CJF v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 258

CJF v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 258

Although the Applicant's sexual relationship with a vulnerable student was a serious breach of professional responsibility and would seriously affect a child if repeated, the totality of the evidence showed that she had no criminal record, had undertaken treatment, had gained insight into her conduct and its impact, had developed protective strategies, had no further recorded concerns despite later sports-related work, and was assessed by Dr Seidler as presenting a low risk. The Tribunal was not satisfied that she posed a real and appreciable risk of harm to children greater than that posed by any other person, so the correct and preferable decision was to grant the clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Review of the Children's Guardian's Reconsidered Decision Dated 8 February 2016
Outcome
The Children's Guardian's decision was set aside and the Applicant was granted a Working With Children Check Clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children' 'publication Restriction']

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 / Review of the Children's Guardian's Reconsidered Decision Dated 8 February 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the correct and preferable decision was to refuse or grant the Applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance.' 'Whether the Applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' "How the factors in s 30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 applied to the Applicant's conduct, treatment, insight and risk of repetition."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant's sexual relationship with a vulnerable student was a serious breach of professional responsibility and would seriously affect a child if repeated, the totality of the evidence showed that she had no criminal record, had undertaken treatment, had gained insight into her conduct and its impact, had developed protective strategies, had no further recorded concerns despite later sports-related work, and was assessed by Dr Seidler as presenting a low risk. The Tribunal was not satisfied that she posed a real and appreciable risk of harm to children greater than that posed by any other person, so the correct and preferable decision was to grant the clearance.

Court Disposition

The Children's Guardian's decision was set aside and the Applicant was granted a Working With Children Check Clearance.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 8 February 2016 to refuse to grant the Applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance is set aside. In substitution for the decision the following decision is made: The Applicant is granted a Working With Children Check Clearance." 'Disclosure of the name of the...