❓ Hon Nigel Hallett asks about the time taken for care applications to reach final hearing in the Children's Court from 2002-2005. The response provides data on the quickest, average, and longest times for applications finalized between 2001 and 2005, noting limitations in data collection prior to 2006.
AnsweredQoN 3255Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(b) 2002; (c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(e) 2005?
(b) 2002; (c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(e) 2005?
(2) This answer is based on records held by the Department for Community Development and does not take into account applications initiated other than by the Department. There are usually a number of Mentions between the filing of the application and the final hearing. Assuming the Member is asking about the time between the application being filed and the final court hearing departmental records indicate the following: 2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days 2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
There are usually a number of Mentions between the filing of the application and the final hearing. Assuming the Member is asking about the time between the application being filed and the final court hearing departmental records indicate the following: 2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days 2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days 2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
(c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(e) 2005?
(b) 2002; (c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(c) 2003; (d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(d) 2004; and (e) 2005?
(e) 2005?
(2) This answer is based on records held by the Department for Community Development and does not take into account applications initiated other than by the Department. There are usually a number of Mentions between the filing of the application and the final hearing. Assuming the Member is asking about the time between the application being filed and the final court hearing departmental records indicate the following: 2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days 2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
There are usually a number of Mentions between the filing of the application and the final hearing. Assuming the Member is asking about the time between the application being filed and the final court hearing departmental records indicate the following: 2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days 2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days 2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days 2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days 2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days 2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court). While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 April 2006
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Community Development
Response time
28 days
(1) Until the introduction by this government of
the Children and Community Services Act 2004
, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, Interim Orders relating to care applications were not recorded electronically by the Department for Community Development. Therefore, unless every care and protection file created between 2001 and 2005 is physically perused, the Department is unable to answer this question.
(2) This answer is based on records held by the Department for Community Development and does not take into account applications initiated other than by the Department.
There are usually a number of Mentions between the filing of the application and the final hearing. Assuming the Member is asking about the time between the application being filed and the final court hearing departmental records indicate the following:
2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days
2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days
2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days
2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days
2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court).
While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
the Children and Community Services Act 2004
, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, Interim Orders relating to care applications were not recorded electronically by the Department for Community Development. Therefore, unless every care and protection file created between 2001 and 2005 is physically perused, the Department is unable to answer this question.
(2) This answer is based on records held by the Department for Community Development and does not take into account applications initiated other than by the Department.
There are usually a number of Mentions between the filing of the application and the final hearing. Assuming the Member is asking about the time between the application being filed and the final court hearing departmental records indicate the following:
2001 - quickest: 66 days; average: 281 days; longest: 872 days
2002 - quickest: 12 days average: 299 days; longest: 847 days
2003 - quickest: 36 days; average: 302 days; longest: 780 days
2004 - quickest: 30 days; average: 229 days; longest: 590 days
2005 - quickest: 19 days; average: 177 days; longest: 373 days (note: this figure will change as some 2005 matters are still before the court).
While generally protection applications should be dealt with by the Children's Court as quickly as possible, there are circumstances in which a significant adjournment would be in the child's best interests, for example to enable the Department and the family to work cooperatively to enable reunification before finalisation by the Court.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.