“They [DCJ] never considered it realistic, and they kept moving the goalposts. They didn’t give hope for restoration to be a thing. It doesn’t matter what you do, it wasn’t ever a consideration. [Child], herself, self-placed. This year, she self-placed. She was five when she was removed. She self-placed about 10 weeks ago [12 years old now].”
– Parent, Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research
– Parent, BTHKTH research
The Court will look ahead two years (and can even look further) to decide if they think you are likely to make changes. DCJ and the Court don’t need to see you complete all the goals in their Family Action Plan (FAP), but they do want to see you making progress towards them and have ‘insight’ (understand) of the risks that led to removal.
They want you to agree with them on how they see things. It’s the experience of parents that their children’s cultural identity and cultural needs don’t usually contribute to the decision on “realistic possibility of restoration”.
Some decision makers also do not consider the child’s circumstances in care as part of whether restoration should be realistic. However, this is changing more recently. Take a look at the case of DCJ and the Yarran Taylor Children [2024] NSWChC 3.
Other parents have fought for years trying to get restoration. They have done many section 90 applications and kept fighting to stay connected with their child. Parents say that things changed for them the most when workers changed what they were doing, caseworkers changed, placements broke down, or when their child decided to come home on their own (self-placing). Some parents have received formal apologies from DCJ, saying their children should have never been removed in the first place.
Yes, you can fight for restoration even if DCJ has assessed restoration as “unrealistic” and the Court has agreed.
You should not be expected to have done every task in the FAP or Case Plan or have fully fixed the things DCJ say are a ‘risk’ that led to your child entering care for restoration to be considered realistic within the timeframe. Even if final orders have been made, this has not stopped other parents from fighting. One parent said:
“They’ve known this whole time I’ve been working for a Section 90, I want restoration, they’ve known this whole time, but they’re like yeah but, and they talk down to me, but if I wasn’t persistent, I didn’t ask, I wouldn’t be getting anywhere.”
– Parent, Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research
When your child comes into care and the ‘care plan’ says restoration is the goal and the Court has said that restoration is a realistic plan, DCJ need to do everything they possibly can to ensure that your child returns home to you.
DCJ’s ‘Interim Restoration Assessment Approach’ Manual 2024* says the things DCJ look at when deciding if restoration is realistic is “…the circumstances of the child or young person, and the evidence, if any, that the parent(s) are likely to be able to satisfactorily address the issues that have led to the removal of the child from their care,” (page 9).
DCJ need to say to the Court why they think restoration is not realistic within a reasonable time period, the active efforts DCJ has made to restore your child to you, and if they think that can’t be done, then to place your child with family, kin or community (Section 83(3) and (3A) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998).
The Court might give you more time than 2 years to get restoration if there are circumstances that say you require the extra time. For example, to look beyond the time you need to complete rehab, this does not mean that your case will be adjourned (postponed), but you will need to argue that restoration is realistic, but it will take more time. If successful, the Court will make a final order and as part of your restoration plan will give you more time to meet the goals in that plan. Some of the things they can consider are outlined in Section 79AA of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and include:
*DCJ document not publicly available.
Every parent will have a Family Action Plan for Change, usually known as FAPs. DCJ say ‘Restoration FAP’ when you have the goal of restoration. DCJ are told to use the Restoration Family Action Plan for Change to support you and monitor your changes.
DCJ’s Interim Restoration Assessment Approach Manual 2024* says “engaging the family and creating a Restoration Family Action Plan must be done quickly – within 30 days after a child has entered out of home care or as soon as a decision has been made to change a case plan goal to ‘assessing restoration’ for children in long-term care.”
DCJ says they should “explain to parents and the network about what is involved in the Restoration Assessment and Family Action planning and that this is an opportunity for their views to be heard.” They also say “when developing a Restoration Family Action Plan, respect the parent and family’s decisions about what will help or how they plan to make changes, rather than getting stuck on attendance at specific programs. Make sure the changes reflect outcomes for children and respond to the child protection concerns.”
If your DCJ caseworker is not doing this, you can remind them they should be following their own Interim Restoration Assessment Approach Guide 2024*.
*DCJ document not publicly available.
DCJ’s ‘Interim Restoration Assessment Approach’ Manual 2024*, says it should have:
*DCJ document not publicly available.
The Summary of Proposed Plans (SOPP) is an important document, because DCJ use this to decide what you need to do to get restoration. It is their document and children and parents do not usually contribute to the drafting of these documents. These things should be related to the reasons your child entered care, but it’s the experiences of families that DCJ continue to move the goalposts when trying to go for restoration.
Parents don’t need to have done everything on the goals DCJ give them. The plan must show the Court your child can go home soon, based on your progress towards the goals. DCJ’s Interim Restoration Assessment Approach Manual 2024 (page 22) says “Parents do not need to have completely resolved all child protection concerns and risk issues for a Restoration Order to be made. The Permanency Plan will need to satisfy the Court that based on the current progress of the parents(s) the child will return home within this legislative timeframe.”
If DCJ keep changing the goal posts or coming up with other reasons, you can remind them that they should be following what their guide says.
AbSec and our partners acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout NSW and their continuing connections to land, waters, and communities. We also acknowledge the lands on which these stories were told, the lands of the Dharawal, Yuin and Wonnarua people.
We acknowledge the Elders, leaders and advocates that have led the way and continue to fight for our children. We also acknowledge the Stolen Generations who never came home and the ongoing impact of government policy and practice on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people and families.
This website shares the experiences and advice of Aboriginal families involved in the NSW child protection system who participated in the Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research at UNSW. We acknowledge and thank the families who generously gave permission to share their stories.
These experiences reflect what worked for those families and do not constitute advice or views of AbSec. AbSec recommends seeking independent legal advice for your own circumstances.
