DTA v Children's Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 144

DTA v Children's Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 144

The correct and preferable decision was to refuse the WWCC clearance because the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal found that he minimised serious and repeated allegations of domestic violence against his wife over 16 years, gave inconsistent accounts, lacked insight into the effect of domestic violence on children, and had only undertaken limited recent treatment. Although the Tribunal could not make positive findings on the balance of probabilities about the charged assaults, the similar allegations and circumstances raised a real likelihood of future violence between the applicant and his wife, with potential adverse psychological...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent's decision refusing to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'domestic Violence Allegations' 'administrative Review' 'non Publication Orders']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'domestic Violence Allegations' 'administrative Review' 'non Publication Orders']

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 Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW).' "Whether the correct and preferable decision was to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance." 'Whether a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while engaged in child-related work.' 'Whether it was in the public interest to make an order enabling the applicant to work with children.' 'Whether a non-publication order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to refuse the WWCC clearance because the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal found that he minimised serious and repeated allegations of domestic violence against his wife over 16 years, gave inconsistent accounts, lacked insight into the effect of domestic violence on children, and had only undertaken limited recent treatment. Although the Tribunal could not make positive findings on the balance of probabilities about the charged assaults, the similar allegations and circumstances raised a real likelihood of future violence between the applicant and his wife, with potential adverse psychological...

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision refusing to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision made on 14 February 2019 of the respondent refusing to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance to the applicant is affirmed.' 'An order pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting, with the exception of expert witnesses and officers of...