FFC v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 209

FFC v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 209

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, on the whole of the evidence and the mandatory considerations in s 30, FFC currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children. The Tribunal found that some allegations were substantially true, but its principal concern was FFC's lack of insight, her blaming of the complainant, and her inadequate understanding of how to respond to conduct or circumstances posing risk of harm to children. The Tribunal also found that a reasonable person would not allow FFC unsupervised direct contact with their child in child-related work and that granting a clearance would not be in the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The decision of the respondent dated 30 September 2021 to refuse FFC's application for a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'real and Appreciable Risk' 'reportable Conduct Allegations' 'merits Review' 'public Interest' 'reasonable Person Test']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'real and Appreciable Risk' 'reportable Conduct Allegations' 'merits Review' 'public Interest' 'reasonable Person Test']

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 of Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm, vary or set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal of FFC's Working With Children Check Clearance." 'Whether FFC currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'Whether, if required, a reasonable person would allow FFC to have direct unsupervised contact with their child while engaged in child-related work and whether granting a clearance would be in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, on the whole of the evidence and the mandatory considerations in s 30, FFC currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children. The Tribunal found that some allegations were substantially true, but its principal concern was FFC's lack of insight, her blaming of the complainant, and her inadequate understanding of how to respond to conduct or circumstances posing risk of harm to children. The Tribunal also found that a reasonable person would not allow FFC unsupervised direct contact with their child in child-related work and that granting a clearance would not be in the public interest.

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent dated 30 September 2021 to refuse FFC's application for a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the respondent dated 30 September 2021 to refuse FFC's application for a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed."]