My sympathies to you and thankfully you have a dedicated Law Firm acting on your behalf. You make a great point re: Stats on the deaths of children in care on a nationwide basis. Maybe you could send an email to NSW Young Lawyers as they could be interested in carrying out such satas as an essay etc.

Why is Australia the only country that these statistics of children that have died in care within Child Protection/DHS-DOC'S be restricted by section 534 of the children,Youth and families act 2005...
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cyafa2005252/s534.htm

This has never been mean's tested here in Australia and should be.

Media are restricted in in realtion to publication in any way and especially if a child die's within the care of these Government Departments/Department of human services.

This makes for interesting reading and is a conclusion that should be considered by LAW.

Section 26(1) of the Act (as it was prior to 2007) provided as follows:
26. Restriction on publication of proceedings
(1) A person must not publish or cause to be published —
(a) except with the permission of the President, a report of a proceeding in the Court or of a proceeding in any other court arising out of a proceeding in the Court that contains any particulars likely to lead to the identification of —
i. the particular venue of the Children's Court, other than the Koori Court (Criminal Division) and the Neighbourhood Justice Division, in which the proceeding was heard; or
ii. (ii) a child or other party to the proceeding; or
iii. (iii) a witness in the proceeding; or
(b) except with the permission of the President, a picture as being or including a picture of a child or other party to, or a witness in, a proceeding referred to in paragraph (a); or
(c) except with the permission of the Secretary granted in special Section 26(1) of the Act (as it was prior to 2007) provided as followscircumstances in relation to a child who is the subject of a custody to Secretary order or a guardianship to Secretary order, any matter that contains any particulars likely to lead to the identification of a child as being the subject of an order made by the Court.

The equivalent section in the current legislation is as follows:
534 Restriction on publication of proceedings
(1) A person must not publish or cause to be published—
(a) except with the permission of the President, a report of a proceeding in the Court or of a proceeding in any other court arising out of a proceeding in the Court that contains any particulars likely to lead to the identification of—
i. the particular venue of the Children's Court, other than the Koori Court (Criminal Division) or the Neighbourhood Justice Division, in which the proceeding was heard; or
ii. a child or other party to the proceeding; or
iii. a witness in the proceeding; or
(b) except with the permission of the President, a picture as being or including a picture of a child or other party to, or a witness in, a proceeding referred to in paragraph (a); or
(c) except with the permission of the President, or of the Secretary under subsection (3), any matter that contains any particulars likely to lead to the identification of a child as being the subject of an order made by the Court.
Peter Harvey v Channel 7 Melbourne Pty Ltd, The Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors (Unreported, Magistrates Court, 15 May 2006) 12 ('Magistrate's Reasons') Reasons [65]-[71]:
In my opinion s 26(1)(a) is properly construed as a prohibition of the communication of information about "something that has happened in the proceedings or something else about the proceedings" which have taken place in The Children's Court (or in another court, arising out of such a proceeding) in a way which is likely to convey the proscribed information.
The questions are:
1. Is Nathan a ‘child’ within the meaning of the Act?
Section 3 of the Child Youth and Families Act defines ‘child’ as a person who is under the age of 17 years or, if a protection order, continues in force in respect of him or her, a person who is under the age of 18 years.
A person is defined by the common law concept of personhood which has been the subject of much debate in the context of pre-term abortion/miscarriage. You will recall the oft publicized debate that a foetus becomes a ‘person’ on taking its first breath. Likewise, the personhood ceases on death. (see A-G’s Reference (No 3 of 1994)). Heilbron J in C v S :
The authorities, it seems to me, show that a child, after it has been born, and only
then in certain circumstances, based on he or she having a right, may be a party
to an action brought with regard to such matters as the right to take, on a will or
intestacy, or for damages for injuries suffered before birth. In other words, the
claim crystallises upon the birth, at which date, but not before, the child attains
the status of a legal persona, and thereupon can exercise that legal right.
The legal definition of a person is ‘any reasonable creature in being’ as applied by the Court in Re A (Children)(Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] 2 WLR 480 (CA).
Reference is also made to the doctrine actio personalis moritur cum persona – that is, a personal action dies with the person.
The common law rule remains that personhood commences at birth and ceases at death.
2. Is Nathan a child who ‘is the subject of a custody order’?
Nathan ceased being a ‘child’ within the meaning of the Act on his death on 3 April 2005. Likewise, Nathan ceased being the subject of a custody order on his death on 3 April 2005.
No Order continues in force. DHS will confirm that this is the case. If the Order were to continue beyond the grave, the carer would still be entitled to care payments, family may be entitled to access visits and DHS would still be obliged to engage Nathan in counselling under the terms of the Order.
3. Is the proposed report a ‘report of a proceeding in the [Children’s] Court’?
The Court held in Children's Aid Society (1995) 21 OR (3d) 643 that the broadcasts of the programme did not breach a similar provision because at that time there were no proceedings on foot.
In Keating , the newspaper had published two reports about a boy who had been injured by a bomb explosion at his 16th birthday party. It was alleged that he had made the explosive device. The boy was named in both articles and the second article included his photograph. At the time these articles were published the boy had not been charged and no Children's Court proceedings had been commenced. The issue in the case was whether two later reports published six weeks and two months later in the 'West Australian', which referred to subsequent Children's Court proceedings, but did not name the boy, had identified him in breach of s 35(1) of the Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988 (WA). There was nothing in the later article which linked it back to the previous ones.
Section 35(1) of that Act prohibited the publication of a report of any proceedings in the Court, or in any other court on appeal from the Court, containing any particulars or other matter likely to lead to the identification of a child who is concerned in the proceedings -- as a person against whom the proceedings are taken; ... The Full Court of the Western Australian Supreme Court held that the newspaper reports did not breach the section. Murray J, who delivered the primary judgment of the Court, referred to the tension between protecting children from 'the harmful effects which may ensue following their public identification and exposure to the community' and giving effect to the fact that 'the court is a public place and its proceedings should be open to public scrutiny and be able to be reported to the community generally.'
In Waters Studdert J held that a Magistrate had not erred in dismissing a charge under s68(1) of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1986, which provided that the name of any child who appears before the Children's Court in any proceedings under this Part, ... shall not be published or broadcast, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of.
In that case the magazine 'New Idea' was prosecuted for breaching s 68, following publication of a story about a man who had killed his mother-in-law, wounded his father-in-law and held his child hostage. The story, which featured an interview with the child's mother, spoke of the impact of the murder and the mother's fears about her and her child's safety when the murderer was released. It referred to the fact that the mother had found it difficult to look after the child after the shooting and said the child had been placed in foster care. The story also said that 'the New South Wales Department of Community Service says it is unable to com-ment to protect the identity of some of the individuals involved'.
Studdert J held that the Magistrate had correctly held that while the article identified the child, it did not identify the child in connection with care proceedings, in breach of s 68(1). His Honour said that the section could not have been intended to make it an offence 'simply to publish the name of a child who has been in-volved.'
His Honour accepted defendant's counsel submission that the section must be directed to publishing a report of the proceedings. That would include 'reporting on the evidence placed before the Children's Court, the submissions made to that court and what the magistrate determined'.
4. Would the proposed picture be a ‘picture of a child .. in a proceeding’?
Again, it is a matter of construction. Is Nathan a child in a proceeding? Is there a proceeding?
The Children’s Court proceedings are long concluded (October 2004 being the last time the matter was before the Court) but it is relevant to note that the Order of the Court was that Nathan be placed in the custody of the Secretary to the Department of Human Service and reside as directed and a number of other provisions including counselling.
5. Does any other person fall within the definition of a child who ‘is the
the subject of a custody order’?
No.
Graham was not given custody of Nathan, DHS was.
Nathan’s sister) was not the subject of the order.