CRV v Anglicare NSW

[2017] NSWCATAD 247

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	CRV v Anglicare NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 247
Hearing dates:	6 March 2017 and 22 May 2017
Date of orders:	11 August 2017
Decision date:	11 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	C Grant, Senior Member D Crowley, General Member
Decision:	(1)  The respondent’s decision to de-authorise the applicant as an authorised carer is affirmed.
Catchwords:	Administrative review - authorised carers - allegations of physical restraint of a child - the safety, welfare and well-being of the child - decision to offer further training or de-authorise - the correct and preferable decision.
Legislation Cited:	Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act 1993 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Ombudsman Act 1974
Cases Cited:	YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 246 AHD and AHE v William Campbell College and AHD and AHE v Department of Family and Community Services [2013] NSWADT 98 BMA and BMB v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 20
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) T Stevens (Respondent)
Representation:	2016/00378301
File Number(s):	Section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the name of the applicant and the name of any other person that would identify the name of the applicant is not to be published or broadcasted without the leave of the tribunal.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant is an authorised carer under the Children and Young Person’s Act 1998 (the ‘Care Act’). The respondent, Anglicare is a designated agency providing out of home care to children in NSW.

2. On 26 March 2015, the applicant self-reported an incident involving an 8 year old child. She was the authorised carer of the child and to prevent him from climbing on a roof, she used unapproved physical restraint on the child. That is, she tied up the child’s hands with a skipping rope and tied the rope to a pole. She says her actions were to ensure the safety of the child. The applicant, throughout the investigation of the incident, struggled at times, to admit any wrongdoing. On 2 November 2015, the respondent decided to de-authorise the applicant as an authorised carer.

3. Upon consideration of all the material and evidence, the Tribunal finds the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the respondent’s decision.

Background

4. On 21 May 2013, the applicant, who will be referred to as ‘CRV’ in these reasons, was an authorised carer. Her husband was also authorised at the same time but he is not a party in these proceedings.

5. As stated, on 26 March 2015, CRV telephoned the respondent case manager and self-reported an incident involving an 8 year old child in her care. The child will be referred to as ‘AA’ in these reasons. AA had been in CRV’s care for approximately one year and there were also three other children…