Appeal court ruling arose from long-term guardianship orders over three children
In a case involving the long-term guardianship of three children, the Queensland Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal agreed with a submission by the director of child protection litigation and the children’s representative that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
On 10 October 2023, the child protection litigation director – the first respondent in SLB v Director of Child Protection Litigation [2026] QCA 22 – filed three applications seeking child protection orders for the appellant’s three grandchildren.
The director specifically sought orders granting long-term guardianship of the children to the chief executive for child safety under s 61(f)(iii) of the Child Protection Act 1999.
The appellant opposed the requested orders. She claimed that the court should grant her and her partner, the children’s step-grandfather, long-term guardianship.
The children’s father, who was the second respondent, also opposed the orders and sought an order in his favour. The third respondent was the children’s representative under the Child Protection Act.
On 21 March 2025, the Childrens Court of Queensland, constituted by a Childrens Court magistrate, issued the orders sought by the director.
On 7 April 2025, before the Childrens Court of Queensland, the appellant filed three notices of appeal. She wanted to set aside the Childrens Court magistrate’s decisions and again sought long-term guardianship.
On 2 September 2025, the Childrens Court of Queensland, constituted by a Childrens Court judge, dismissed the appeals.
Before the Queensland Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal, the appellant brought a notice of appeal asserting multiple legal, factual, and procedural errors in the Childrens Court judge’s decision on the merits.
The appellant sought to revoke the long-term guardianship granted to the chief executive and again requested long-term guardianship. The first and third respondents submitted that the appeal court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Accepting the first and third respondents’ submission, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal based on its lack of jurisdiction to entertain it.
At the commencement of oral arguments, the appeal court said it would determine the question of whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before hearing arguments on other issues in the proceeding.
With respect to decisions by the Childrens Court, constituted by a Childrens Court Judge, the appeal court noted that it could determine appeals against original decisions, not appeals against decisions exercising appellate jurisdiction.
The appellant suggested that the District Court, not the Childrens Court, made the decision under appeal. She argued that she would have the right to seek leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967.
Rejecting this argument, the appeal court noted that the appellant did not apply for leave. According to the appeal court, though a District Court judge made the orders under appeal, she acted in her capacity as a Childrens Court judge.
The appeal court added that s 118(3) did not provide an avenue for applying to this court for leave to appeal a Childrens Court decision.
Next, the appellant argued that nothing in the statute clearly excluded the appeal court’s appellate jurisdiction. The appeal court disagreed and found that this argument reflected a fundamental misconception. The appeal court noted that appeals were creatures of statute.
The appellant sought to invoke both the Queensland Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction and the appeal court’s appellate jurisdiction. The appeal court pointed out that the appellant did not identify jurisdictional error in her notice of appeal or written submissions on her proposed appeal’s merits.
According to the appeal court, if the appellant sought to invoke the Queensland Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, she should have brought a trial division proceeding seeking to establish a jurisdictional error by the Childrens Court judge.
The appeal court issued no cost order, as the respondents did not seek such an order.
