DRZ v Barnardos Australia [2020] NSWCATAD 318

DRZ v Barnardos Australia [2020] NSWCATAD 318

The applicant's conduct in maintaining a relationship with Mr AB, a person of interest in a homicide investigation, after being informed of that status, demonstrated a serious lack of insight and judgment as to the paramount protective role of an authorised carer and exposed the child to risk of harm. This lack of insight and failure to notify the agency showed the applicant was no longer suitable to be an authorised carer, justifying cancellation of authorisation. Absence of evidence of actual harm was not determinative.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Procedural Posture
External Administrative Review / Reconsideration on Remittal After Internal Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed, original decisions affirmed
Legal Topics
['cancellation of Carer Authorisation' 'removal of Child From Foster Care' 'suitability to Be Authorised Carer' 'failure to Notify Agency' 'risk of Harm' 'code of Conduct for Authorised Carers']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['cancellation of Carer Authorisation' 'removal of Child From Foster Care' 'suitability to Be Authorised Carer' 'failure to Notify Agency' 'risk of Harm' 'code of Conduct for Authorised Carers']

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

External Administrative Review / Reconsideration on Remittal After Internal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is no longer suitable to be an authorised carer' "Whether the applicant's conduct in maintaining a relationship with a person of interest in a homicide investigation justifies cancellation of authorisation" 'Whether failure to notify the agency of police contact constituted a breach justifying cancellation' "Whether the decision to remove the child from the applicant's care should be affirmed"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's conduct in maintaining a relationship with Mr AB, a person of interest in a homicide investigation, after being informed of that status, demonstrated a serious lack of insight and judgment as to the paramount protective role of an authorised carer and exposed the child to risk of harm. This lack of insight and failure to notify the agency showed the applicant was no longer suitable to be an authorised carer, justifying cancellation of authorisation. Absence of evidence of actual harm was not determinative.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed, original decisions affirmed

Orders

  • ['A hearing is dispensed with pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' "The decision of the respondent to cancel the applicant's authorisation is affirmed." "The decision of the respondent to remove the Child from the applicant's care is affirmed."]