DGF v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 286

DGF v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 286

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's lengthy history of domestic violence-related convictions, Apprehended Violence Orders and breaches, non-compliance with court orders, imprisonment for driving whilst disqualified, aggressive and controlling conduct reported by FACS, supervised-contact requirement with his son, antagonism towards FACS, and minimisation of responsibility demonstrated that he posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal to grant a Working With Children Check clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of a Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Administrative Review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian made on 11 August 2017 not to grant the Applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'administrative Review' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'domestic Violence History' 'child Related Work']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'administrative Review' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'domestic Violence History' '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 a Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Administrative Review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the correct and preferable decision was to grant or refuse the Applicant a Working with Children Check clearance.' 'Whether the Applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the Applicant while engaged in child-related work and whether granting a clearance would be in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's lengthy history of domestic violence-related convictions, Apprehended Violence Orders and breaches, non-compliance with court orders, imprisonment for driving whilst disqualified, aggressive and controlling conduct reported by FACS, supervised-contact requirement with his son, antagonism towards FACS, and minimisation of responsibility demonstrated that he posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal to grant a Working With Children Check clearance.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian made on 11 August 2017 not to grant the Applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian made on 11 August 2017 not to grant the Applicant a Working With Children Check clearance is affirmed."]