BXQ v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 102

BXQ v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 102

Having considered all the evidence and the matters in s30(1) and s15(4) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the Tribunal was not satisfied that BXQ posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The applicant had ceased corporal punishment, recognised it as inappropriate, was assessed by Dr Seidler as a low risk, FACS supported the application, and the Children's Guardian no longer opposed it. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to grant a working with children check clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance Under the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The Children's Guardian's decision dated 11 May 2015 was set aside and BXQ was granted a working with children check clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'corporal Punishment of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'corporal Punishment of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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

Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance Under the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should set aside the Children's Guardian's decision refusing a working with children check clearance." 'Whether BXQ poses a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether the correct and preferable decision is to grant BXQ a working with children check clearance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered all the evidence and the matters in s30(1) and s15(4) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the Tribunal was not satisfied that BXQ posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The applicant had ceased corporal punishment, recognised it as inappropriate, was assessed by Dr Seidler as a low risk, FACS supported the application, and the Children's Guardian no longer opposed it. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to grant a working with children check clearance.

Court Disposition

The Children's Guardian's decision dated 11 May 2015 was set aside and BXQ was granted a working with children check clearance.

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 set aside." 'In substitution, the applicant is granted a working with children check clearance.']