DR v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General - [2023] QCAT 79

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

DR v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 79

PARTIES:

DR

(applicant)

V

DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML183-21

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2023

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2023

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Member McDonald

ORDERS:

The decision of the Respondent made on 13 May 2021 that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.

Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) the Tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the applicant, any witnesses appearing for the applicant and any relevant child

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 WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – blue card – where issue of negative notice – application for review – where applicant has charge – where other relevant information – application of s 226 and s 228 considerations

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8, s 11, s 13, s 58
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24, s 66, s 99(2)(a)
Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 221, s 226, s 228, s 353, s 354, s 360

CEB v Director General Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCAT 26 [45]
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28
Re TAA [2006] QCST 11
WJ v Chief Executive Officer Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190 [70]

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

DR self-represented

Respondent:

Davies C, Legal Officer Blue Card Services

REASONS FOR DECISION

DR is 38 years old mother of four. She works as a volunteer fire fighter.[1] The role brings her into contact with children in an educational capacity and in times of emergency.[2] She seeks a working with children clearance to continue this work and to enable her to participate and support her own children’s school and extra-curricular activities.[3]
[1]Applicant life story filed 20 July 2021.
[2]Oral evidence.
[3]Oral submissions of applicant.
DR applied to the Tribunal to review the decision of the Respondent made on 13 May 2021 that hers was an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interest of children to issue a blue card.
DR provided the Tribunal with a life story. Attached to her application was a response to the decision, and 7 references appendixed at A-G.[4] Three of these witnesses gave evidence. Her submission to Blue Card services was included in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DR v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney Gen...

Details

AGLC: DR v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 79
Case: [2023] QCAT 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DR, a 38-year-old mother of four, sought a working with children clearance to continue her volunteer work as a firefighter, and to participate in her children's school and extracurricular activities. DR applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review the decision of the Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General that hers was an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interest of children to issue a blue card. The Tribunal was required to determine whether DR's case was an exceptional case within the meaning of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

The Tribunal found that DR's case was indeed an exceptional case. Although DR had a wide and active support network, and her witnesses spoke highly of her skills and abilities with children, the Tribunal found that DR had failed to protect children from harm on multiple occasions. In 2013, DR caused bruising to her stepdaughter, who had multiple vulnerabilities, and in 2014, DR failed to protect her children from harm, resulting in bruising and broken bones. These incidents raised concerns about DR's ability to act protectively for the children's interest, and her judgement around safety for the children. The Tribunal concluded that DR's failure to protect children from harm on multiple occasions demonstrated a lack of capacity to respond to children's emotional and safety needs, and to put children's welfare and best interest first.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance to DR. The Tribunal also made a non-publication order in the interests of justice, prohibiting the publication of the names of the applicant, any witnesses appearing for the applicant and any relevant child.

Orders