Siacci v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian - [2013] QCAT 659

CITATION:

Siacci v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian
[2013] QCAT 659

PARTIES:	Dianne Bronwen Siacci (Applicant)
v
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML002-13

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matter

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Presiding Member Quinlivan
Member Rogers

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. That the decision of the Commissioner to issue Ms Dianne Siacci with a negative notice is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CHILDRENS MATTER – BLUE CARD – REVIEW – where applicant seeks a review of the Commissioner’s decision to issue a negative notice – whether exceptional case exists – whether not in the best interests of children to issue a positive notice

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mrs Dianne Bronwen Siacci represented herself

RESPONDENT:

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian represented by Mr Craig Capper

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mrs Dianne Siacci is a 39 year old woman. She has been married to her husband Steven for around 15 years and they have a large extended family. Dianne has 3 children of her own as well as 4 step children and a number of grandchildren. She believes she has found her ideal job working with young people who are seeking to obtain their drivers license.
Dianne was born in East Gippsland in Victoria and at the age of 11 she was diagnosed with spina bifida after a traumatic fall. At age 14 she joined a disabled adults ju jitsu group where she learned self defence. She believes that her mother always treated her differently.
Dianne is a woman with very strong views about her health. For example she refers to her illness as item 295.30 of the DSM IV rather than a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
On 23 December 2011 Dianne applied for a blue card as a person carrying on a business. On 13 December 2012 the Commissioner wrote to Dianne setting out that there had been ongoing correspondence on 2 April 2012, 14 August 2012, 27 August 2012 and 27 September 2012 from the Commissioner seeking further information in relation to Dianne’s application.
As a result the Commissioner advised Dianne that having considered the submissions that she had provided, the Commissioner had assessed her eligibility for a blue card and had decided to issue her with a negative notice.
On 7 January 2013 Dianne filed an application with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking a review of the decision by the Commissioner.
In her application Dianne states that she would like the Tribunal to reconsider the discretion of exceptional case cause (sic). She says:
It’s now the 2000’s and the Commissioner Elizabeth has to realize people with young children in 1930 maybe didn’t bath everyday or have swimming lessons. DHS Victoria won’t give grounds on why they have applied for another 24 months. My son is ‘wasting’ because of this decision I think you also need to fix up what state Police can and can’t infer with child care departments. I’ve seen the corruption.
Dianne goes on to explain that she believes it is important that she be given a special condition blue card so that she can work with 16 to 18 year olds or even just 17 to 18 year olds ‘as a 17 year old is classed and adult in car/road issues same with 16 year olds allow to by and drink alcohol in the army. If passed I would then after 12 months ask to get a full blue card as I daily go to my son’s day care and his friends places’.
She says that eventually she would like to have the state’s trust on the roads with learner drivers which is very dangerous. She says she’s applying in Victoria to obtain unsupervised access to her sons…‘The eugenics of today’s society is very different just look at the technology from 100 years ago’.
The Commissioner issued reasons dated 13 December 2012 for the decision to issue a negative notice to Dianne and stated that as part of the employment screening process a check was undertaken with the Queensland Police Service and interstate Police Services.
In summary the Commissioner outlines that Dianne’s criminal history shows a charge for the offence of fail to supply necessaries, which is categorised as a serious offence but not a disqualifying offence in accordance with the Act.
The Commissioner also outlines a number of convictions for other offences which are categorised as offences other than serious or disqualifying offences as follows:
§    Reckless conduct endangering life;
§    Possessing dangerous drugs;
§    Act of prejudicial good order/management jail;
§    Criminal damage;
§    Recklessly causing injury;
§    Drive at speed over the speed limit;
§    Drive in a manner dangerous;
§    Careless driving;
§    Refuse to undergo breath test.
Further, the Commissioner points out that Dianne’s criminal history also contains charges for the following offences which are also categorised as offences other than serious or disqualifying:
§    Common assault (3 counts);
§    Using carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence;
§    Unlawful stalking;
§    Grievous bodily harm.
The offences for which Dianne was convicted are not considered serious offences under the Act. As a result the Commissioner must issue a positive notice to Dianne. However if the Commissioner is satisfied that 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 issue that the Tribunal must address here.
The standard of proof on which the Tribunal must be satisfied is the balance of probabilities. However there is no particular onus on either Dianne or the Commissioner.[1]
[1] McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCA 354.

A difficult period …

The material provided by the Commissioner indicates that Dianne’s criminal history is contained within a period from 15 May 2003 until 22 November 2007.
In particular on 15 May 2003 the applicant was charged with a serious offence pursuant to the Act namely failing to supply the necessaries of life. The offence related to an incident at her home, which resulted in her young son sustaining significant injuries. It was submitted that it was important to note that a nolle prosequi was entered in relation to this offence in 2008.At the time the suggestion was that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. As a result Dianne was discharged without any liability arising from this unfortunate incident.
Following the incident in 2003 Dianne’s 2 children were removed from her care by the Department of Children Services in Victoria and placed under the supervision of their grandmother. Dianne describes this event as the beginning of a devastating and particularly frustrating period of her life. She regards her period of offending as related to this particularly traumatic period of her life and at a time when she was suffering ongoing mental health concerns.

The applicant’s life post 2007

Dianne submits that in 2006 she moved back to Queensland and began to repair her relationship with her husband and improve their life as a family. She says that she has not been in trouble with the authorities for 6 years and has managed to care for her family and gain employment. She claims that a significant period of time has passed since she offended during the period that was ‘wrought with grief and distress’. She argues that these were extenuating circumstances, which will not be repeated.
Dianne says that she has sought and used the help that she has needed to right the wrongs of the past and has not missed a doctor’s appointment or injection since 2007.
She says that she is in regular contact with her sons and often sends them gifts.
Dianne submits that she is a reliable, honest and trustworthy member of society who deserves a second chance. She says that she has changed her whole attitude and has a great support network.
In particular Dianne says that she has found a job after being out of the workforce for years. She says that she believes that this job is going to help her to provide a future for her family and enable her to become involved in society in a positive way. She says that she thoroughly enjoys being a driving instructor and that she is very conscientious and careful and would never jeopardise her future in this role.
Further, her students have said that they enjoy having her as an instructor. She is successfully passing her own courses and maintains a positive working relationship with her employer.
In essence if she obtains a positive notice she will be able to her expand her employment opportunities and contribute to the wider community.
Dianne claims that the reference from her treating psychiatrist supports what she has stated about having come out of a particularly troubling period of her life. She refers particularly to his statement:
There has been marked improvement in her mental state since commencement of treatment and forensic order in year 2008. Ms Siacci has successfully completed a driving instructors course recently and started working as a driving instructor on a part time basis.
Ms Siacci’s mental state has been stable for the last few years. She does not seem to have any symptoms of her mental illness at present. She receives her medication as dpot anti psychotics injections at our clinic. Her case manager (LS), a clinical nurse sees her weekly to fortnightly and I review every month. She is fully adherent to her treatment place.
It is my opinion that her mental health does not pose any risks to young people aged between 16 to 18 years. It is safe for them to work with her.

Information regarding Dianne’s mental health

As part of these proceedings Dianne consented to a considerable amount of material being obtained from the Mental Health Court. The information consisted of the following reports:
§    A medical report from Dr Tame Kena, Consultant Psychiatrist dated 30 June 2006.
§    A psychiatric report from Dr Lester Walton, Consultant Psychiatrist dated 31 July 2006.
§    Medical reports from Dr Ian Leivesley, Psychiatrist dated 15 August 2007 and 7 September 2007 and 3 October 2007.
§    A medical report from Dr Terry Steadman, Director of Clinical Services dated 27 December 2007.
§    A medical report from Dr Michele Calvird, Psychiatrist dated 4 April 2008
§    A report for the Mental Health Court from Dr Michael Beach, Specialist Psychiatrist dated 4 April 2008.
§    Report for the Mental Health Court from Dr Josephine Sundin, Consultant Psychiatrist dated 23 April 2008.
There was also information provided to the Tribunal in relation to a forensic order issued by the Mental Health Court dated 19 May 2008, findings of the Mental Health Tribunal dated 19 May 2008 and details concerning an order of the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 13 September 2012.
The Tribunal particularly notes that in September 2012 the Mental Health Review Tribunal ordered that limited community treatment was approved for Dianne subject to a number of conditions:
(1)   That Dianne resided a place approved in advance in writing by the treating psychiatrist.
(2)   Dianne must comply with all appointments for follow up and prescribed treatment including the taking of prescribed medication and undergoing random tests for those medications as required by the treating psychiatrist.
(3)   Dianne must not use alcohol or illicit drugs and must cooperate fully in random medical tests for those substances as required by the treating psychiatrist.
(4)   Dianne must not drive a motor vehicle unless permitted to do so by the treating psychiatrist.
(5)   That Dianne not contact or attempt to contact the victim of the alleged stalking offence.
(6)   Dianne is not to possess any offensive weapons and the limited community treatment is to be implemented subject to the assessment of the treating psychiatrist that is appropriate having regard to Dianne’s mental condition at the time of implementation.
In relation to all of this material Dianne points out that it relates to a time when she was severely distressed and frustrated and that she does not believe that these reports reflect her current mental and emotional state.
Dianne contends that there is some material contained in these reports that actually supports her submissions. She says that Dr Kena observed that she was able to communicate her feelings and control her emotions on mutual issues without being angry or aggressive. She says that Dr Kena stated that she couldn’t undertake continual treatment and live in the community society at the same time. However she says that she has not missed an appointment with her mental health worker or her psychiatrist and she is up to date and regular with her medication.
She submits that Dr Walton reported that she has developed insight into the gravity of her son’s accident in retrospect and that she understands the gravity of the situation.
Dr Leivesley reported that Dianne has very little history of violence and that her danger to others is fairly low. She says that this is an accurate reflection of her with respect to violence.
The Tribunal was also provided with a summary of information received from the Department of Child Safety regarding various concerns extending from 5 February 2003 to 20 June 2012.
With respect to this information Dianne asserts that her children have never been in any danger while in her care. She vehemently denies the allegations of abuse referred to in the released documentation. She believes the allegations were made by a neighbour who she was having a dispute with at the time and that the issue has nothing to do with her parenting. In relation to the various allegations she submits the Department found insufficient evidence.
In her oral evidence to the Tribunal, Dianne insisted that she is taking care of her mental health and continues to acknowledge that she prefers to describe her illness as item 295-30 DSM rather than schizophrenia. She accepts that she has to be on medication but in her view it is to stop the “ticks” and to assist her to avoid putting on weight. With respect to the intensive treatment order that she is currently subject to, she insists that she would continue to take her medication but that she wishes to be taken off the order.
Dianne also gave evidence in relation to the incident in May 2003, when she was charged with grievous bodily harm of her son. She said that she was home with the two children aged 3 years and 13 months and they were in the bath at the time and that they had been there for less than 10 minutes when she left the room to have a cigarette. She estimated that the water was up to the children’s chest and that both had swimming lessons since 4 months of age.
She admits that she took her eye off the ball for a minute and that her role was to supervise the children. She says that it was an accident and not deliberate and she thought that the authorities over reacted at the time.
Dianne acknowledges that if she was not subject to the ITO then ideally she would be travelling on a catamaran with her family somewhere in the world. She doesn’t believe that mental health is a real science and doesn’t believe what the doctors are saying. Further she believes that the Department doesn’t like the way she speaks to them.
In Dianne’s view she must “play the game” and to that extent she must “impersonate her mother”. She characterises her mother’s role in these matters as doing her best to help “poor Di”.
As a result in her own words Dianne believes she is letting people “walk all over her” and is trying to act like her Mum until she gets her kids back. She is frustrated that she only has supervised contact with her children. She is annoyed with the Victorian Department of Child Safety who want her to come to Victoria for periods of contact with her children. Throughout her oral evidence Dianne emphasized that she is “playing the game”.
Regarding to her use of cannabis she advised the Tribunal that she has not used cannabis since 24 April 2013 until the date of the hearing. She admits that she was a regular user in 2006 and she believes cannabis should be legalised. She says that the cannabis is useful to relieve her pain.
With respect to the assessment process Dianne addresses the issue of whether her case is an exceptional case by saying that the circumstances surrounding the offending period of her life no longer exist for her. She says these circumstances included the following:
§    My child was injured in my care and my children were taken away from me.
§    I was accused of attempting to kill my son when I needed counselling to help me to deal with what had happened.
§    As a result of extraordinary stress and frustration I suffered from a mental illness that controlled my life and the way I behaved.
§    I committed offences as a result of my mental illness.
Dianne says that the Tribunal should accept that her current circumstances are that she is recovering from a mental illness and that she has not offended in 7 years.
She says that she complies with her forensic order by attending all appointments and accepting all medication. She says that she no longer suffers from any mental illness since it is being effectively managed. She has repaired her marriage and cares for her family without disruption. She has regular contact with her absent sons and often sends them gifts and she has not had any complications with the law since 2007.
As a result Dianne claims that the facts of life as they now stand are not unusual or exceptional. She believes she is an ordinary woman seeking employment to enable her to support her family. She has a healthy young son and grandson in her care and she is a partner in a successful marriage. As a result this love does not represent anything ‘out beyond the ordinary circumstances reasonably expected to occur’.

The Commissioner’s perspective

The Commissioner points out that Dianne has a conviction for an offence other than a serious offence. Therefore the Commissioner must issue a positive notice unless he is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children to issue a positive notice to the applicant.
The Commissioner submitted that the Tribunal has to consider the best interests of children as these are paramount under the Act. He contends that children have a right to be protected from harm. The Commissioner says the central focus of the Act is the protection of children. It is not a statute intended to impose additional punishment on a person who has a criminal history. Rather it is intended to put gates around employment to protect children from harm.
The Commissioner submits that in assessing whether Dianne’s case is exceptional regard must be had to the matters outlined in section 226(2) of the Act.
Dianne’s criminal history details a number of convictions for various offences generally involving driving incidents in Victoria. She also has a conviction for possessing dangerous drugs. The Commissioner acknowledges that the charge of the “fail to supply necessaries” is a serious but not a disqualifying offence under the Act.
The Commissioner submits that the offences committed by Dianne occurred between 2003 and 2007 when she was aged between 29 and 33 years and as a result her actions cannot be mitigated by any argument regarding her youth or lack of maturity.
The Commissioner acknowledges that a period of time has elapsed since Dianne committed her last offence but points out that the clear intention of the legislation is that the offences remain significant in an assessment of the applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card. The passage of time is just one of the factors to be considered and is not, on its own, determinative of her application. The Commissioner also argues that Dianne’s prior criminal history and alleged offending must be viewed within the context of her present circumstances and the significant child protection history relevant to this case.

The Commissioner draws particular attention to the alleged offences of grievous bodily harm, fail to supply necessaries, unlawful stalking and using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence as being directly relevant to the question of the Dianne’s eligibility to hold a positive notice and blue card. The Commissioner says that the offences of grievous bodily harm and fail to supply necessaries arose after the applicant’s son, a 13 month old boy almost drowned after he was left in the bath with his older brother without Dianne’s supervision. As a result he was hospitalised for almost 6 months.
The Commissioner submits that although the charge was dismissed after the Director of Public Prosecutions entered a nolle prosequi Dianne continues to disregard the impact of her actions on her son or demonstrate any insight into her understanding of the possibilities had the situation escalated. He submits that as the child’s mother, Dianne was in a position of trust and authority and his welfare depended on her ability to exercise proper judgment to protect him from harm. These are the same obligations imposed on blue card holders who engage with children in activities regulated by the Act. The Commissioner contends that Dianne’s alleged behaviour is directly relevant to her eligibility to work in child related employment. Further, it is particularly concerning that the vulnerability of the child was significantly heightened as a result of his young age and inability to care for himself.
With respect to the 2007 charges of unlawful stalking and using carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, Dianne is alleged to have sent 77 text messages to a politician which included abusive, threatening and aggressive language. As a result of these incidents the politician resigned from her position allegedly due to the stress caused. These matters were withdrawn from the Magistrates Court and referred to the Mental Health Court. Dianne was subsequently found to be of unsound mind at the time of the offences and therefore no penalty was ordered.
The Commissioner argues that this behaviour appears to have occurred during a period of psychiatric repair and as a result can support a conclusion that Dianne is prone to engage in concerning offending when her mental health issues are not being adequately addressed.
In the Commissioner’s view, Dianne’s submissions fail to demonstrate that she has appropriate insight and understanding of the seriousness of her alleged offending to the extent that she can now exercise proper judgment. The Commissioner says that this is adverse to his assessment of the applicant’s ability to safeguard the best interests of children and young people in her care.
As a result the Commissioner argues that Dianne’s inability to demonstrate appropriate protective behaviours towards her child and her failure to show remorse or insight into the nature of her behaviour and offending indicates that issuing her with a positive notice and blue card is contrary to the best interests of children and young people.
The Commissioner expresses considerable concern that the material from the Mental Health Court and the Mental Health Review Tribunal demonstrate that Dianne was detained for an involuntary care forensic order in 2008 listing a number of conditions that remain current according to an assessment conducted by the Mental Health Review Tribunal in September 2012. He argues therefore the current order indicates the risk of the applicant relapsing is real and ongoing.
The Commissioner also points out that in spite of the report from her treating psychiatrist where he offers the opinion that the applicant’s mental illness does not pose any risk to children there is still an issue as to whether Dianne is able to accurately assess concerns for the welfare of children and young people in her care. In this regard the Commissioner points out to the Tribunal that the evidence of Dr Garg the psychiatrist referred to who gave evidence by telephone that he is not in a position to give an opinion with respect to Dianne’s capacity to properly care for younger children.
The Commissioner submits that Dianne’s child protection history clearly indicates a pattern of persistent behaviour that has exposed children in her care to potential and actual physical harm and psychological and/or emotional harm between 2003 and 2012.
In summary then the Commissioner makes the following points:
In relation to the various aspects of Dianne’s offending, she lacks insight into her offending and past behaviour.
The applicant claims that the reasons her children have not been returned to her care are due to the Court system or the inability of her lawyer to fight her case. She continues to refer to her children as being ‘stolen by the state’ with her previous mental health concerns being ‘used as a weapon to keep them’.
Dianne attempts to justify her actions regarding some 2003 driving offences by saying that she refused to stop at the request of police due to her being angered ‘over something she had seen on the television earlier in the morning’.
In relation to the charges of grievous bodily harm and fail to supply necessaries the Commissioner contends that Dianne appears to no longer acknowledge this past conduct and this suggests that she also lacks insight into the severity and harmful effects of such behaviour on her children.
Regarding the unlawful stalking and use of carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence matters, the Commissioner submits that Dianne says that the person involved was a public figure and therefore could have debated the issues with her. She suggests that the person may have had a mental health issue. The Commissioner argues that Dianne continues to show little understanding of the offending and she was found to be of unsound mind at the time of the offences, which leads to a concern about her ability to demonstrate insight and acknowledge the consequences of her actions in relation to matters such as these.
The Commissioner also addressed the suggestion by Dianne that she has changed her attitude due to the birth of her third child. In this regard the Commissioner suggests that her Child Protection history demonstrates that there is still an outstanding concern about Dianne’s ability to appropriately care for and understand the needs of children in her care.
Finally, the Commissioner refers to the reference provided by Dianne from her current employer in support of her application. The Commissioner submits that the reference is very general in nature and does not indicate any knowledge of the applicant’s past convictions and alleged offending. Further, Dianne has provided no information or independent references regarding the recency or appropriateness of her current interactions with children or young people.
As outlined earlier in these reasons, Dianne specifically requests that she be given a special condition card so that she can work with 16 to 18 year olds or even 17 to 18 year olds. The Commissioner submits that under the legislation, the effect of issuing a positive notice and blue card is that someone such as Dianne is able to go out in the community with the authority of the Commissioner and work in any child related employment or conduct any child related business as regulated by the Act.
The Commission does not have the power to issue a conditional blue card confining the use to the circumstances for which the applicant has requested the card. It is fully transferable across all areas of employment and businesses regulated by the Act. The Commissioner is also unable to impose conditions to ensure the applicant is supervised or that other measures are in place to ensure children and young people in her care are not at any risk of harm.

An exceptional case?

The task for the Tribunal in this case is to determine if this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Commissioner to issue a positive notice to Ms Siacci.
When considering what is an ‘exceptional case’ the Tribunal must issue a positive notice unless it is satisfied that ‘it would not be in the best interests of children’ as set out in section 221(2) of the Act. When exercising its discretion under the Act the Tribunal must ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children is its paramount consideration.[2]
[2] Commission Act s 5.
Section 226 of the Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to certain factors in determining whether an ‘exceptional case’ exists including the nature of the offence. The factors prescribed under s 226 are not exhaustive and allow for the Tribunal to take into account matters ‘reasonably considered’ relevant to the ‘assessment’ of the person.[3]
[3]Ibid s 226(2)(e). See Philippides J in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 at [42].
In a currently unreported Appeal decision of the Tribunal ((2013) APL 024-13 at para 12), Senior Member Endicott points out
What the Act does is to require an exceptional case being established if, for convictions for other than a serious offence, the Commissioner is to refuse a blue card. If there are exceptional circumstances in a case, then, consistent with the principles identified by the Court of Appeal in Maher’s case, the Tribunal can find an exceptional case having regard to the criterion specified in the Act.
In this case the Tribunal has 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.
Dianne is currently living in a stable relationship with a young child. She has part time employment as a driving instructor and she values this position highly.
Dianne is currently subject to an intensive treatment order and as far as the Tribunal has been informed she is presently compliant with her medication and subject to psychiatric supervision.
Dianne’s criminal history is confined to the period between 2003 and 2007 and since that time there is no evidence of her further offending.
Dianne’s involvement with the Department of Child Safety covers the period from 2003 to 2012. There is no evidence of any current matters of concern.
She is motivated by a desire to improve her family’s life by maintaining her employment and providing a safe and comfortable home for her family.
On the other hand Dianne has been convicted of a number of offences some of which relate specifically to child related employment and some of which involved her own children. She has one serious charge on her record that did not proceed to a conviction.
There is no expert evidence to indicate how Dianne would act if she were no longer subject to an intensive treatment order or if she stopped using her medication.
She has not demonstrated any real insight into her actions. She has attempted to minimise them and in particular she has sought to attribute blame for a lot of the problems she has encountered to her mother and intervention by state officials in various capacities.
Apart from her psychiatric supervision there is no evidence that Dianne has undertaken any professional counselling regarding her actions and she has not provided the Tribunal with any independent professional evidence regarding any risk she may pose to the welfare of children in her care. In this regard Dianne has relied on the evidence of Dr Sarg who in his oral evidence pointed out that he was not in a position to comment on how Dianne would engage effectively with younger children.
The Tribunal accepts that Dianne identifies the period of her offending as being a period of considerable anger and frustration.
The Tribunal finds that Dianne has demonstrated a poor understanding of the impact of her behaviours on children in general and her own children in particular. The Tribunal has formed the view that this is an extreme example of a parent failing to protect a particularly vulnerable child in circumstances that could have lead to very serious consequences.

The outcome?

The Tribunal accepts that Dianne has taken significant steps to try and improve her future prospects in particular by obtaining appropriate employment with a long term goal of permanent employment.
The Tribunal is concerned that in her evidence Dianne continually and unrepentantly indicated that she was willing to “play the game” in order to achieve the ultimate goal of having her children returned to her. It appears to the Tribunal that she proposes to do this in isolation and with no reference to the likely outcome in the event that the children are returned to her.
Overall the Tribunal is not satisfied that Dianne has demonstrated sufficient insight into her behaviour but rather that she continues to underestimate her responsibility for her actions in relation to the various matters identified. Dianne has made submissions that she now understands her circumstances better and is attempting to deal with the issues.
The Tribunal must consider the fact that a blue card is transferable and that is not possible to issue a conditional approval.
Having taken all of these matters into account we have come to the view that this is an exceptional case where on the balance of probabilities it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to issue to Dianne at this point in time.
It is the Tribunal’s view that Dianne may benefit from seeking counselling regarding her behaviour management of young children and the management of her own stress and frustration. If Dianne were to undertake such action then the Tribunal would encourage her to reapply for a blue card in the near future when she can demonstrate that she has addressed all of the issues that have been identified.
We order that the Commissioner’s decision be confirmed.