DAJ v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 299

DAJ v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 299

The applicant's unresolved mental health issues, continuing risk relating to alcohol abuse, history of abusive and violent behaviour, dishonesty and non-compliance with directions, and lack of corroborating expert evidence meant he posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children; therefore the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal of the clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Hearing of Review Application in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Outcome
Decision affirmed
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'mental Health' 'alcohol Abuse' 'abusive Behaviour']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'mental Health' 'alcohol Abuse' 'abusive Behaviour']

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 of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Hearing of Review Application in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Children's Guardian's refusal of the applicant's Working With Children Check Clearance should be affirmed, varied or set aside." 'Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while engaged in child-related work and whether granting clearance would be in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's unresolved mental health issues, continuing risk relating to alcohol abuse, history of abusive and violent behaviour, dishonesty and non-compliance with directions, and lack of corroborating expert evidence meant he posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children; therefore the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal of the clearance.

Court Disposition

Decision affirmed

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian of 5 June 2014 refusing the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed." 'Publication or broadcast without the leave of the Tribunal of any name or other identifying information of the applicant, any victim, any child referred to in these reasons or any...