BXG v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 56

BXG v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 56

Having considered the mandatory matters in s 30 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the Tribunal found that the applicant's 1997-2011 offending history and accompanying lifestyle, ongoing clinical and behavioural concerns including PTSD and relapse risk, absence of a sufficient risk assessment, and the fact that she had only limited supervised access to her own children established that she currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal to grant the clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Merits Review; Final Decision
Outcome
The decision of the respondent is affirmed; the application for review is refused and dismissed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'merits Review' 'protective Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'merits Review' 'protective Jurisdiction']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Merits Review; Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What the correct and preferable decision was in relation to granting the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance.' 'Whether the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' "Whether the applicant's evidence of rehabilitation, changed lifestyle, supports and treatment was sufficient to discount the existence of a real and appreciable risk." "Whether the Children's Guardian's refusal of the clearance should be affirmed."]

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the mandatory matters in s 30 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the Tribunal found that the applicant's 1997-2011 offending history and accompanying lifestyle, ongoing clinical and behavioural concerns including PTSD and relapse risk, absence of a sufficient risk assessment, and the fact that she had only limited supervised access to her own children established that she currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal to grant the clearance.

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent is affirmed; the application for review is refused and dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 11 May 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children check clearance is affirmed." "The application for review of the decision of the Children's Guardian filed 29 May 2015 is otherwise refused and dismissed."]