Director of Child Protection Litigation v Starling & Ors (a pseudonym) [2025] QChCM 4

1 MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DCPL v Starling & Ors (a pseudonym) [2025] QChCM 4 PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF CHILD PROTECTION LITIGATION (Applicant) v MARY STARLING (a pseudonym) (Respondent Mother) & PAUL GLEESON (a pseudonym) (Respondent, Ezra, Kevin & Jane’s father) & JOHN GILES (a pseudonym) (Respondent, Bella’s father) & SAMIT SETH (Separate Representative) FILE NUMBERS: CCM 20205/23(7), CCM 20200/23(5), CCM 20204/23(1) & CCM 20206/23(3) PROCEEDING: Application for a Child Protection Order COURT: Children’s Court, Beenleigh DELIVERED ON: 4 December 2025 MAGISTRATE: E. Mac Giolla Rí ORDERS: In relation to each of the three children, the subject of proceedings: (1) Custody of each child is granted to the Chief Executive (Child Safety) until 21 October 2026 (2) An order directing the Chief Executive (Child Safety) to supervise each child’s protection. APPEARANCES: Ms K Asquith for the Applicant, the DCPL Mr S Seth, Separate Representative -- 1 of 27 -- 2 Ms S Mackenzie, OPG, for Bella Ms M Starling (Mother) appeared unrepresented Mr J Giles (Father of Bella) appeared unrepresented Applications On 18 October 2023, the Director of Child Protection Litigation (‘DCPL’) filed applications for long-term guardianship to the Chief Executive (‘Child Safety’) in relation to 4 children: Bella Starling, born 2010, Ezra Starling, born 2011, Jane Starling, born 2017 and Kevin Starling, born 2018. When the original application was filed, the respondent mother for each child was Mary Starling and the respondent father was Paul Gleeson. On 21 May 2025, the DCPL filed an amended application seeking only a 12-month custodial order for each child. The application was made in the shadow of: ● Strong evidence suggesting that Kevin had been sexually abused by a carer in the residential home where Kevin, Ezra and Bella live. ● DCPL submissions that kinship exploration had been inadequate despite earlier concerted efforts to find and assess kin,1 and ● A growing realisation that neither of the older children, Bella and Ezra, had much faith in Child Safety’s ability to care for them and were firmly opposed to long-term orders to Child Safety and are reluctant to cooperate with the Chief Executive’s attempts to assist them, whatever order the Court decided to make. On 8 September 2025, a further application was filed by the DCPL in relation to Bella only changing the name of the respondent father to John Giles, as it had emerged in the course of proceedings that Mr Gleeson was not in fact Bella’s father.2 Background The children have been in the care of Child Safety since 2020. The children’s initial placements appeared to have been as a result of interim orders. Ultimately, a 12 month order placing all four children in the custody of the Chief Executive was made on 18 October 2022. The original applications filed in these proceedings were filed on the day those orders expired, 18 October 2023. The material before me did not provide me with much detail about the circumstances that gave rise to the original emergency/interim custodial orders in 2020 or the 12 month custodial order made in 2022, though the reasons are likely to be related to the parents’ ongoing issues with substance abuse, domestic violence and criminal offending generally, including periods 1 See exhibit 11, affidavit of STL 21 May 2025 2 An oral application to amend the applications to two year custodial orders was made on 24 July 2025 but not granted and I reserved my decision on that oral application, transcript 24 July 2025 at page 4. -- 2 of 27 -- 3 of imprisonment, of which there is ample evidence in the material filed in relation to the applications before me.3 The 12 month order made on 18 October 2022 came after several years of extensive child safety involvement in the children’s lives. It is likely that at the time those orders were made, reunification to the father, Mr Gleeson, looked realistic. Mr Gleeson was having extensive contact with the children, including overnights several nights a week with each child. At that time the children were living separately, with Ezra and Bella living in a residential home together and Jane and Kevin in foster care together. On the other hand, the respondent mother, Ms Starling, was not fairing particularly well. In the preceding July, she had been involved in a domestic violence incident with an older, adult child4 and between August and September 2022 was involved in a number of thefts from bottle shops. The respondent mother had also had all contact with her children suspended due to perceived problems with her compliance with rules for contact. The Parties’ Positions The DCPL, while applying for a 12 month order for each child, submits that once I have found that any child is a child in need of protection, I should exercise my discretion in accordance with the various principles in the Act, particularly the principle that I should act in the child’s best interests, and make the order that I find is in the best interests of each child. In the context of the hearing as a whole, that submission means that I should place Bella and Ezra in the custody of the Chief Executive for at least 12 months and not more than two years. For Jane and Kevin, I could consider orders up to an including long-term guardianship to the chief executive. Ms Starling has submitted that no order is required for any of the children because she is a parent who is willing and able to care for the children. Mr. Gleeson has not participated actively in the proceedings and, it seems to me, by his conduct he concedes that some custodial order is needed for each child. Mr. Giles, who only became involved very late in the proceedings, concedes that he is not in the position to care for Bella at this time, in part because of his personal circumstances (though those could easily be remedied), but mainly because of his lack of a relationship with Bella. Ultimately, he defers to Bella’s views and wishes. 3 The original 12 month order necessarily required a finding that the children had suffered harm or were at an unacceptable risk of suffering harm. I am unable to find that the children have suffered actual harm for the purposes of these proceedings but the evidence before me certainly supports a finding that there would be an unacceptable risk of physical and emotional harm to each child if the children were in the primary care of Ms Starling. 4 See exhibit 6. affidavit of CSO, November 2023 -- 3 of 27 -- 4 Bella has always taken the position that she should live with her mother, and at times during the proceedings has, in fact, lived with her, though the Court’s most recent information is that Bella is back living in the residential home. Ezra has always taken the position that he should live with his mother. He has lived with her at different times during the proceedings but not to the same extent as Bella. I have only a limited sense of Kevin and Jane’s views and wishes. Jane is young and Kevin, who is also young, has some cognitive impairments. I can find based on the material before me that Jane is quite happy in her current placement with her foster carer. Kevin is currently living in the residential placement with Ezra and Bella and the material supports a finding that he could be happy if he continued to live with Ezra and Bella, whether that is with Ms Starling or another family member or in a residential placement. The Children I have read a lot about each child but, by and large, the information is provided from the perspective of Child Safety, their carers or the parents. I’m conscious that information in the various affidavits does not give me a complete picture of the whole person. Bella I have had the pleasure of interacting with Bella at many mentions and hearing days in this matter. She is an impressive individual, despite her difficult circumstances. Bella is presently 15 years of age, she holds down a part-time job, she’s been a dancer and, when conditions are good, she succeeds at school. She is deeply committed to her family and friends. The challenges of growing up are magnified for children raised in the care of the State, particularly in an institution like a residential care home. Bella has coped admirably with those challenges, even though occasional clashes with her carers have resulted in damage being caused by Bella, regrettable comments being made to carers and distress to Bella. The most concerning events appear to be related to not being able to see a friend5 and the possibility of not being able to see family6, underlying how important connection is to Bella. Bella has a diagnosis of ADHD and appears to do better when she takes her medication, though that tentative finding is based on incomplete information. Bella has a deep distrust of Child Safety. The origins of this distrust and its implications were central issues in the trial. Bella would like all her siblings to be together and may have encouraged Jane to ask for this.7 5 See exhibit 2, affidavit of CSO, August 2024 6 See exhibit 10, affidavit of CSO, 17 April 2025) 7 See exhibit 19, affidavit of CSO, 17 April 2025 -- 4 of 27 -- 5 Ezra I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting Ezra with his then direct representative lawyer. The meeting was to hear from Ezra directly about his circumstances and views and wishes. Ezra is, like his older sister, an impressive individual. Ezra is now 14 but was only nine when he first went into State care. He is a passionate gamer and skilled at assembling and fixing computers. Ezra got a short suspension from school in May this year for hacking into the school’s network to get himself access to online games. He has taken part in team sports. Ezra has a diagnosis of ASD and ADHD, although Ezra does not seem to let that get in the way of living a full life. He has an occupational therapist, who he works with fortnightly. The material suggests he gets on extremely well with people, including his carers in the residential home and he has developed many friendships. Ezra shares Bella’s distrust of Child Safety and is deeply committed to his family and has always expressed the desire to live with his mum and/or to see more of his mum. Jane Jane has recently turned 8. She has lived with her foster carer since June 2020. Initially, Kevin also lived with the same carer but Kevin’s behaviours and experiences led to his placement with that foster carer breaking down in October 2024. Jane enjoys school and was said to have been the best reader in her class in 2024. She has a diagnosis of ASD (level two) and ADHD. Kevin Kevin is 7. He has been diagnosed with a global developmental delay, ADHD and autism (Level 2).8 He is very active, making him a great fun and, sometimes, a handful to look after. I have read other people’s conversations with Kevin, and he is very imaginative and playful. He has an NDIS package. He loves spending time with his family. Issues for determination The preliminary issue for all the children is whether they are children in need of protection. In my view, they are all at a risk of harm without some custodial order and not one of the children has a parent who is presently willing and able to protect them. The other issues for determination in these proceedings are best considered in relation to the personality, circumstances and wishes of the children, with Bella and Ezra considered together because of the similarity of their circumstances. 8 See exhibit 13, affidavit of STL, 21 May 2025. -- 5 of 27 -- 6 Issues: Bella & Ezra The applicant’s case is that Bella and Ezra would benefit from being placed on a custodial order because of the assistance and resources that would be provided to them by Child Safety. Bella and Ezra, on the other hand, have little to no faith in Child Safety and express little to no desire to benefit from the resources and assistance that might be made available to them. Bella and Ezra would simply like to live with their mother, Ms Starling. Unfortunately, for reasons that should become evident in this judgement, Ms Starling is likely to expose the children to harm by way of neglect, aggression, exposure to serious illegal substances, exposure to men who consume serious illegal substances and, potentially violence. In those circumstances, it seems to me that Bella and Ezra would benefit by being placed on a custodial order if they were likely to accept Child Safety’s assistance. Despite Bella and Ezra saying they don’t want assistance from Child Safety, they are wedged into having to take assistance from Child Safety by circumstances beyond their control. For example, Kevin is placed in residential care. At the moment, Bella and Ezra get to live with Kevin. While it is arguable that Bella and Ezra could ‘get by’ without a custodial order, Kevin can’t. In fact, if Bella and Ezra aren’t on an order and Kevin remains on an order, it is quite likely that Bella and Ezra would struggle to see Kevin on anything like a regular basis, because they won’t live with him and, based on the experiences of this family so far, Child Safety will place barriers and limits on contact between the older siblings and Kevin. In addition, as for all the children, if I do decide to make an order for custody to Child Safety, a question arises about whether s62(4) might prevent me making a further short-term order. I can only do so if would be in the child’s best interest and reunification to someone in Bella and Ezra’s family is reasonably achievable within the period of the order I make.9 In Bella’s case, it is obvious that reunification to Mr Giles is reasonably achievable, subject to minor arrangements in Mr Giles’s personal life and the creation of some form of relationship between them. In Ezra’s case, the most likely reunification candidate is his big sister Alice. Unfortunately, the chief executive has ignored Alice as a prospect until very recently. Issues: Kevin Kevin’s situation is, perhaps, the least satisfactory of all the children. While the older children are well adapted for life through their intelligence and personalities and Jane is placed in a “family” situation that gives her appropriate connection and support, Kevin has very high needs but he’s being raised in an institutional setting. Bella and Ezra proposed that if they were at home with Ms Starling, the three of them would be able to care for Kevin. This is unrealistic and risks further parentifying Bella and Ezra. It 9 CPA Section 64(5) -- 6 of 27 -- 7 is not fair to make such young people responsible for their brother, even though they’re clearly willing to take on that responsibility. So, for Kevin, the issue is whether I should make: ● a long-term guardianship order, which might recognise the reality of the situation Kevin is in, or ● a short-term order, if I find Alice is a sufficiently realistic prospect on whom to base a finding that reunification to a family member is reasonably achievable. Issues: Jane Jane is unique among the children in that she has a stable, family based, placement and is well settled there and deeply connected to her carer. This gives rise to an argument for a long- term order in Jane’s case unless I find that the likelihood of reunification to Alice is high enough, and benefits of such reunification are great enough to require a shorter order. Origin of Bella and Ezra’s attitude to Child Safety As a society we should not be surprised if the children we “rescue” from difficult circumstances, by taking them away from their parents, respond angrily towards us. The bond between a parent and a child is the strongest personal connection imaginable and the child often has no other understanding of the world except by seeing it through their parents’ eyes. Some children will have no understanding that the parent has done anything wrong or unusual and many will internalise the blame for what has happened or experience profound grief at been placed in the child protection system. In addition, our child protection system does not always give appropriate weight to the harm that is caused to a child by the breaking of that connection. It seems to me that Ezra and Bella are acutely conscious of these matters but in addition have witnessed the following, further, insults to their sense of self, sense of family and sense of safety in the world: 1. Inappropriate use of contact with their parents as a way of punishing or controlling their parents. 2. Child Safety’s failure to protect Kevin when he was in foster care. 3. The sexual abuse of Kevin by a residential care worker and the implausible finding by Child Safety and the residential home operator that Kevin was not harmed. 4. Failure to identify and support Alice as a prospect for long term care of the children. Contact decisions On 28 March 2023, Ms Starling was scheduled to have contact with her four children at a park in Logan. At that time, Ms. Starling was only permitted to have one hour of contact with her children each week. As had become a custom, the children were also expecting to see their older sister Alice during this contact visit. The children were waiting for Ms Starling and Alice in the park, having been brought there by their respective carers. All the children were eager to see Ms Starling and Alice. Ms -- 7 of 27 -- 8 Starling did not arrive on time and in line with the Child Safety Officer’s direction10, as soon as Ms Starling was 15 minutes late the children were packed up into their respective cars and driven to a different park so that they could play with one another, without Ms Starling or Alice having an opportunity to see them. The idea behind this, it seems, was that mum, being late, had forfeit her opportunity to see her children, even though she had communicated that she was on her way. Eventually, Ms Starling and Alice arrived at the original park and, not seeing the children, drove to other parks to seek them out. They eventually found the children, but we’re only allowed to look on at the children playing and we’re not allowed any interaction with them. On 26 June 2023, Mr. Gleeson almost suffered a similar fate. He had not seen the children for six months. He had driven an hour and 20 minutes to get there but he arrived 30 minutes late. Again, he was only being afforded one hour of contact with his four children. After 15 minutes, the children were moved and he had to drive around to find them. He did find them and, in an apparent act of charity, the carer allowed him to see his children despite the rule the CSO had in place. On 2 February 2024, all of Ms Starling’s contact with all her children was suspended entirely because Bella had started to stay overnight at Ms Starling’s home. The CSO was unhappy that Bella was staying there but there is no suggestion in the material that Ms Starling had encouraged Bella to leave the residential placement. In fact, Bella appears to have been having a very rough period at the residential placement, with major incidents on 3 December 202311 and 30 January 202412. It seems that these events, rather than encouragement by Ms Starling, were the reasons Bella left the residential home. Ironically, Bella’s stay at Ms Starling’s, from about the start of February until mid-April 2024, resulted in one of the few times Bella has ever expressed a desire to have Child Safety in her life.13 I have read many descriptions of the patents’ contact with the children on the occasions when it did occur. Those descriptions make it clear that the children have a deep love for their mother and Mr Gleeson. To me, it is incomprehensible that contact could be used in this way. It seems to me that the parents were doing their disorganised best to be there for the children. Depriving them of contact with their children as a way of disciplining or controlling the parents is perverse, unhealthy and extremely unlikely to have the desired effect. Contact does not ‘belong’ to Child Safety to further its particular aims, it is a child’s right, as set out in s5B(k) and (m), and contact decisions made should be made only, or at least primarily, in the child’s best interest. There are some circumstances where contact can and 10 There has only been one Child Safety Officer (‘CSO’) in these proceedings. Given some of the findings below and the fact that the CSO was not a party to proceedings, I propose referring to that Child Safety Officer simply as the CSO. 11 See exhibit 2, affidavit of CSO, August 2024 12 See exhibit 29, affidavit of CSO, May 2024) 13 See exhibit 14, affidavit of CSO July 2024) -- 8 of 27 -- 9 should be suspended, for example if the child is constantly disappointed and upset by getting excited about contact without the parent showing up – that may be a decision in the child’s best interest. Many decisions I have seen in this matter were not made in the child’s best interest. In 2022, Mr Gleeson was having extended visits with Bella and Ezra at their residential home. Contact at the residential home was never offered to Ms Starling and, on the material available to me, she was never realistically considered for it. In evidence, this was put down to Ms Starling’s belligerence in her dealings with Child Safety as it risked putting additional pressures on the workers at the residential home. In truth, Ms Starling’s problem with contact was that she didn’t turn up for contact, not how she behaved at contact. In all the case notes detailing Ms Starling’s conduct at contact, I have only seen one instance, on 20 September 2022, when she behaved in an aggressive or overly emotional way at contact. Obviously, where a parent is consuming methamphetamines or a similar drug, they are likely to be volatile and difficult to deal with. It is therefore unfortunate that after Ms Starling was released from prison after spending two months on remand (and when she was likely to be ‘clean’), her contact was limited to one hour per month. This seems like very little contact at a time when she had not seen her children for an extended period.14 Bella and Ezra have formed a view about Child Safety, with much of their anger likely to come from their view of how Child Safety has treated their family and, in particular, their mother.15 For all her faults, Ms Starling is the children’s mother, and they love her and they have a right to see her. They are intelligent and perceptive children and would have clearly understood the pettiness and pointless cruelty involved in these contact decisions, particularly the decision to pack them into a car to drive to a park down the road to prevent them from seeing their mother because she was 15 minutes late. This experience has contributed to their desire not to have Child Safety in their life. Kevin’s experiences of foster care Bella and Ezra’s relationship with Child Safety and the Child Safety staff with responsibility for their care has been damaged by Kevin’s experiences in care. From 2020 to October 2024, Kevin was in foster care with Jane. On 1 August 2024 a community visitor discovered that Kevin’s bedroom door had no handle on the inside. While the carer initially denied any wrongdoing, Jane was able to tell the authorities that Kevin was regularly locked in his room alone16. It is evident that the inside handle to Kevin’s door was absent over a lengthy period of time and the monthly visits by a CSO had not detected the issue. From 1 August 2024 Child Safety tried to provide supports for the foster carer to deal 14 See exhibit 3A, affidavit of CSO, 28 November 2023. 15 See exhibit 22, affidavit of CSO, November 2023. 16 See para [17], affidavit of CSO, 27 November 2024 -- 9 of 27 -- 10 with the stressors that she said caused her to lock Kevin in his room17. Unfortunately, those supports did not come to pass or did not have the desired effect and Kevin’s placement in foster care ended with him entering Bella and Ezra’s residential placement on 20 October 2024. Bella and Ezra know about Kevin’s experiences in foster care and Ezra, at least, is concerned about whether Jane is being treated appropriately.18 While Ezra’s concerns are understandable, Jane’s care appears to be very good, and she is thriving in her placement. Kevin’s experiences had a serious ongoing effect on him. As recently as May 2025, Kevin expressed fear and grief around these events saying that he was afraid of the dark because the carer locked him in his room with the light off when her former partner went away and that he is sad because the former carer does not want him.19 I infer that Bella and Ezra, because they live with him and care for him, are aware of Kevin’s ongoing trauma from being locked in his room. In Bella and Ezra’s eyes these issues are Child Safety’s fault, or, at the very least, bad things that happened to their vulnerable brother, which Child Safety did not prevent from happening. Bella and Ezra had been trying to have Jane over for sleepovers at their residential home for almost a year before it happened, though they have had regular contact with her since going into care. I understand that sleepovers commenced after the matter was exposed in evidence during these proceedings. 20 Bella and Ezra are concerned that they might ‘lose’ Jane due to living separately from her. That concern is valid and justified. I note Jane’s carer is said to believe that Bella and Ezra are telling Jane to say things that will get her moved out of the foster placement. Whether the carer’s concerns are justified or unjustified, they do not bode well for Jane’s ongoing relationship with her family.21 Refusal to move the children from their current residential care home. Since May 2025, Bella and Ezra have advocated strongly that they be moved from their current residential home because they do not feel comfortable living in a house where Kevin was sexually abused and being cared for by an organisation that has let Kevin down so 17 The carer ultimately accepted she had locked him in the room to protect her other children, see page 103, exhibit 24, affidavit of CSO 17 April 2025 and Transcript 25 May 2025 at page 11 18 For one of Ezra’s concerns, see Transcript 20 May 2025 at page 13.37. See also para 11 of the affidavit of STL 21 May 2025. 19 See exhibit 3, affidavit of STL, 21 May 2025 and exhibit 24 at page 103, affidavit of CSO 17 April 2025 which records that the carer, on being confronted with the allegations is noted to become very heightened and said “take him, you take him, I’m not any more, take him now” when Kevin was standing only 2 metres away. 20 Transcript 22 May 2025 at pages 57 to 58 and particularly page 74, Transcript 30 May 2025 at page 27, Transcript 25 July 2025 at page 18, Transcript 13 June 2025 at page 5. 21 Equally, Bella believes that the carer is telling Jane bad things about her (Bella), see Transcript 30 May 2025 at page 14 and Transcript, 24 July 2025 at page 18, line 30. -- 10 of 27 -- 11 badly.22 A detailed examination of what has happened to Kevin in residential care is necessary. On 8 April 2025, a Tuesday during school holidays, one of Kevin’s male carers (‘Carer A’) was rostered to take Kevin to a medical centre in a work car. At the end of his shift, Carer A entered a routine account of his activities during the day into the residential operator’s electronic systems:23 1000 – 1100: Play based activities with Kevin. 1130– Attended… [medical practice]… 1200 – Ask Kevin what he wanted to do next, he says go to a park and play. We went to [name of park]24, not far from doctors location. 1200-1500 – play in park, Kevin engaged with other kids well, loved patting all the dogs and a group had set up a small inflatable jumping castle with a slide which after asking he was allowed to go on with the other kids. Kevin seemed to really enjoy this time. 1600 – Arrive back home and begin evening routine. Kevin playing in the lounge. Entirely independently, on 10 April 2024, a female carer (‘Carer B’) arrived back to the residential house at 1am, having dealt with a crisis for Bella. She observed Kevin awake and out of bed, sitting on his bed and she observed that the bed did not look as if anyone had slept on/in it. She noted that Carer A was on duty and that on other occasions when she has come on duty immediately after Carer A, she had seen flannels on the floor of the bathroom in the youth worker’s bathroom, which is adjacent to the carer’s office/bed. She was also concerned because when she is on duty and working at the desk in the office, Kevin asks if he can sleep there, often saying ‘Carer A lets me sleep there’. Unfortunately, for reasons which are unclear, Carer B did not communicate her observations and concerns until 18 April 2025. On 18 April 2025 Carer B finally emailed her concerns to Manager A25. Bizarrely, after receiving this email, Manager A sent a detailed email to the CSO in relation to a completely different incident involving Kevin which occurred on 18 April 2025, i.e. that he got up early and made a huge mess. There is no mention in the email of the critical information she had just received from Carer B. 22 For example, transcript 24 July 2025 at page 20. 23 Tender Bundle, 22 May 2025, page 77. 24 A park that is approx. 5km from the medical centre and 3.5km from Carer A’s home. 25 Tender Bundle, 22 May 2025, page 128. -- 11 of 27 -- 12 On 20 April 2025, Manager A forwarded Carer B’s email to Manager B and 22 April 2025, Manager A and Manager B exchanged emails to say that they need a time to meet with Carer A “to unpack this”.26 On 24 April 2025, information came to light that Carer A had taken Kevin to Carer A’s home on 8 April, the day of the appointment at the medical centre. It appears that Kevin asked a different youth worker whether they would be going to Carer A’s house after school, because Carer A had taken him there after the doctors’ and he had played on a jumping castle and with two dogs27 and that he told Manager A that he had slept in the youth worker bed with Carer A.28 The disclosure about sleeping in bed with Carer A did not include any evidence that Carer A had touched Kevin inappropriately, but that must necessarily have been a realistic concern for all involved. On 28 April, Manager A wrote to internal stakeholders and the CSO, correctly notifying the relevant parties about Kevin’s visit to Carer A’s home and sleeping in the youth worker bed with Carer A.29 By 29 April 2025 the care home operator distributed data from the work car’s GPS tracker.30 The data show that Carer A did not go to the park he nominated in his electronic notes, but drove directly from the Medical Centre at 12.10pm to his home, where the car remained for 1 hour and 50 minutes. The car left Carer A’s home at about 2.10pm and arrived back at the residential home at approximately 2.30pm. On 1 May 2025 Carer A attended a ‘show cause’ meeting with his employer, the operator of the residential home. I have been provided with the notes taken by a manager involved in that meeting31. They are handwritten and I set out the contents (as they appear to me) below: “1. That never happened. Young person makes stuff up. I have never had a young person in the bed with me, ever. 2. No this didn’t happen. + Concern in same story to multi(ple?) youth workers. This is ridiculous. I never do this. 4. Explain why we need to have process. I am shocked. He has never been in the bed. 5. He has never been to my house. He’s been to a park with jumping castle & dogs. On this day, we went to a community fair at park. My wife arrived with my kids & dogs. We left after this after a minute. He has never been to my house. [Carer A appears to have been confronted with the GPS data at this point] 26 Tender Bundle 22 May 2025, page 127 27 See exhibit 7.3, affidavit of STL, 9 May 2025 28 See exhibit 1, affidavit of STL, 21 May 2025 29 See exhibit 1, affidavit of STL, 21 May 2025 30 Tender bundle, 22 May 2025, page 79 31 Tender bundle, 22 May 2025, page 85 -- 12 of 27 -- 13 6. I can explain. We were at the park and I forgot to bring a hat. I went to my place, got a hat and returned to my house park. + But you were there for 2 hours. … The operator’s record of the process is at exhibit 7.3 to STL’s affidavit of 9 May 2025. It clarifies that Carer A gives four versions in response to having what Kevin said about going to his house is put to him, which come after the original lies he entered into the residential operator’s computer system: 1. A complete denial 2. He took Kevin to the park where he met his wife, children and dogs.32 3. Version 2 plus Kevin had no hat so they drove to Carer A’s house to get him one. 4. They did not go to the park, he took Kevin to his home where Kevin played with his children and dogs. Carer A was sacked by a letter dated the same day. That letter says, among other things: “When asked about you taking the young person to your personal address, you initially denied this allegation. When presented with the placement vehicle tracking data, which showed you at your personal address, you changed your response to you were at your home address so the young person could play with your children.” This confirms my interpretation of then notes that Carer A initially denied the accusation that Kevin had been to his house and only relented once faced with the GPS data. On 15 May 2025, the CSO and her supervisor, the Senior Team Leader,33 interviewed Kevin. 34 On the material available to me, there were no earlier interviews between Child Safety and Kevin. This interview takes place 3 weeks after Child Safety were notified about these issues and 5 weeks after Carer A took Kevin to his house. In the interview, Kevin is distracted and engaging in imaginary play. I have the notes from that interview which contains the following exchanges: Q Did anything happen when you were sleeping in bed with [Carer A]? A No, nothing happened. Q What were you wearing when you were sleeping in the bed with [Carer A]? A I was in my clothes. 32 For completeness I note that in an interview on 19 May 2025 between the Senior Team Leader (‘STL’) and Bella, Bella had heard a subtly different version directly from Carer A, that is, that ‘a mate’ of Carer A was having a party at the park with a jumping castle, see tender bundle 22 May 2025 at page 16. 33 There has only been one Senior Team Leader in these proceedings. Given some of the findings below and the fact that the STL was not a party to proceedings, I propose referring to that person simply as the STL. 34 Tender bundle 22 May 2025 at page 3. -- 13 of 27 -- 14 Q When you went into your own bed, was it middle of the night or morning? A (no response) *plays with the vacuum* Q When you were sleeping in the bed with [Carer A], what was he wearing? A I don’t know Q was he wearing clothes? Or pyjamas? A He was wearing clothes Q how many times did you sleep in the bed with [Carer A]? A 60 times. Q Do you know, if I say "private parts" what they would be? A No? Q the parts in your undies. Do you have words for those? So one of them might be your bum. A (no response) *plays with the vacuum cord* Q have you got a bum? A No. *laughs* Q Did [Carer A] touch your private parts? A Yes. Q When did he do that? A Last week. Q Can you tell me about what happened when [Carer A] touched your private parts? A Last week. I'm busy. In this interview, Kevin clearly alleges that he was touched on his private parts by Carer A. Obviously, Kevin cannot be correct when he says it occurred ‘last week’ as Carer A had not worked since 24 April 2025, but in the context of a child’s concept of time and Kevin’s intellectual disability, that does not necessarily undermine the credibility of Kevin’s other disclosures. On 27 May 2025 Child Safety interviewed Kevin for a second time.35 In that interview Kevin is, again, distractable and engaged in imaginative play. Taken with Kevin’s other intellectual issues, it would be inappropriate to give great weight to everything Kevin said in the interviews on its own. Considered with the other available information, however, some of 35 Exhibit 34, affidavit of CSO 13 June 2025 -- 14 of 27 -- 15 what Kevin says is of great concern. I set out two relevant extracts from Child Safety’s notes from the interview: Extract 1: Q: Did you say you did not like all the staff yes? A: They're old and rusty. [played with lego] Q: did staff do something to you A: Yes Q: what did they do A: (no response) [played with lego] Q: what did they do to you A: (no response) [played with lego] Q: was it good or bad A: Good Q: so what was good A: They lick me Q: where did they lick you? A: All over my body Q: did you know the name of the person who licked you? A: I don't know Q: was it a boy or a girl? A: A boy and a girl. Q: Did boy lick you or the girl? A: Boy and girl. Q: Did both boy and girl lick you? A: yes Q: what did you do when they lick you A: I called Police Q: what were you doing when they licked you, playing, in your room? A: Playing outside the house Extract 2 Q: I heard you had a worker named [Carer A], do you know him? -- 15 of 27 -- 16 A: Yes Q: what does [Carer A] do with you, does he help you? A: (No answer) [played] Q: tell me about [Carer A] A: (No answer) Q: what do you call [Carer A]? A: I don't know Q: Did [Carer A] do something to you? A: No, it’s bad Q: What do you mean bad? A: It’s bad. Q: Did someone tell you that it’s bad? A: (No answer) On 23 June 2025 the CSO and an STL spoke to Carer A by phone.36 In relation to having Kevin sleep in the youth worker bed, he continued to deny this had ever occurred and, in relation to having Kevin at his house, he gave a version similar to the final version in his ‘show cause’ interview but added two additional details which are, arguably, curious omissions from his earlier version: 1. The visit to his home was Kevin’s idea because while they were at the medical centre his wife was sending him photos of the children on his street having a party and when Carer A spoke to his wife by phone, also while at the medical centre, Kevin heard children playing in the background. Kevin then asked if they could go to Carer A’s home. 2. Kevin played with other children from the street, not just Carer A’s children. On 7 July 2025 the CSO and STL spoke to the residential home operator in relation to the allegations about Carer A and issued the operator with a decision letter about the standard of care they had provided to Kevin.37 The decision letter is accompanied by what appear to be the minutes of the ‘final consult’ between Child Safety and the operator in relation to the conduct of Carer A. Those minutes, in full, are: 36 Exhibit 11, affidavit of CSO, 14 July 2025 37 Exhibit 12, Aff of CSO, 14 July 2025 -- 16 of 27 -- 17 • LCS638 has been lodged by [operator] and is pending based on outcome of this SOC. • Investigation occurring with [Carer A], but under their policy he has worked outside of that which is why he is no longer with them. • All parties agree no harm, standards still not met. • Concerned it could have been grooming. Not enough to reach threshold of harm, but discussed the possibility of where it could have gone. • Put [Carer A’s] name into the SOC so it's on his file now. • Standards not met A & E. • Dignity & rights. Emotional care, not providing clear safe messages and boundaries around sleeping and physical contact. • Balance of probability is, [Carer A] has lied to Safe Places, credibility is gone. Only admitted to what he had done once given evidence (car tracking). Need to safeguard the children. There was not information to substantiate grooming as there has been no disclosures made to confirm that this has occurred. • Discussions with Kevin were difficult due to his disability and his inability to participate in a free flowing conversation however, Kevin was able to say that when he slept he was wearing clothes and all they did was sleep. Child Safety’s conclusion, consistent with the minutes, was the standards were not met, the particulars of the failure being: Requirement A39: The child’s dignity and rights will be respected at all times was breached because: Kevin’s rights to privacy were not respected as he was identified to a youth worker’s family as a child in care. Requirement C40: The child will receive emotional care that allows him or her to experience being cared about and valued and that contributes to the child’s positive self-regard was breached because: Kevin was not provided with clear safe messages and boundaries around sleeping and physical contact which impacts on his emotional care and development. Decisions on licensing and standards of care are Child Safety’s to make and not the Court but this meeting and the conclusions reached during it indicate to me that Bella and Ezra’s concerns about Child Safety not taking their, or Kevin’s, interests seriously are justified because: 1. There is no mention in the meeting or letter that: • It took Carer B eight days to write to Manager A to report that she had seen Kevin awake and sitting on a still-made bed at 1am while Carer A was on duty. 38 LSC6 is a form related to licencing of care homes for updating personal information 39 Inferentially, a reference to s122(a) of the CPA 40 Inferentially, a reference to s122(c) of the CPA -- 17 of 27 -- 18 • From when Manager A received that report on 18 April 2025 nothing had occurred to investigate Carer A or protect the children until Kevin made further disclosures on 24 April 2025 that he had been to Carer A’s home. • That Kevin had, in his interviews with Child Safety, mentioned being touched on his privates by Carer A, being licked by staff (a boy and a girl) and that Carer A had done something bad to him. (It is not clear to me that the care home operator has ever received this information.) 2. It is not accurate to say, as the minutes do, that “[t]here was not information to substantiate grooming as there has been no disclosures made to confirm that this has occurred” because: ● It appears to have been accepted in the minutes that Carer A did sleep in the same bed as Kevin, i.e. “…and all they did was sleep.” (my emphasis) ● In circumstances where Kevin said it happened “60” times and there is nothing in his disclosures to other carers that suggests it was a single or rare event, nothing more really needs to be shown to prove that grooming occurred. ● The idea that a lack of disclosures, inferentially by Kevin, means that grooming could not be established is illogical. The very essence of grooming is that the groomed person/child does not know they are being groomed. ● If there reference to a lack of disclosure means that Kevin did not say that anything inappropriate happened, then that information is clearly wrong based on his interviews with the CSO and STL, though, as noted above, it is not clear to me that the care home operator has ever received this information from the interviews with Kevin. 3. There is no evidence before me that Carer A’s final version was ever tested, as it could easily have been by checking with his wife or seeing whether he had photos on his phone consistent with that final version. 4. It is bizarre that, given all that happened to Kevin, one of only two adverse findings was that Kevin’s dignity and rights were not respected because Carer A identified him to his wife as a child in care – this appears trivial in the overall context of the investigation. 5. I understand that the QPS have had a look at the situation and decided not to bring any charges against Carer A. I accept that this is likely to be an appropriate decision where the QPS would be required to prove offences to the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Nevertheless, the positive finding recorded in the minutes that “[a]ll parties agree no harm, standards still not met” (my emphasis) is utterly incomprehensible. During these proceedings I made an interim direction asking Child Safety to consider whether the children should be housed in a different residential home. This was done at the older children’s request and on the basis that the children were uncomfortable living in a place where Kevin had been sexually abused and where Carer B and Manager A had not acted promptly to protect Kevin once they had information that Carer A was a risk to Kevin. -- 18 of 27 -- 19 Child Safety decided not to change the placement. Again, this decision is incomprehensible, unless of course it is based on the premise that “all parties agree no harm done”. Failure to identify Alice as a family member with whom reunification could occur. The children have an adult sister, Alice, who had been in the care of Child Safety for an extended period, though she ended up living with her mother towards the end of the order. Alice has a very extensive criminal history but her largely offending came to an end in the middle of 2024. Since then she has only been charged with four offences, none of which have yet resulted in a conviction. One offence, which is alleged to have occurred on 10 July 2025, was a violent incident involving her mother, Ms Starling. Given the extensive information available to me about Ms Starling’s propensity for psychoactive substances and violence, I do not place great weight on that incident, notwithstanding some serious aspects in the police allegations. The further offences involve one instance of failing to appear at court and two stealing charges (23 June 2025 & 27 July 2025). I do not have any information that allows me to assess the seriousness of the stealing charges. At different times, Alice has attended contact with Ms Starling. Where Ms Starling sometimes struggled at contact, Alice was always a star for the children. All the children seem to adore her. Unfortunately, Alice has experienced housing instability, does not have a job and hasn’t been in a position, materially, to care for the children at any point in these proceedings. Given the Department’s view, which I share, that neither Mr Gleeson nor Ms Starling are ever likely to become parents who are willing and able to care for the children, I was surprised that more hadn’t been done for Alice, particularly in circumstances where Bella and Ezra have become more and more resentful of Child Safety’s involvement in their lives. That mystery was solved when, in the course of her evidence on 25 July 2025, the CSO admitted that, as far as she understood the legislation and Child Safety’s policies, she had no mandate or obligation to work with adult siblings and that she understood case work was limited to the parents’ and children’s needs. Once the CSO realised that the Act says “reunification of the child with the child’s family” (my emphasis) and not ‘with the child’s parents’41 she said: “Because if that is in the legislation then maybe our entire practice is wrong.”42 I note that the CSO is not particularly experienced and seems to have been assigned responsibility for the Starling children on her first day working for Child Safety in 2022.43 The CSO’s misunderstanding is very much a failure of management and training rather than 41 CPA s62(5)(b) 42 Transcript 25 July 2025, page 83, line 31 43 See paragraphs [1] & [2], affidavit of CSO 28 November 2023 -- 19 of 27 -- 20 entirely referable to the CSO, particularly in this case where the material shows that her immediate supervisor, the STL, took a leading role in many aspects of case management. Alice’s apparent success over her problems with substances and volatility, as well as her love for and commitment to the children means she has excellent potential to become the children’s full-time carer. She is the only path out of residential care for Bella, Ezra and Kevin and she is Jane’s only pathway to being raised by her family. Nevertheless, Alice still faces substantial barriers, particularly because she experiences housing instability. If Alice is couch surfing or living in temporary accommodation designed for one person, she will never be able to care for the children, no matter how other parts of her life improve. Equally, her former problems with substance abuse and abusive relationships are more likely to reappear without a stable place of her own. In circumstances where Bella and Ezra are spending increasing periods of time away from the residential home and spending at least some of that time in dangerous situations, it seemed to me likely that if Alice could live in the residential home it would have three very positive effects: ● The older children are likely to spend more time in the residential home ● Alice could stabilise other aspects of her life ● There would be an extra set of eyes to ensure the children’s safety. In the course of proceedings I received conflicting information about whether it was possible for Alice to live at the residential home. I ultimately issued a direction pursuant to s66(4) of the Act that the Chief Executive was to investigate whether Alice could live at the residential home.44 Correspondence was filed which indicated that the residential operator could not allow Alice to live in the residential because the residential operator’s license did not permit it. This answer was accepted by the STL and CSO, which is curious because Child Safety is the licensing authority. To be clear, Child Safety asked the operator if Alice could live at the residential home and the operator answered ‘no’ because of Child Safety’s rules. Apparently, this did not strike anyone involved as unusual and this answer was provided to the court as a final answer on the issue. After some agitation by the court, no further clarity was obtained until the court, of its own motion, used its powers under r91(b) to issue a subpoena to the Director General of Child Safety, Belinda Drew, personally. Ultimately, her appearance was not required and the question of whether Alice can live in the residential home was promptly answered: she can, depending, largely, on the operator’s workplace health and safety assessment of her and her good conduct while at the residential. To be clear, neither the operator nor Child Safety was 44 Children’s Court Rules, r64(2)(c) and (d) permit the court to decide the issues in a proceeding and the issues that need to be investigated. -- 20 of 27 -- 21 ever able to point to the particular licensing issue that the Court was originally told was the reason Alice could not stay at the residential. When the STL was asked in evidence whether she had any curiosity or agency to inquire whether the Child Safety licensing issue could be resolved by her within Child Safety she said she hadn’t because she didn’t think it was appropriate for Alice to live in the residential.45 The explanation to the mystery of why Child Safety hadn’t worked with Alice to help put her into a position to be able to care for the children was ultimately solved: ● The CSO didn’t think that it was any part of her job to work with Alice, when in fact it was, and ● The STL supervising the CSO didn’t see Alice as a worthy prospect for reunification. I note that, once she was asked in May 2025, Alice has said that she would like to be the children’s carer46 and would like to live in the residential home with her siblings if she has that option.47 I appreciate that the STL may be justified to have reservations about Alice living in the residential and having Alice as a candidate for reunification for the children but the difficulty with her position is that it fails to recognise that the alternative to Alice is simply warehousing the children in a residential home until they start staying away for so long that their placement closes or they age out of the system.48 Bella and Ezra have substantial and rational grievances with Child Safety and with the residential home operator. While I appreciate from the material that many of the residential home staff are excellent youth workers and have developed strong connections with Bella and Ezra, the current set-up is not sustainable. Youth workers inevitably move on and there are other issues with residential care homes as a form of care49 but apart from the usual issues, Bella and Ezra are anchored to the residential by Kevin’s presence there. They are in the awful position of having to choose between two bad options: ● staying in the place where they believe their brother was sexually abused, under the care of two organisations who were supposed to protect him but did not, both of which have decided, on highly questionable grounds, that it didn’t happen, or ● leaving the residential home and abandoning their little brother Even if the children are moved to a different residential home with a different operator, Bella and Ezra have enormous resentment against Child Safety. It seems likely that as they get older, the chances of keeping them in the residential home get slimmer. If they leave the 45 Transcript 25 July 2025, page 66, line 3 46 Exhibit 43, page 254, Affidavit of CSO 13 June 2025 47 Exhibit 7, CSO’s affidavit, 8 September 2025) 48 There is a very comprehensive kinship mapping report at exhibit 12 to STL’s affidavit of 21 May 2025. That report leaves no room for any optimism that another family member will be made available to the children. There was no suggestion in affidavits or the trial that Bella, Ezra or Kevin have any prospect being placed in foster care. 49 See DCPL v Powers & Ors (a pseudonym) [2025] QChCM 2 -- 21 of 27 -- 22 residential home they will either have to fend for themselves or live with their mother where their welfare will be at an even greater risk. The only prospect of keeping Bella and Ezra safe in the long term is if Alice moves into the residential home or Alice is supported to obtain her own place and is supported to care for the children. At this stage, neither of these options are likely to happen because the STL does not think that having Alice in the residential is appropriate and, given the STL’s attitude towards Alice, I doubt she will receive the substantial support she needs. I do note that on 8 August 2025, the CSO sent a housing support letter to the Department of Housing for Alice to get a 3 bedroom home but that was only done at the Court’s direction. My experience to date has been that any concessions to Alice in this matter have been done grudgingly and only at the Court’s insistence. For completeness, I note that the DCPL does not share the STL’s reservation about Alice as an appropriate, prospective family member for reunification. Is there a parent able and willing? If Child Safety has not always done the right thing by the children in this matter, the same can be said for the parents and, particularly, Ms Starling. Ms Starling’s case is that she is presently a parent who is able and willing. The great issue with this position is that, at all times since about the start of 2025, Ms Starling has been on the cusp of being sentenced to imprisonment for a substantial number of criminal offences that she seems to perpetually adjourn off to some later date. Ms Starling says that she has been unfairly treated by Child Safety but I do not agree with that analysis. For reasons given above, it would be more accurate to say that that Child Safety’s treatment of Ms Starling has not been fair to the children, but Ms Starling, while showing significant efforts on some fronts, continues to essentially behave much as she has done since Child Safety first got involved in her children’s lives five years ago. I have a lot of sympathy for Ms Starling’s circumstances. I imagine that many of the behaviours that place the children at risk are as a result of trauma she has experienced at the hands of others. I have less sympathy when Ms Starling tells her children that their problems are because of Child Safety, rather than accepting her share of responsibility. To her credit, Ms Starling has, at different times, engaged well with ‘PPP’ parenting programs, Lives Lived Well for substance abuse and particularly her psychologist Dr Kong. Unfortunately, Ms Starling has not taken the opportunities afforded to her. This matter was first heard as a trial on 11 and 12 September 2024. At that time, Ms Starling already had a very substantial criminal history but blamed Child Safety for not affording her adequate support and gave evidence that she was fine to look after the children. In effect, she argued that her days of drugs, domestic violence and property offending were behind her. Since that -- 22 of 27 -- 23 time she has been charged, with 3 x Possess Dangerous Drug, Possession of a Pipe or Bong and a breach of DVO, all on 15 March 2025.50 In addition, the DVO she breached on 15 March 2025 had been taken out by police as a result of an incident between her and a boyfriend on 6 February 2025. In that incident, Ms Starling accepted that she had repeatedly driven at her ex-boyfriend in her car, deliberately trying to run him over. The ex-boyfriend also had an injury to his hand and Ms Starling had a knife but neither party could tell police with certainty how that injury had happened, though on balance the ex-boyfriend putting his hand though the window of the car is a more plausible explanation than Ms Starling’s use of the knife. Ms Starling has been offered residential rehab but has not taken up the offer.51 During the course of these proceedings and her dealings with Child Safety generally, Ms Starling has been offered drug testing on many, many occasions but has never meaningfully taken up those offers. When Ms Starling clearly understood that she was on the cusp of ‘losing’ this trial, at the very end of submissions she raised the point that Mr Gleeson was not Bella’s father. While I am glad it was raised so that the proceedings could be brought with the correct respondent, Mr Giles,52 that conduct, raising such a deeply personal and difficult issue for all parties in a semi-public forum because it suited her purposes encapsulates, to an extent, Ms Starling’s inclination to manipulate people and situations to her advantage. Bella and Ezra dearly love Ms Starling, as do all the children. Ms Starling reciprocates that love in many ways but betrays it by telling the children that Child Safety is the problem, not her. This is not correct. Child Safety may be part of the problem but so is Ms Starling. Mr Gleeson has not suggested that he is a parent willing and able and I find that he is not and hasn’t looked like being one since he ‘fell off the wagon’ in the context of a new relationship at the start of 2023. Ultimately, her substance abuse, ongoing criminality and ongoing domestic violence require me to find that the DCPL has established that Ms Starling is not a parent who is willing and able. Having said that, where Child Safety might say that the children's negative attitude towards Child Safety is driven by mum, that is not right either. Bella and Ezra are intelligent and perceptive. They don't need anyone to explain to them how badly they've been treated by Child Safety. Various relatives have been explored in several finding kin reports and there are no obvious prospects on the evidence before me, though maternal aunt looked promising at one point in 2023. The maintenance of contact with Mr Gleeson’s side of the family was one of the bright 50 Criminal history for Ms Starling, printed on 8 August 2025 and exhibit 10 to the affidavit of STL, 9 May 2025. 51 See exhibit 21 to CSO’s affidavit July 2024. 52 DNA testing ultimately found that Mr Giles is Bella’s father. -- 23 of 27 -- 24 features of Child Safety’s involvement in the children’s life but it didn’t translate into any placement opportunities for any of the children. Since Alice has started to be included in planning for the children's future, towards the end of July 2025, she has not committed any offences, she has started to meet more regularly with children and the indicators from the residential care operator who facilitates the contact reports that the contact is positive but I have no evidence that she's been invited into the residential care home yet and certainly no indication that she's likely to be invited to live there. To be clear, the outcome of the extensive work of the Court, the DCPL, the Separate Representative and the other parties was that there is no actual barrier to Alice living in the residential home with the children and it would definitely be in the children's best interest if that could be done. I doubt it will happen under the current STL or CSO. Having Alice in the care home is an innovative solution to the children’s circumstances and, in the context of Child Safety’s often rigidly bureaucratic structures, it will not happen unless there is a CSO or STL who's willing to champion it as an outcome. My assessment of how Alice has been treated by the current STL is that she is barely tolerated and only tolerated because the Court has forced Child Safety to deal with her. The custodial orders I make today will be accompanied by protective and supervisory orders53 directed at requiring the Chief Executive to supervise the children’s protection in relation to: ● Assessing whether the current CSO and STL should be removed from the family’s case and replaced, because of my view that no progress will be made towards family reunification while the current CSO and STL remain in place.54 ● Whether the finding in relation to Carer A’s conduct towards Kevin should be the basis for Kevin’s ongoing care. ● Investigating whether the children want to be moved from the residential care home where Kevin slept in Carer A’s bed and, if so, whether they should continue to live in that residential. ● Making arrangements for Alice to live in the residential. ● Making arrangements for Alice to have appropriate support generally to assist her to become the children’s primary carer. ● Ensuring that the siblings living in the residential care home have sufficient contact with Jane. Order for Bella I note that Bella does not want an order to be made and could really not be clearer that she would like to live with Ms Starling. Bella works, she has her own access to money, she is attending school, though she was recently suspended. Overall, Bella is doing reasonably well 53 See s61 (c) 54 I do not have the power to direct their removal but I do have the power at s61(c) to direct the Chief Executive look at this important issue as part of their supervisory requirements under a child protection order -- 24 of 27 -- 25 but she has had substantial mental health issues at different times which have caused problems for her and those around her. Bella also knows, that even if I make an order, she doesn't have to stay in the residential, as she's shown many times. Ultimately, I find that a 12 month custodial order is appropriate for Bella and I will back date it to start from the last day of the hearing, 21 October 2025. This order is appropriate because of: ● Bella’s ongoing mental health concerns and intermittent hospital admissions; ● The support that the residential home provides is, by and large, protective; ● Without an order she won't be able to be in the residential home with Ezra and Kevin and that's not in her interest because of her deep connection to them; and ● There is still a prospect under s61(c) directives being given to the Chief Executive under these orders that Alice will finally get into the residential care home and it would be ironic if that is achieved but Bella is not able to stay there.55 Ultimately, in terms of the detail required by s62(5), the family reunification prospect is Alice, though she is not yet a realistic primary carer for Bella. Alice lacks the material resources to look after the children and there remain some questions about her stability.56 I have considered other orders for Bella.57 I considered adjourning the matter to allow the Court to supervise what happens over the next few months, but it seems to me that progress will not be possible given the intransigence of the current STL.58 The Court needs to make a decision and allow Child Safety the opportunity to care for the children in line with these findings on the correct arrangements for the children. This matter started back in 2023, further adjourning proceedings now simply isn't an option. I considered a protective/supervision order (‘PSO’) 59 but none of the parents are likely to improve their parenting under such an order and a PSO will not provide any of the material resources needed by the children. I considered different lengths of orders. I note that the order I make for is 12 months and matches the length of order sought by the DCPL in their last written application. A shorter 55 My experience in these and other proceedings is that Child Safety would be very reluctant to allow a child who is not on a custodial order to be at the residential care home. 56 As this litigated progressed it became clear to me that if I could have made a long-term guardianship order to Alice she would be provided with resources amounting to approximately $800 per fortnight per child. If Alice can stabilise her living arrangements and demonstrate her ability to be a primary carer for the children, freed from the limitations of her relative poverty, Alice would then become a very attractive prospect as a long-term guardian. 57 I am required to make the least intrusive order, s59(1)(e) 58 For example, I note that the case plans for the children, exhibited to CSO’s affidavits of 16 October 2025, make no mention of any efforts or plans to have Alice live in the residential or to support Alice to obtain her own accommodation. Despite this and because this deficiency can be dealt with by way of s61(c) orders, I find the case plans compliant with s59(1)(b)(i)&(ii). I also understand that the making of a custodial order on a final basis may result in new personnel being appointed as a matter of course, see transcript 24 July 2025 at page 8. 59 S61(a) & (c) -- 25 of 27 -- 26 order would not give enough time to allow a full transition to Alice’s care, while a longer order would risk Child Safety continuing to delay their provision of meaningful support for Alice’s involvement in the children’s lives. I should add that reunification for Bella is also reasonably achievable to Mr Giles within that time. Order for Ezra In relation to Ezra, largely the same considerations apply. The residential care home is, by and large, protective for Ezra. Ezra appears more stable and more likely to succeed without the support of an order than Bella but, at the same time, he's still quite young and as far as I know, he is not working and, therefore, doesn't have access to his own resources. Ezra also knows he doesn't have to stay at the residential but without a custodial order he won't be able to live with Kevin and that's not in his interest because of their deep connection. Equally, it would be ironic if Alice was accepted into the residential care home with Kevin but Ezra wasn't allowed to be there because he is not on a custodial order. I've considered less restrictive orders and, in the same way that I have for Bella, I came to the same conclusion in relation to the type and length of order for Ezra, although for Ezra the only reunification family member is Alice. Order for Kevin Slightly different considerations arise for Kevin but it is relatively straight-forward to find that it is in Kevin's best interest to be with Bella and Ezra. Reunification to Alice is slightly less certain for Kevin because of his higher needs but is still reasonably achievable. In the circumstances, Kevin’s best interests are served by an order that keeps him as close as possible to his siblings, so I make the same order for Kevin. Order for Jane Jane’s circumstances are different again. She is well settled and it's arguable that the permanency principles60 would support a long-term guardianship order to the chief executive or a longer short-term custody order, however such an order creates a real risk that her connection to her older siblings would be lost. In my view, it is not necessarily a binary proposition because making a long term order to the chief executive doesn't really grant permanency in a sense that has real meaning for a child, though I note s5BA(4)(d). Jane’s placement is quite stable, however having regard to the issues that arose while Kevin was in the same placement, there remains some uncertainty about its stability. I should be clear that I don't think Jane’s placement should change, but in the world of Child Safety it is sometimes very difficult to predict whether a placement will last, even if the child’s legal status has been decided on a long-term basis. While a longer order to the chief executive would give permanency in one sense, i.e. there would be clarity around the long-term legal position, that is not, in itself, much of an advantage to a child. What a child really wants is some certainly about who is going to be caring for them. It seems to me that reunification to Alice is ultimately realistic, though far from certain, it does meet the statutory test of being 60 CPA s5BA. -- 26 of 27 -- 27 reasonably achievable and that it is in Jane’s best interest because there is a very strong likelihood that Jane's connection with her family will be seriously impaired by a longer order. On balance, it would be in Jane’s best interest if she could ultimately be reunified to her older siblings. I may have reached a different conclusion if long term guardianship to Jane’s carer was an option, but the carer was not nominated by the Chief Executive as a long-term guardian.61 (Ezra and Bella, with her OPG representative, were consulted on whether this judgment should be published. They consented to its publication and chose their own pseudonyms.) 61 CPA s61(f)(ii) -- 27 of 27 --