DAK v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 374

DAK v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 374

DAK did not satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children, due to his historical convictions for violence against women, limited insight into the risks of his cannabis use and decision-making regarding child protection, and lack of evidence of capacity to mitigate these risks. Therefore, the application for an enabling order was dismissed under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW).

Parties
Applicant: DAK; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application for enabling order dismissed
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Enabling Order, Risk to Children, Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw)
Administrative Law Child Protection Working With Children Check Enabling Order Risk to Children Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw)

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DAK

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DAK poses a risk to the safety of children for the purpose of an enabling order under s 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

DAK did not satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children, due to his historical convictions for violence against women, limited insight into the risks of his cannabis use and decision-making regarding child protection, and lack of evidence of capacity to mitigate these risks. Therefore, the application for an enabling order was dismissed under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Application for enabling order dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an enabling order is dismissed.