“There is no need, in my view, to rely upon this court’s inherent parens patriae jurisdiction to craft an Order which will help promote a rehabilitated relationship between children and their parents. The jurisdiction to order therapeutic counselling can be found in sections 24 (2) and 28 (1) (b) and (c) (vii) of the CLRA but caution must be exercised when considering the circumstances in which any such Order would be appropriate and, if so, to define the parameters of such third party involvement.
In summary then,
1. The court may order reunification therapy. That jurisdiction arises from the provisions of sections 24(2) and 28(1)(b) and (c) (viii) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
2. Such orders are to be made sparingly.
3. There must be compelling evidence that the therapy will be beneficial.
4. The request must be adequately supported by a detailed proposal identifying the proposed counselor and what is expected.
5. Resistance to therapy is an important but it is not the determining factor whether such an order should be made.
6. Where a clinical investigation or an assessment is underway, no order should be made pending their conclusion.
7. Wherever practical, appropriate direction should be given to the counselor/therapist and a report made to the court.”