DSF v Children’s Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 186

DSF v Children’s Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 186

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, although it could not make a positive finding that the applicant indecently assaulted the child, the circumstances surrounding the untested allegations, the applicant's recorded statements to Kids Helpline and police showing a sexual interest in a 9 year old child, his denial of those admissions, lack of insight into child protection principles, and limited weight of the psychologist's opinion and references cumulatively satisfied the Tribunal that he posed a real and appreciable risk to children.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Merits Review Decision
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'untested Allegations of Indecent Assault of a Child' 'safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'untested Allegations of Indecent Assault of a Child' 'safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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 Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Merits Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal could be satisfied that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children if granted a Working with Children Check clearance.' "How untested allegations and the applicant's recorded admissions should be assessed in determining risk to children." "Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm or set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal of a clearance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, although it could not make a positive finding that the applicant indecently assaulted the child, the circumstances surrounding the untested allegations, the applicant's recorded statements to Kids Helpline and police showing a sexual interest in a 9 year old child, his denial of those admissions, lack of insight into child protection principles, and limited weight of the psychologist's opinion and references cumulatively satisfied the Tribunal that he posed a real and appreciable risk to children.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed."]