Ceb v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

[2018] QCAT 26

CITATION: CEB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 26

PARTIES:	CEB (Applicant)
v
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: CML110-17

MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters

HEARING DATE: 22 January 2018

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON: 31 January 2018

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General on 29 March 2017 to issue CEB a negative notice is confirmed.  

2.    The Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information in these proceedings that could identify the applicant or children in any way.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decision by respondent to issue a negative notice

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – whether exceptional case – whether or not in best interests of children to issue positive notice

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – protective factors – where protective factors included working with community organisations, attending training and counselling and strong support network – where applicant had positive character references – where no child-related offences  

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – risk factors – where applicant did not make enquiries about family member convicted of child-related sex offences – where applicant allowed children in her care to come into regular contact with family member convicted of child-related sex offences – where applicant failed to act with sufficient responsibility to keep own immediate environment safe – where applicant did not act protectively – where applicant sought to transfer responsibility and showed limited insight into risks – where separate risk factors relating to another foster child in applicant’s care including not providing telephone number to child’s mother to enable contact, inappropriate use of social media, and failing to provide appropriate emotional support – where these risk factors showed an inability by applicant in certain circumstances to place a child’s interests above her own    

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – exceptional case – where children in care particularly susceptible – where standard of care therefore higher – where applicant did not heed warning signs of cousin’s behaviour and failed to act protectively towards granddaughter – where failure to appreciate seriousness of situation and attempts to transfer responsibility are directly related to child-related employment – where hindering proper contact, inappropriate use of social media and not providing emotional support showed applicant still not learnt to place child’s interests ahead of own personal views and feelings – where failure to appreciate risk of immediate environment and placing own views and feelings above children in care is contrary to responsibilities placed on those whom community trusts with paramount responsibility to protect children – where risk factors outweigh protective factors

Queensland…