DCZ v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 81

DCZ v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 81

The Tribunal affirmed the cancellation because the Applicant's conviction for assaulting his stepdaughter, admissions in family law proceedings, multiple serious allegations of sexual abuse between 1986 and 1994, the serious contemporaneous responses by child protection authorities, the Applicant's unsatisfactory and non-credible evidence, and the absence of evidence of remedial steps left at least a lingering doubt and established a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Accordingly the correct and preferable decision was to affirm cancellation, and the Tribunal was not satisfied that the s.30(1A) reasonable person or public interest tests were met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Cancellation of Working With Children Check Clearance / Review of Decision Made by the Children's Guardian on 28 April 2017
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian to cancel the Applicant's Working With Children Check clearance was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'administrative Review' 'child Related Work']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'administrative Review' 'child Related Work']

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 Cancellation of Working With Children Check Clearance / Review of Decision Made by the Children's Guardian on 28 April 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of s.23 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW).' "Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm or set aside the cancellation of the Applicant's Working With Children Check clearance." 'Whether the Tribunal could be satisfied under s.30(1A) that a reasonable person would allow unsupervised direct contact with the Applicant while engaged in child-related work and that granting clearance was in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed the cancellation because the Applicant's conviction for assaulting his stepdaughter, admissions in family law proceedings, multiple serious allegations of sexual abuse between 1986 and 1994, the serious contemporaneous responses by child protection authorities, the Applicant's unsatisfactory and non-credible evidence, and the absence of evidence of remedial steps left at least a lingering doubt and established a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Accordingly the correct and preferable decision was to affirm cancellation, and the Tribunal was not satisfied that the s.30(1A) reasonable person or public interest tests were met.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian to cancel the Applicant's Working With Children Check clearance was affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian made on 28 April 2017 to cancel the Applicant's Working With Children Check clearance is affirmed."]