of their decisions on these fragile children, conducts no research, shares no data and has no apparent fear of ever being held accountable for the consequences of these decisions.

This state of affairs presents a real risk to the boys’ wellbeing. Changes in government or Child Safety policy, business decisions by DCR, individual life decisions by their current carers and the arbitrariness of how PSU and the child protection system works, generally, could all result in the boys’ seemingly safe world imploding on them at any time.

How long is enough for Child Safety?

I have set out, in some detail, the father’s considerable deficiencies, but this application is actually brought on the basis that the children should be returned a parents’ care by the end of the two-year order. Usually, where reunification is the goal, the affidavit material will set out the various programs offered to a parent and detail how the parent performed on those programs. The type of programs offered will usually be dictated by the parent’s deficiencies, as assessed by Child Safety. In this case, one would expect the father to have been offered extensive parenting training and DV programs. There is no evidence that he was ever offered a parenting program and he was only offered a DV program very shortly before the trial.

All the available evidence in relation to how Child Safety has treated the father confirms what Mr Thomson said in evidence, if one gives Child Safety two years, Child Safety will take two years.

There are often good reasons to take reunification with a parent slowly, but those reasons are less compelling where the alternative is to leave a two year old, a six year old and an eight year old in resi. The available evidence suggests that, to date, Child Safety has not taken appropriate steps to work with the father towards reunification. Given what I have said about the father’s conduct while the children were cared for by their mother, it could be said that the father does not really deserve anything but this misses an important point. A parent is not assisted because they deserve it, they are assisted because the children deserve it.

It should have been obvious for some time now that living with the father is the only realistic way that the children will get out of resi.^[31] In my view Child Safety has not worked as it should have with the father but if they do there is a realistic prospect of him becoming a good enough parent for the boys.

Child Safety’s failure to take the father seriously began early in this process. On 22 May 2024, the mother asked the CSO if, instead of the children being taken into care, they could live with the father. Child Safety’s notes of this conversion record the reply as, “this would not happen.”^[32]  On 23 May 2024, the CSO asked the father if he wanted to care for the children. The father advised that he couldn’t care for the children that night because he lived with other people but he could get his own place and, when he did, he wanted to care for the children.^[33] By 28 May 2024, the father had secured his own private rental and contacted the CSO but was advised that he would not be caring for any of the children until he had demonstrated that he had overcome Child Safety’s concerns. In reply he says there is no need to worry, he can overcome those concerns.^[34] When, in the same conversation he is asked whether Child Safety can observe him when he has contact with his children, his reply is ‘of course, not a problem’.  The father maintains and has kept paying for that rental through to the trial, though it wasn’t until six months later, on 6 November 2024, that Child Safety did a home visit to assess its suitability to host the children.^[35] I note that this is well after the crisis in placements faced by the two youngest boys throughout September and is an obvious indication that the father’s potential to improve the children’s life was not taken seriously until at least the start of November, 6 months after his six children went into care. While I agree that the father was in no place to take all 6 children in May 2024, he was not an unreasonable option to care for, say, one of the older girls.

In the period June to late November 2024, the father was given contact with his children only once per week at a public park under strict supervision.^[36] From a child well-being perspective, this does not seem like a lot of contact but in terms of getting the father ready as a parent it was a meaningless amount of contact. Nevertheless, the contact appears to have gone quite well. On 22 November 2024, the father had his first visit with the boys at their resi. This type of contact is extremely unusual and the CSO and DCR deserve great credit for arranging it.^[37]

Initially, the father’s time at the resi was scheduled from 3.30pm until 7.30pm.^[38] On 3 December 2024 the father advised the CSO that because of his then work commitments he could not get to the resi until later. The CSO then changed contact times at the resi to between 5pm and 7pm. There appears to have been no discussion of providing contact on additional days to make up for the reduced hours, nor consideration of contact on the weekend.^[39] Unhelpfully, and arguably unfairly, the change in arrangements was recorded in the CSO’s affidavit as “[the father] requested that his contact times be reduced to 5pm to 7pm, to accommodate his work schedule.” I find that the father has never wanted to reduce his contact with the boys.

I have conducted a detailed examination of the records of the father’s contact with the boys.^[40] In summary, the children are always excited to see him. Initially, at least, the father prioritised the youngest boy, and had very limited, sometimes no real conversation with the older two. On any given visit the father will do one or more of the following: cook, clean up, chat with one or more children, play in the garden with one or more children, sit and watch TV with one or more children, supervise shower time with one of more children, do bedtime stories with one or more children. He often gives the children his phone, which means that those children’s attention is diverted and/or those children fight among themselves for time on the phone. The father is often not proactive in managing the children’s behaviours. Regularly, the dad will ignore very clear efforts by the older children to interact, sometimes because he is on his phone and sometimes because his attention is on the youngest of the boys. There is usually only limited verbal communication, thought there appear to be lots of appropriate physical interaction and acts of service by the father. The latest information available to me is from February 2025 and confirms my view that the father’s engagement with the children is improving over time.^[41]

Unfortunately, the description of the father’s contact is more negative when the information is recorded by the DRC carer who was removed from the resi. One of the reasons she was removed was because of how she treated the parents. I place less weight on negative reports about the father’s conduct at contact where the reports are written by that carer.^[42]

I also find that there is a degree of artificiality in assessing the father on how he does at contact in the resi. The notes contain odd criticisms of the father like:

• “Dad cleared the table, washed the dishes, however he did not wipe the bench or clean the sink.”^[43]
• The father had to be reminded of house rules because he allowed the boys to get into the shower together.^[44]
• Staff had to dry up dishes because dad was too busy playing with the youngest boy.
• Father had to be reminded that he is not allowed to close the bedroom door when reading child bedtime story.^[45]

As Mr Thomson pointed out in evidence, the carers in the resi are not there to train the dad in parenting but it would be relatively straight forward and cost effective to have a trainer in the resi so provide such training for the dad. Unfortunately, Mr Thomson says that because of the structure of our child protection system, it is often ‘easier’ for PSU to source $1m per annum for resi than it is for a CSO to get much smaller amount of money for practical assistance and training for the family.

Ultimately, I have decided that some form of custodial order is necessary. I find that the father would not presently be able to care for the boys on a fulltime basis, particularly given their disabilities. It is likely that the father will become a capable parent, provided he gets appropriate training and supervision and that he will become so within months of getting the right assistance, if he does not, the order I make will allow Child Safety ample time to avoid risk to the children.^[46] I have additional concerns that, given the father’s behaviour towards the mother, the boys may be at risk of violence from the father. Though I have noted there is no evidence he has ever been violent towards the boys, the father’s conduct seems deeply engrained and there is some risk that his violence, anger or control issues may be directed at the boys as they become more central to his life.

On the other hand, in my view too little has been done to work towards reunification since the children went into care and the children’s psychological wellbeing is at risk for as long as they remain in resi. In those circumstances, a two-year order is excessive. I note the expert relied on by the applicant, Ms Davies and by the Separate Representative, Mr Thomson, each supported a two-year order. I do not agree that such a long order is necessary. Neither expert report even considered effect of resi on children of this age, this may be because they wrote their reports on the basis that the children only had four carers, as per the affidavit material. When Mr Thomson gave evidence he had listened to all the other evidence in the trial and would have believed, based on Ms Rao’s oral evidence, that the children had had a maximum of six carers. I am also not persuaded by the reports because each considered a two-year order as the basis for the reunification of all six children. In this decision, I am only considering reunification for three children. Child Safety has already had 13 months since the children went into care and little progress has been made towards reunification. The lack of progress is not the father’s fault. Since the children went into care, the father has taken every opportunity offered to him to connect with the boys. He holds down a full-time industrial job and quickly moved to get a rental property for him and his children as soon as the children went into care. At other times in his life he has shown an ability to learn, great courage and resilience.

During the trial a document titled “Contact Visit Agreement and Reunification Plan” was prepared and tendered by the applicant. It details a pathway to reunification of the boys to the father. The plan involves a staged increase in contact between the father and the boys, including at the father’s home and, if followed, results in the father assuming fulltime care of the boys by the end of January 2026.  Importantly, the plan includes providing the parents with ongoing meaningful programs and training to improve their parenting and details specific behaviours required of the father.  The plan covers the consequences for progress if the father does not comply with his obligations. 

The current case plan is based on a two-year order. When an appropriate case plan is prepared, I will make the following orders:

• s 61(e): granting custody of each child to the Chief Executive until January 31, 2026.
• s 61(a): directing the father to comply with the Contact Visit Agreement and Reunification Plan until it is implemented, to behave appropriately towards the children and to allow the Chief Executive to have contact with the children. This order will be for up to 12 months.
• s 61(c): directing the Chief Executive to supervise the reunification of the boys to the father on a timetable set out in the Contact Visit Agreement and Reunification Plan and to ensure that the boys are safe in the father’s care. This order will be for up to 12 months.

The respondent parents are on notice that a domestic violence order may be made in these proceedings pursuant to s 43 of the DVPA.

I will hear the parties as to the precise form orders required today and in relation to the DV order.