J v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian
[2011] QCAT 12
•7 January 2011
| CITATION: | J v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2011] QCAT 12 |
| PARTIES: | J |
| V | |
| Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML117-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 28 & 29 October |
| HEARD AT: | Rockhampton |
| DECISION OF: | Ron Joachim, Presiding Member Philippa Beckinsale, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 January 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | [1] The decision of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian to cancel a positive notice and blue card for J is set aside. [2] The Commissioner forthwith issue a positive notice and blue card to J. [3] That the publication of any material before the Tribunal that could identify the applicant or her daughter is prohibited. |
| CATCHWORDS : | Whether applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to children, exceptional case, when order should take effect, protective factors, risk factors. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | J represented herself |
| RESPONDENT: | Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian represented by Geoff Woodberry |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
J is the applicant in these proceedings. She was issued with a positive notice and blue card under the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 (the Act) on 29 January 2009. This allowed her to work with children.
J resides in Rockhampton with her daughter. She has employment as a nurse in an aged care facility. J’s registration as a nurse is limited and subjected to conditions, until April 2012.
Following notifications by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) on 7 April 2009 and 27 April 2009 that J’s criminal history had changed, the Commissioner reassessed her eligibility to hold a blue card.
In accordance with reasons dated 9 July 2010, the Commissioner cancelled J’s positive notice and blue card and issued a negative notice.
J seeks a review of this decision and applied to the Tribunal on 19 July 2010.
The application was heard on 28 and 29 October.
The relevant law
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act) gives the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) jurisdiction to conduct a review of the Commission’s decision. Section 24 outlines the options available to the Tribunal. These options are that the Tribunal may:
(a) confirm or amend the decision; or
(b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
(c) set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.
The operation of the Tribunal is governed by the QCAT Act and the Tribunal’s decision making is bound by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 (the Act). Section 19 of the QCAT Act provides:
19 Exercising review jurisdiction generally
In exercising its review jurisdiction, the tribunal—(a) must decide the review in accordance with this Act and the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision being reviewed was made; and
(b) may perform the functions conferred on the tribunal by this Act or the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision being reviewed was made; and
(c) has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.
J’s criminal history or charges did not contain convictions for serious offences as defined under the Act. Under these circumstances the Commissioner must issue a positive notice unless satisfied that J’s is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for her to have a blue card. If this is so then the Commissioner must issue a negative notice. The relevant provisions are outlined below:-
221 Issuing prescribed notice to person with no conviction etc. or conviction for offence other than serious offence
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the commissioner must issue a positive notice to the person if—
(a)the commissioner is not aware of any police information or disciplinary information about the person; or
(b)the commissioner is not aware of a conviction of the person for any offence but is aware that there is 1 or more of the following about the person—
(i) investigative information;
(ii) disciplinary information;
(iii) a charge for an offence other than a disqualifying offence;
(iv) a charge for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction; or
Note for subparagraph (iv)—
For charges for disqualifying offences that have not been dealt with, see sections 208, 217 and 240 (in relation to prescribed notices), and sections 269, 279 and 298 (in relation to exemption notices).
(c)the commissioner is aware of a conviction of the person for an offence other than a serious offence.
(2) If subsection (1)(b) or (c) applies to the person and the commissioner is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the commissioner to issue a positive notice, the commissioner must issue a negative notice to the person.
It is this that the Tribunal must consider.
Section 226 of the Act outlines the various factors that the Tribunal must take into account in deciding if J’s is an exceptional case.
The Act does not define what is an exceptional case. The law is now well established that it is a matter of discretion depending on the individual circumstances pertaining to the case.
In Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98, Hedigan J of the Victorian Supreme Court commented on the term “exceptional circumstances” when considering a breach of community correction orders. At paragraph 22, he stated:
“Exceptional is defined, contextually in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition Volume V), the greatest dictionary, as meaning ‘unusual, special, out of the ordinary course’. This does mean any variation from the norm.
The facts must be examined in the light of the Act, the legislative intention, and the interests of the prosecuting authority, the defendant and the victims. It may be that the circumstances amounting to be exceptional must be circumstances that rarely occur and perhaps be outside reasonable anticipation or expectation.
Courts have been both slow and cautious about essaying definitions of this kind, leaving the content of the meaning to be filled by the ad hoc examination of the individual cases. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and it would be wrong and undesirable to attempt to define in the abstract what are the relevant factors.”
The focus of the Act is the protection of children. It is intended to put gates around employment/volunteering to protect children from harm. Harm is defined in the Act to have the same meaning given in section 9 of the Child Protection Act 1999.
The former Children Services Tribunal has previously endorsed principles from the Family Law jurisdiction relating to access and contact, as applicable to assessing applications for blue cards.
In the former Children Services Tribunal matter of OAA re (2006) QCST 142 the Tribunal stated at paragraph 41 of its Reasons:
“The issue of transporting the legal approach in the family law jurisdiction to the relevant passages of the Act under which the Commissioner operates needs to be considered. The family law test in essence is that the Court will not grant contact to a particular child if that would expose that child to an unacceptable risk of harm by the parent seeking such contact. The question then to be posed is whether it is appropriate for the Commissioner to refuse a person contact with any Queensland children if the evidence establishes an unacceptable risk to those children? The Tribunals’ answer to this question is in the affirmative. Further, the Tribunal considers that this legal approach taken in the family law jurisdiction fits comfortably with the approach which should be pursued under the Commissioner’s Act. In both jurisdictions the over-riding principle is that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount.”
This Tribunal considers this as appropriate approach. In effect, as another part of its review of the Commissioner’s decision, this Tribunal needs to consider whether J represents an unacceptable risk to children, in determining whether hers is an exceptional case.
The Act in section 6 outlines principles for administering the Act. The Act is to be administered under the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount. It is this that the Tribunal must apply. Section 155 further provides that:
“the paramount consideration in making a decision relating to employment screening is a child’s entitlement to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing”.
and the Tribunal must also take this into account in determining this application.
The standard of proof to which the Tribunal must be satisfied is upon the balance of probabilities.
The undisputed relevant facts
J has a criminal record including charges and convictions for offences involving drugs, domestic violence, drunkenness and stealing.
J’s domestic violence offences have involved her mother and her own child.
J has limited registration as a nurse with conditions imposed including not working in a clinical setting where there is access to opiate and benzodiazepines, remaining abstinent from alcohol and other drugs of abuse and dependence, and undergoing counselling. This limited registration remains in effect until 9/4/2012. It will be reviewed during 2011.
J currently works in an aged care facility as a nurse and wishes to work with children.
J’s rehabilitation commenced in June 2010 when she began consulting a psychologist Scott Hinton. At 22 September 2010 she had seen Mr Hinton for 9 sessions. She continued to see him up until the hearing at the end of October 2010. She sees him weekly. This is a free service.
The Department of Communities (Child Safety Services), the Department, have received a number of notifications regarding incidents involving J’s inappropriate behaviour to and in front of her daughter involving threats, abusive and loud language, pushing and swearing. These have created fear in her daughter.
On investigation, the Department has concluded that the daughter has not been at significant risk of physical and/or emotional harm.
The offences relating to domestic violence and drugs have occurred when J was using alcohol or drugs.
J completed a 6 week parenting course over 12 hours in May 2009.
J attended an active intervention family support program for 6 months (RAI) following a referral from the Department, and received a very positive exit report.
J now has a good relationship with her mother and sees her every day.
She has relapsed once in relation to alcohol use, having a couple of beers with her sister a couple of weeks ago.
Other evidence
In other evidence J advised the Tribunal
§ She acknowledged she was a threat to children when under the influence of alcohol and drugs but is no longer a threat.
§ She no longer associates with people who take drugs and alcohol
§ She was pleased the Queensland Nursing Council intervened.
§ She wants to get back to intensive care nursing.
§ Apart from this Blue Card application and money her life is stress free.
§ She is proud of what she has achieved.
§ She has no partner.
§ She never consumed drugs in front of her daughter.
§ Her behaviour was very erratic when on zanex and drinking alcohol, zanex having been prescribed for anxiety.
§ She is no longer on any medications.
§ She has developed strategies when she gets angry.
§ She used to blame everyone else for her problems but now acknowledges it was her fault.
Scott Hinton, a registered Psychologist with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Service advised the Tribunal he has seen J on a weekly basis from late June 2010 until the end of September with a further 5 sessions planned on a fortnightly basis.
He advised that J can access the service indefinitely. He sees her on an individual basis with 4 goals in mind:
i) To cope with anxiety
ii) Addiction control
iii) Helping to control her thoughts
iv) Increasing her effectiveness as a parent
He stated J has made meaningful progress but noted a lapse about 1 week prior to the hearing which she revealed without prompting.
Mr Hinton advised the Tribunal that J is very open to him and very committed to improvement.
He further advised that the main focus was on preventing anxiety.
Mr Hinton noted that there was never an absence of risk of J relapsing but once someone works through a lapse, it is less likely there will be a further lapse. He considered her self esteem to be at the lower end of the scale.
He confirmed that:
§ J’s lapse may not have been known about if she had not disclosed it, and she wanted to work through the lapse.
§ There has been a marked shift in her resentment level
J’s mother gave evidence to the Tribunal noting:
§ J used to get angry a lot
§ Since she hasn’t been taking alcohol and drugs her relationship with the daughter has improved and J’s health has improved.
The Commissioner’s submissions
Mr Woodberry, on behalf of the Commissioner, argued that a non publication order should be made. He submitted that it is likely that the daughter could be identified or traced in respect of any of the information before the Tribunal including the reasons for decision.
He further submitted that any order made against the Commissioner should take effect from the expiration of the appeal period, and subsequently provided later written submissions on this point which will be discussed in some detail.
The Commissioner provided written and oral submissions which are summarised below. The Commissioner also relies on her written reasons for decision.
Whilst commending J for the action she has taken to rehabilitate herself, Mr Woodberry submitted there were risk factors which the Tribunal needed to consider. These were:
§ J is currently subject to restrictions on her nursing registration
§ She hasn’t shown she is able to stay off alcohol without these restrictions
§ Her self esteem is at the lower end of the scale and when her self esteem was low she reverted to using drugs and alcohol
§ She has had insufficient time since late June to demonstrate change
§ J has minimised her own responsibility until recently.
The Commissioner submitted the following:
§ There needs to be a reasonable period of time to show that J has changed
§ The blue card is transferable
§ J relies heavily on professional assistance
§ Because of this reliance J hasn’t yet been tested if she can stay away from alcohol and drugs without the threat of deregistration hanging over her head.
§ There were a significant number of child protection notifications over a substantial period of time.
§ Whilst harm was not substantiated there would be a cumulative negative effect on her daughter because of J’s behaviour, use of alcohol and drug usage and the violent confrontations which the daughter witnessed and over which she became upset and distressed.
§ If J resumed drinking to excess, this is likely to place children at risk.
§ J’s behaviour in relation to situations of domestic violence exhibits a poor role model for children and young people.
§ Aggravating circumstances in the material provided by the Queensland Police Service and the Department include:
oA pattern of drug/alcohol induced domestic violence which was continuing and escalating;
oThe applicant being so intoxicated that she was unable to care for The daughter;
oThe applicant swearing at and threatening the child;
oThe applicant using physical and verbal aggression towards, and in front of the child; and
oThe child being fearful of the applicant.
§ Domestic violence orders have been in place from 2008 until 2011. There has not been a period when the applicant can demonstrate she can regulate her behaviour without conditions and penalties attaching.
J’s submissions
J submitted that she wants to be able to help others through being a registered nurse.
She hoped that the Tribunal would take into account her commitment and steely determination as she is working hard to rehabilitate her life and her relationship with her daughter.
She submitted that although the Department of Communities had twice conducted an investigation it had concluded that the daughter was not at risk.
J acknowledged that her behaviours in the past have been less than desirable and there is proof she is no longer using substances to control her anxiety and depression.
J acknowledged she had made wrong partner choices and she has chosen not to partner to protect her daughter.
J submitted that her self esteem has improved the more she goes down the rehabilitation path, that everyone makes mistakes but she can continue to improve herself.
J acknowledged she appeared to blame others but submitted that it was all her fault, including the harm to her daughter.
She submitted that when she was not on alcohol or drugs she is no risk to anyone. She drew the Tribunal’s attention to the glowing references from the RAI program, and the positive letters and references from her mother and her drug counsellor.
In reference to her nursing career, she submitted that she has taken on board the licence conditions and it has cost her thousands of dollars to work towards getting a full licence back.
She acknowledged that 4 months in rehabilitation doesn’t seem that long but she has spent a lot of time reflecting.
She agreed that the welfare of children was paramount, submitted her offences were not serious and that she wants to help children not harm them.
The Tribunal’s view
The Tribunal has very carefully considered the material, both oral and written, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also carefully considered the Commissioner’s reasons for decision dated 7/7/10.
In doing so the Tribunal identified potential risk factors and potential protective factors following the example in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492.
Potential protective factors are:
J has a strong work ethic and is currently employed
J has strong positive relationships with her mother and sister
She shows insight and is very remorseful for past activities
She takes full responsibility for past behaviours
J is fully engaged with a counsellor
J has undertaken range of courses and engaged with Red Cross family support service, from whom she received an excellent reference
She has dissociated herself from former bad influences
She has range of strategies to deal with anxiety and is no longer using substances to control anxiety
Regular drug screening occurs as part of registration conditions
Apart from 1 relapse J has been making good progress in therapy with psychologist
She has chosen not to partner to protect daughter.
Behaviours of concern only occurred when taking drugs and alcohol
Other matters in J’s favour are:
§ A strong desire to put past behind and build better life for herself and daughter
§ Behaviours occurred only when intoxicated
§ The Department of Child Safety did not find the daughter in need of protection and did not remove her
§ No matters were referred to SCAN
Potential risk factors are:
There are limited social support networks
J has been in counselling for only 4-5 months
J hasn’t yet had to demonstrate ability to abstain from alcohol without registration restrictions and the threat of deregistration hanging over her head.
Changes in J’s behaviour and attitude started since late June 2010, only 4 months ago.
J minimized her responsibility for behaviour until recently.
J has made poor choices of partners in the past.
She has a history of drug and alcohol abuse
There is a criminal history in relation to drug offending and breach of domestic violence orders.
Breaches of DVO’s involved her own child
Section 226 of the Act
The Tribunal must also take into account matters listed in this section of the Act in deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case.
The Tribunal notes that none of J’s offences are categorised as serious offences under the Act. There have been convictions for breaching domestic violence orders, unauthorised dealing with shop goods, and charges and fines in relation to stealing, drunkenness and drug production.
The offences occurred from January 1998 until April 2009.
In relation to the nature of the offences and its relevance to employment involving children, the Tribunal notes that a domestic violence order was taken out against the applicant in relation to her daughter and her mother (the daughter’s grandmother). There was a breach of this order whereby the applicant engaged in verbally abusive behaviour towards her daughter. This is commented upon at length in the Commissioner’s statement of reason and submissions to the Tribunal as referred to earlier.
In relation to penalty, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has received small fines and for the most part the Courts have not recorded a conviction. The Tribunal concludes that the Courts, in imposing relatively light sentences, has considered the offences to be relatively minor.
There is no information relating to the applicant’s mental health.
Finally the Tribunal is able to consider anything else relating to the commission or alleged commission of the offence which it reasonably considers relevant.
The Commissioner considered that because of the applicant’s age, youth or lack of maturity cannot be considered a mitigating factor. The Tribunal agrees.
The Commissioner also considered that the applicant’s pattern of offending suggested the applicant had a general disregard for the law and was unable to present a positive role model for children.
Whilst the Tribunal considers this open on the facts, the Tribunal takes into account that the offending relating to domestic violence was drug related and that the applicant is addressing this seriously.
The domestic violence offending in relation to her own daughter and mother reflect poorly on the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept the Commissioner’s submissions regarding J’s lack of insight into her daughter’s fear about this. J clearly indicated remorse and concern over her behaviours. The Tribunal notes that this remorse has, as the Commissioner points out, only emerged in recent times. Prior to this, as J herself acknowledged, she would blame others for her behaviours.
The Commissioner is concerned that J is under restrictions and conditions in respect of both her nursing registration and the domestic violence orders (DVO) and that she has not been able to demonstrate appropriate behaviour when not under restrictions.
This is so. However J’s behaviour was poorly regulated and not controlled when she was under the effect of alcohol and drugs after the DVO was first put in place, hence the breaches.
Her behaviour has only come under control when she stopped taking drugs and alcohol and engaged with Scott Hinton and the Red Cross Family support program.
The Tribunal agrees with the Commission about J’s previous behaviour posing a risk to her daughter and potentially other children, although there is no evidence as to the latter.
J’s behaviour was totally unacceptable. She recognises this.
The Tribunal noted her strong desire to make a better life for herself and her daughter.
The Tribunal accepts The daughter was traumatised by J’s inappropriate language and behaviour. It had a strong impact on The daughter. It reflects poorly on J, as does her breach of the DV orders.
J, however, is to be commended for the actions she has taken to turn her life around.
A major consideration for the Tribunal is has enough time lapsed since J commenced seeking and acting on her counselling and support services? Can the Tribunal be satisfied she has turned the corner?
It is true there has been only a few months of rehabilitation.
The Tribunal, however, was satisfied that J had now turned her life around and no longer posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children for the following reasons:
§ The positive relationship she has with her psychologist, Scott Hinton
§ Scott Hinton’s evidence as to J’s commitment and strong progress in meeting the agreed goals
§ Her strong desire to resume nursing with children and her commitment to comply with the restrictions on her licence.
§ Her remorse for her past actions and insight into the impact of her behaviours on her daughter.
Submissions when order should take effect
In supplementary submissions provided by the Commission, arguments are raised in respect of when the Tribunal’s order should take effect should the applicant be successful. The applicant did not respond to these submissions.
The relevant section of the QCAT Act is section 127 which provides that a decision of the Tribunal takes effect:
a) When it is made or
b) If the decision states a later date or time when the decision is to take effect – the later date or time
In other words, the Tribunal can make orders effective from a future date if warranted. The QCAT Act does not outline the circumstances under which such an order may be made.
The Commissioner argues that this is an appropriate case for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to delay the date by which its decision takes effect.
The first reason advanced by the Commissioner is that of the public interest. The Commissioner submits that “the Tribunal must have regard to the inherently protective nature of the CCYPCG Act”.
The Commissioner argues that a delay in the execution of the order until expiration of the statutory appeal period is necessary and in the public interest to ensure the continued protection of children and young people.
She argues that the status quo should be preserved to allow her a proper opportunity to explore whether an application for appeal is required.
The submission cites a decision of Deputy President Kingham of 20 October 2010 in which her Honour granted an interim stay of the Tribunal’s decision pending a hearing of an application to stay a Tribunal decision until the appeal has been decided.
The paragraph relied upon by the Commissioner is reproduced below:
“Although Ms Lister has the benefit of an order of the Tribunal in her favour, these proceedings involve matters of public interest which do not normally apply in a suit between civil litigants. The decision appealed is one made in the context of a protective regulatory regime. In such cases, matters of public interest assume greater prominence.”
The Commissioner further argues that the Applicant will suffer “no appreciable loss as a result of a short delay in the execution of the Tribunal’s orders noting she is not presently engaged in child-regulated employment and that any loss must yield to the protection of the welfare and best interests of children.
The Commissioner argues that the delay will preserve the status quo until she has had an opportunity to review the Tribunal’s decision in order to determine whether to lodge an appeal.
The Tribunal does not intend to make an order under section 127 to delay the implementation of its decision. The Parliament has given the Commissioner an opportunity to apply for a stay as she did in the Lister matter when she availed herself of section 145 of the QCAT Act, when appealing in respect of a reviewable decision.
If the Parliament had intended a decision of the Tribunal in favour of an applicant against the Commissioner to be delayed, as a matter of course, it would have specified this in an enabling Act. There is no such provision in the Commission for Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000.
The intention of the Parliament in respect of a reviewable decision is clear in section 24 of the QCAT Act. That is the Tribunal may:
a) Confirm or amend the decision or
b) Set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or
c) Set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.
It is true the Commissioner is seeking for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion. However, the Tribunal hearing this matter is aware that the Commissioner is making these submission at review hearings, as a matter of course, seeking a delay to any decision against her.
The Tribunal in the matter of Clare Sylvia Harris and the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian refused a similar application stating, “the Tribunal refrains from doing so because written reasons will be supplied with the decision. The normal appeal time under s143(4) will apply from the date of the decision and order.”
The Tribunal acknowledges the protective nature of the Act. However, when it has fully considered a matter and taken extensive evidence and submissions, the applicant, if successful, is entitled to have a decision in her favour implemented at the earliest opportunity.
Persons in remand, found guilty in the criminal jurisdiction and given a non custodial sentence are not subject to the type of delay proposed by the Commissioner, so that the crown may appeal to keep the person in custody for the protection of the public. To delay justice in this way could not be considered in the public interest.
If the Tribunal determines a person is entitled to a blue card, it is, in effect, determining that children and young people do not need protection from this person. The public interest has been satisfied through the independent Tribunal process. The Tribunal has made a final decision, not a provisional one.
The fact that the applicant may not be disadvantaged does not warrant a delay in the issuing of a blue card if the person is entitled to it, having been through a thorough review process, unless an appeal has been lodged, and a stay granted.
Judge Kingham’s comments reproduced above were made in the context of an appeal. The Tribunal over which she presided made identical comments when granting the stay on 27 October 2010. That Tribunal at paragraph 5 adopted comments made in Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 32 at [12] as follows:
“It is not necessary to show special or exceptional circumstances for a stay to be granted but a sufficient basis must be shown for depriving a successful party of the benefit of a decision in their favour”.
A distinction exists between the Commissioner’s request to delay the operation of the Tribunal decision and the stay of a decision on appeal. Consideration of the Tribunal’s reasoning will have been taken into account before an appeal is lodged.
It is not merely speculative.
In this matter the Commissioner seeks to delay the implementation of the Tribunal’s decision to give her time to consider an appeal.
The Tribunal does not consider this appropriate for the above reasons.
Final matters
Certain material from the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) provided to the parties had been blacked out. In addition, material from the Queensland police Service was not received prior to the hearing.
The decision of the Tribunal was reserved. By consent of the parties, the Tribunal was to provide all of the material in the above paragraph to the parties and give parties an opportunity to make further submissions, including, if necessarily, reopening the hearing orally, with the last of the submissions due on 19 November 2010.
The respondent Commissioner provided submissions, including a submission concerning the date of effect of the Tribunal’s decision should the applicant be successful. The applicant provided no submissions in relation to any of the material or the Commissioner’s submissions.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has formed the view that J’s is not an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Commissioner to issue a positive notice.
The Tribunal does not consider J represents an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
The Tribunal will order that the Commissioner’s decision to cancel her positive notice and blue card be set aside and that a positive notice and blue card be issued forthwith.
The Tribunal agrees with the Commissioner that any information before the Tribunal that could identify the applicant and her daughter should be subject to a non publication order.
0