Applicants Seek Parental Responsibility
Bellamy [2022] FedCFamC1F 1064 (23 December 2022)
Both of the child’s parents have passed away. The applicants seek parental responsibility for the child. The Court, in making its orders, considered how other family members support final orders being made in the applicants’ favour.
Facts
Mr Bellamy and Ms Bellamy are the applicants in this matter. Mr Bellamy is the half-brother of the subject child, X, who was born 2011. X is, accordingly, 11 years old. The applicants made this application in tragic circumstances where X’s biological mother, Ms B Bellamy, died in mid-2013. X’s biological father, Mr C Bellamy, died in late 2019.
X came into the applicants’ care in October 2019 when he was eight years old. He was delivered to the applicants by the Department of Child Safety, as it is known in Queensland. X has lived with the applicants since then without interruption. X has some complex health issues.
He needs health and therapeutic assistance for that. He requires various ongoing therapies. He, quite understandably, requires ongoing psychological services, because he witnessed, most tragically, his father’s death. The Critical Incident List requires there be some urgency with respect to major long-term decisions that are required.
The applicants deposed that they are seeking parental responsibility orders so they could make appropriate arrangements for X’s health and wellbeing, and particularly to engage with healthcare providers and schools, and too – perhaps these are the most urgent factors – a further application required for NDIS and to apply for a Medicare card for X.
Issue
Whether or not parenting orders should be made in favor of the applicants.
Applicable law
Analysis
X’s ongoing future wellbeing and support are matters that well and truly bring this matter into the Critical Incident List. This matter, and these proceedings and potential orders that could be made, have been brought to the attention of as many people as possible within X’s wider family. This is, of course, a matter where there is no natural contradictor. There had been, in the past, seven notifications and three child concern reports.
The applicant, Mr Bellamy, was generally not recorded as the person responsible for harm. This year, and relevantly to this application, the Department listed two intake inquiries. An intake inquiry can be recorded when the information relates to Child Safety’s core business but does not contain allegations of harm or risk of harm to a child and does not require any further action by Child Safety. Both of those intake inquiries pertained to the applicants having difficulties in obtaining guardianship of X in order to make parenting decisions for him, such as private health, school enrolments and the like.
Conclusion
The child X born 2011 shall live with the first applicant Mr Bellamy and the second applicant Ms Bellamy. The first and second applicants have responsibility for all day-to-day decisions with respect to the child.
