FHZ v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 320

FHZ v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 320

The Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to displace concern about the likelihood of repetition arising from the Tribunal's finding that there was a possibility that the alleged conduct occurred. There was no risk assessment report or independent evidence addressing his alcohol abstinence, claimed family circumstances, or likelihood of repetition, and the Applicant did not demonstrate adequate insight into his alcohol problem and relapse triggers. The Tribunal was satisfied that he posed a risk to the safety of children and that a reasonable person would not allow him unsupervised access to their child while engaged in child-related work, so the correct and preferable decision...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the Applicant's Working with Children Check Clearance was affirmed and the application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'assessment of Risk to Children' 'unproven Criminal Allegations' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'assessment of Risk to Children' 'unproven Criminal Allegations' 'publication Restriction']

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 refuse the Applicant's Working with Children Check Clearance." 'Whether the Applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'Whether a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct, unsupervised contact with the Applicant while he was engaged in child-related work.' 'How the Tribunal should assess unproven criminal allegations in determining risk.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to displace concern about the likelihood of repetition arising from the Tribunal's finding that there was a possibility that the alleged conduct occurred. There was no risk assessment report or independent evidence addressing his alcohol abstinence, claimed family circumstances, or likelihood of repetition, and the Applicant did not demonstrate adequate insight into his alcohol problem and relapse triggers. The Tribunal was satisfied that he posed a risk to the safety of children and that a reasonable person would not allow him unsupervised access to their child while engaged in child-related work, so the correct and preferable decision...

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the Applicant's Working with Children Check Clearance was affirmed and the application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian on 25 February 2022 to refuse the Applicant's Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed." 'With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to...