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