Appeal to a Different Interim Accommodation Order by Mother
Appellant mother seeks more time with child since their interaction is limited to phone or video calls three times a week, but the mother failed to comply with drug testing conditions, risks the child's exposure to a perpetrator of family violence and she has breached custody orders.
Facts:
Chelsea Sani, mother of Cooper Cathaway who lives with his father Nate Leworthy. The former filed an appeal against an interim accommodation order limiting her interaction with her child due to her poor mental health and methamphetamine use which may cause the latter significant harm. Sani's drug screens did not meet the supervision requirements as required by her Interim Accommodation Order. Sani also was in a relationship with Gilpin who has a history of physical assault on Sani. Such possibility of family violence allegedly posed risk to Cooper as Gilpin and the former's contact cannot be monitored especially at times Sani would breach court orders and interact with Cooper. Sani asserts that the court must not make an interim accommodation order since a Protection Order for the child can be made instead.
Issue:
Whether or not a different interim accommodation order should be made.
Applicable Law:
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, s 263(1), 271 - provides the right of appeal by a parent of a child against an interim accommodation order made by the Children’s Court.
Secretary to the Department of Human Services v Children’s Court of Victoria [2014] VSC 609 - provides that a protective intervener, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that a child is in need of protection, may serve a notice stating that a protection application in respect of a child will be made to the Children’s Court.
Analysis:
In application of s.271 of the Act, there should be no time limits which apply to the bringing of an appeal and it may be brought by Sani as of right without any requirement for the grant of leave.
The Children’s Court make may an interim accommodation order where a Protection Application is filed. An interim accommodation order may provide for the release or placement of a child with the persons and organisations referred to in Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, s 263(1).
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal holding that a different interim accommodation order to the June 2020 is not necessary. All such contact by Sani to Cooper is to be by phone or FaceTime, unless otherwise agreed by the Department of Health and Human Services.