I kept reaching their milestones, DOCS kept moving the bar higher and higher!!!
Against DFFH for Failing to Provide Reunification Services
**Potential Applicants:**
- Parents who have had children removed without adequate reunification services
- Parents who met requirements but faced "moving goalposts"
- Children removed without evidence of adequate attempts at family preservation
**Legal Basis:**
1. **Failure to comply with Children, Youth and Families Act 2005**
- Section 10: Best interests principles require consideration of family preservation
- Section 7E: New binding principles regarding Aboriginal children (as of July 1, 2024)
2. **Breach of Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006**
- Section 17: Protection of families and children
- Section 8: Equality before the law
3. **Negligence**
- Duty of care to children and families
- Breach through inadequate service provision
- Harm caused by removal and inadequate reunification support
#### Queensland - First Nations Reunification Failure (2023)
**Lead Applicants:**
- **Parents case**: Brett Gunning (Aboriginal man, removed from own mother at 30 days old, spent decade trying to reunify with three children)
- **Children's case**: Madison Burns (taken into care at birth, placed in numerous foster homes, residential group homes, and motels until age 18)
**Legal Basis:**
- Breach of Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
- Failure to follow Child Placement Principle in Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld)
**Allegations:**
- Refusing or failing to reunite or restore family relationships
- Failing to support children to learn/practice culture, language, maintain connection to Country
- Failing to place children with Indigenous family members
- In some cases, failing/refusing to provide information about removed children's First Nations families
**Remedies Sought:**
- Financial compensation
- Non-financial remedies
- Formal and public apology
- Establishment of well-resourced consultation process to facilitate restoration of family relationships
- Systemic changes to prevent future harm
**Quote from Lead Applicant:**
"DOCS kept moving the bar. I kept reaching their milestones and then once I did, they kept moving the bar higher and higher. I could never obtain my children. This is just intergenerational abuse of my family, from my grandfather to my mother, my mother to me, now me to my kids. Four generations."
**Evidence Base:**
- Family Preservation and Reunification Response limited to specific groups
- Funding prioritizes out-of-home care (85%) over family support (15%)
- High caseloads preventing adequate family work
- Documentation of "moving goalposts" as seen in Queensland case