​8. Family

​A. Children

i.  Legislation

Victoria:
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) amended by the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (Vic).

New South Wales:
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) amended by the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (NSW).
 
Made under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW):
Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 (NSW) amended by the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures—Miscellaneous) Act 2020​ (NSW): The amendment in Item [1] enables a court to make a children’s community service order if it is satisfied that community service work will become available during the period of the proposed order, even if work is not available when the order is proposed to be made. The amendment in Item [2] provides that, during the COVID-19 pandemic period, a person may present himself or herself by audio link or audio visual link for the purpose of enabling the administration of a community service
order to be commenced.

Children's Guardian Act 2019 (NSW) amended by the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures—Miscellaneous) Act 2020​ (NSW):  extends a transitional arrangement that provides for certain provisions of regulations made under the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) and the Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW) to continue in force despite the commencement of the Children’s Guardian Act 2019 (NSW) or a regulation under that Act.

Australian Capital Territory:
Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) amended by:  
ii.  Case law
​
​Courts have considered COVID-19 in the context of issues relating to child protection.

Global travel restrictions introduced in response to COVID-19 may be relevant to child abduction cases and may require parties to make submissions on the impact of such restrictions on orders sought from the relevant court: see, e.g., Walpole & Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 65, [9], although the appeal in that case was decided on grounds unrelated to COVID-19.
​
Domestic restrictions on movement in response to COVID-19 may also be relevant to determining a child’s “best interests” under statutory child protection schemes.
In Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services v Children’s Court of Victoria [2020] VSC 144, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered COVID-19 to be relevant, in two respects, to determining an infant’s best interests for the purposes of an appeal against an interim accommodation order made by the Children’s Court under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). First, because movement restrictions would limit the ability of State child protection authorities to provide face-to-face services and supervision to the child’s mother ([33]). Secondly, because movement restrictions would make illusory opportunities that might otherwise be granted to the mother for access to the infant, in the event that the infant were placed in out-of-home care ([34]). Accordingly, the Court held that, in the circumstances of COVID-19, fracturing the mother-daughter bond, by placing the infant in out-of-home care, would cause very significant harm to the child’s interests ([36]). The Court did not consider that difficulties that the mother might encounter in attempting to secure appropriate accommodation during “stage two” and “stage three” movement restrictions justified an out-of-home placement in the circumstances ([47]-[48]).
​
Questions may also arise as to how the risk to children in State care from COVID-19 might interact with State child protection schemes (see, e.g., GR v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Justice [2020] NSWSC 348, [15]-[33], although such issues did not arise directly in that case).