DD v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency

CITATION:	DD v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 349
PARTIES:	DD (Applicant)
v
Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML232-14

MATTER TYPE:	Childrens matters
HEARING DATE:	9 June 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Quinlivan

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Chief Executive to refuse the applicant a positive notice and a Blue card is set aside.

2. The Chief Executive is to issue a positive notice and Blue Card to DD.

3. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the adult, her referees and of the organisations in the decision relating to application number.

CATCHWORDS:

Childrens matters - exceptional case - blue card, - no serious offences - history of child protection issues

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:	Ms B. O’Brien represented the Applicant
RESPONDENT:	Ms N. Taylor represented the Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency

REASONS FOR DECISION

DD is a 39-year-old woman who wants to be a teacher’s aide because she really wants to help children and young people achieve. She would like to offer children the sort of encouragement and support that she wished she had received as a child. She also wants to work hours that will allow her to continue to be a parent for her boys without sending them to vacation care or using childcare or babysitters.
Her boys are currently aged 19, 16 and 8 years. Her oldest son lives with his father. He has done so since he was 8 years old. Her second son attends TAFE where he studies IT, networking and programming. He was diagnosed with ADHD and posttraumatic stress disorder in 2010 and has been on medication since that time. He does not see his father. Her youngest son is in grade 3 and is doing well at school. He also does not see his father at present.
As a family, the applicant and her 2 sons have lived in stable accommodation in a Department of Housing property since 2010.
In her own words, DD says that “being a child was not all fun and games for (her) and neither were some of the decisions (she) made throughout (her) adult life.” She states that, as a child, she was sexually abused by her stepfather but was not believed by her mother. She had her first consensual sexual partner in 1993 as a 17-year-old and then followed a series of highly abusive violent controlling relationships.
She claims that she has not had a relationship since 2013. She has decided that “single” is the best option for her.
DD has a limited criminal history consisting of an offence for possessing a weapon whilst not licensed (28/01/1997), an assault occasioning bodily harm (29/03/2004) and a charge of obstruct police officer (27//01/2008). No convictions were recorded in relation to the first and third offences and no evidence was offered in relation to the second offence.
During the period from February 2005 until April 2012 there were 11…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DD v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The applicant, DD, sought a Blue Card, which is a mandatory requirement for individuals working in certain roles that involve vulnerable people, such as children and the elderly. The Chief Executive of the Public Safety Business Agency refused to grant DD a positive notice and a Blue Card due to concerns arising from her past child protection issues. The applicant sought to challenge this decision, arguing that she had no serious criminal history and that the refusal was disproportionate.

The primary legal issue for the Tribunal was whether the refusal to grant a Blue Card was justified in light of DD's history of child protection issues. The Tribunal had to consider the relevant statutory framework, particularly the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), and assess whether the refusal was consistent with the principles of proportionality and fairness. The Tribunal also needed to evaluate the impact of the refusal on DD's ability to work in roles that involve vulnerable people.

The Tribunal found that the refusal to grant a Blue Card was not justified. It concluded that the history of child protection issues did not necessarily equate to an inability or unsuitability to work with vulnerable people. The Tribunal emphasised that the refusal must be proportionate to the risk posed by the applicant. Given that DD had no serious criminal history and had taken steps to address her past issues, the Tribunal determined that the refusal was disproportionate and not in line with the statutory requirements. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Chief Executive's decision and ordered the issuance of a positive notice and Blue Card to DD. Additionally, the Tribunal prohibited the publication of the names of the adult, her referees, and the organisations involved in the decision.

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Chief Executive to refuse the applicant a positive notice and a Blue card is set aside.

2. The Chief Executive is to issue a positive notice and Blue Card to DD.

3. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the adult, her referees and of the organisations in the decision relating to application number.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established