DNW v Challenge Community Services [2019] NSWCATAD 91

DNW v Challenge Community Services [2019] NSWCATAD 91

The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant sought review of an administratively reviewable decision cancelling her foster carer authorisation, but the applicant's partner lacked standing because he was never an authorised carer and no reviewable decision had been made against him under s 245 of the Care Act. On the merits, the independent investigation findings were open on the available evidence, and it was open to the respondent, applying the objects and paramountcy principles of the Care Act and the high standards required of foster carers, to de-authorise the applicant. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the respondent's decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Cancellation of Authorisation as a Foster Carer / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; decision of the respondent affirmed.
Legal Topics
['administrative Review' 'out of Home Care' 'authorised Foster Carer De Authorisation' 'reportable Conduct' 'paramountcy of Safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children' 'tribunal Jurisdiction and Standing']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['administrative Review' 'out of Home Care' 'authorised Foster Carer De Authorisation' 'reportable Conduct' 'paramountcy of Safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children' 'tribunal Jurisdiction and Standing']

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 Cancellation of Authorisation as a Foster Carer / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the respondent's decision cancelling the applicant's authorisation as a foster carer." "Whether the applicant's partner had standing to be a co-applicant." "Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm or set aside the respondent's decision to de-authorise the applicant as a foster carer." 'What weight should be given to the independent investigation findings and the protective objects and principles of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant sought review of an administratively reviewable decision cancelling her foster carer authorisation, but the applicant's partner lacked standing because he was never an authorised carer and no reviewable decision had been made against him under s 245 of the Care Act. On the merits, the independent investigation findings were open on the available evidence, and it was open to the respondent, applying the objects and paramountcy principles of the Care Act and the high standards required of foster carers, to de-authorise the applicant. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the respondent's decision.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; decision of the respondent affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent dated 6 July 2018 is affirmed.']