BFL v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 33

BFL v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 33

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he does not pose a risk to children greater than the risk of any adult preying on a child. This finding turned on BFL's incomplete disclosure regarding drug use and workplace incidents, inconsistencies concerning drug relapse, unresolved emotional issues, and the prospect that his workplace conduct could cause psychological or emotional harm to children, despite the passage of time since the index offence and lack of offences against children.

Parties
Applicant: BFL; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) / Decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of NSW
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Disqualified Person, Risk Assessment, Enabling Order, Child Abuse, Rehabilitation, Disclosure Obligations
Administrative Law Child Protection Working With Children Check Disqualified Person Risk Assessment Enabling Order Child Abuse Rehabilitation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BFL

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) / Decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant (BFL) has discharged the onus to establish that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children under s 28(1) and (7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW).
  2. 2 Meaning and threshold of 'risk' to children in this statutory context.
  3. 3 Whether failures to disclose workplace incidents and drug use constitute breach of disclosure obligations under s 28(5).

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he does not pose a risk to children greater than the risk of any adult preying on a child. This finding turned on BFL's incomplete disclosure regarding drug use and workplace incidents, inconsistencies concerning drug relapse, unresolved emotional issues, and the prospect that his workplace conduct could cause psychological or emotional harm to children, despite the passage of time since the index offence and lack of offences against children.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application for an order under s 28(1) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) is refused.