• The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to children and should be prohibited from working with children;
• The correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review to issue a prohibition notice to the applicant.

Administrative Review - Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 - Review of a decision by the Central Assessment Unit to issue a prohibition notice - Unacceptable risk to children - Consideration of discontinued charges - Assessable information in making a determination

Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 ss 3, 32, 33

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 35, 39

Badea v Department of Human Services [2024] SACAT 37

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34

GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38

GM v Department of Human Services [2024] SASC 23

GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68

Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297

M v M [1988] HCA 68

Marshall v Department of Human Services [2023] SACAT 83

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022] SACAT 111

Wiliams v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2008] VCAT 1784

Ms Underwood, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Some of the parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. This is a review of a decision of the respondent (the CAU) on 22 October 2024 to issue to the applicant, EAZ, a prohibition notice under s 32 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 (CSPP Act).
2. The effect of the prohibition notice is that the applicant cannot undertake any one of the broad range of activities that the CSPP Act regards as working with children (which includes volunteering with children).
3. In undertaking this review, I have had regard to the material that was before the respondent, including the documents in the respondent's Book of Documents provided under s 35 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act), and to the additional evidence and submissions put before the Tribunal at the full hearing.
4. As the applicant was unrepresented in these proceedings, I have set out, in some detail, the law that the Tribunal applies in making its decisions in these matters.
5. I explain in these reasons why I am satisfied that the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the respondent's decision.

1. The Tribunal conducts its review of the respondent's decision as an independent body. The Tribunal will, in exercising its review jurisdiction, examine the decision of the decision‑maker by way of rehearing. On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision‑maker.
2. The procedure on a rehearing will include an examination of the evidence or material before the decision‑maker and consideration of any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit for the purposes of rehearing the matter.
3. The review conducted by the Tribunal is on a basis resembling a de novo hearing, where the Tribunal Member conducting the review effectively stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker in determining the correct or preferable decision.[1]
4. After making its decision, the Tribunal can affirm or vary the decision under review or can set the decision aside and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration.

1. Section 3 of the CSPP Act sets out its objects and principles. In brief, they relevantly state that the primary object of the Act is to minimise the risk to children posed by persons who work with them and that the paramount consideration must always be the best interests of children, having regard to their safety and protection. Further, persons who pose an unacceptable risk to children are to be prevented from working with children.
2. The statutory scheme for a working with children check (WWCC) established under the CSPP Act is complex. The statutory provisions were addressed in substantial detail by the Tribunal in GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38 (GJC). I adopt what was said in GJC about the relevant statutory provisions.
3. Briefly, the CSPP Act establishes a regime for the screening by the CAU of people who want to work with children and for the prohibition of those persons who would pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. Where the CAU determines that a person is to be prohibited from working with children, the CAU must issue the person with a prohibition notice.
4. The screening process occurs by the CAU considering assessable information of past behaviour and undertaking an assessment of potential future risk with reference to Ministerial Guidelines (the Guidelines).[3] As discussed further below, this involves a weighting process that takes into account, amongst other things, the reliability and context of the assessable information, the likelihood of recurrence of concerning conduct and the potential consequences of such conduct were it to recur.[4]
5. A WWCC under the CSPP Act is portable and is not confined to the immediate purposes of the person seeking the clearance. A WWCC cannot be made subject to conditions.[5]
6. There is no punitive or deterrent aspect to a risk assessment. However, the effect on an individual of not receiving a clearance is not relevant to the ultimate issue of whether they pose an unacceptable risk to children.[6] The statutory scheme is highly pre-emptive and protective, where the intent of the legislation is not to wait for a risk to be realised before prohibiting a person from working with children. In this respect, the CSPP Act may be said to evince the intention that working with children is a privilege, not a right, and that the risk of injustice to an applicant is preferred over a risk to the safety of children.[7] The objects of the legislation are entirely protective of children.
7. The GJC case is the leading decision of the Tribunal in determining these reviews. The decision in GJC was applied numerous times in the Tribunal since it was decided in 2020. In 2025, the South Australian Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in GJC in the decision of GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 (GM).[8] The Court of Appeal found that the following considerations guide the exercise of determining whether a person poses an unacceptable risk to children:

The exercise involves an evaluative assessment of risk, informed by the legislative context and in particular the purpose and objects of the CSPP Act. This includes the primary object of minimising the risk to children posed by persons who work with them, and the paramount consideration being the best interests of children, having regard to their safety and protection. > > The exercise involves an evaluation of the risk that a person poses to children. This in turn involves an identification of the types of risk, and an assessment of both the likelihood of the risk occurring, and the seriousness of the possible consequences if it does occur. > > This encompasses the risk of harm of any kind to children, including physical, sexual, psychological and emotional harm. > > As to the degree of risk, the exercise involves an assessment of the likelihood of the apprehended harm occurring. It will usually involve a consideration of the past behaviour and conduct of the relevant adult. That may take the form of abuse of a physical, sexual, psychological or emotional nature. It will include abuse in its widest sense, and so including conduct such as manipulation, intimidation, threats, harassment or neglect. But it will also extend to consideration of conduct that might be described as grooming or poor boundary recognition (particularly in the context of relationships involving a degree of authority or power on the part of the adult). It will include other behaviour which might be indicative of a prurient interest in a child or children, or of an interest in other inappropriate sexual or violent behaviour. It will also include behaviour which might represent a less direct risk of harm to children, such as a dysfunctional or hazardous lifestyle, difficulties with the abuse of alcohol or drugs, or adherence to social attitudes or beliefs which conflict with broader community norms. > > As mentioned later in these reasons, past conduct need not be proven to any particular standard for it to be relevant to the assessment. Nor does there need to be a likelihood of any particular form of harm occurring before it may be taken into account. However, in determining what weight should be attached to information about past conduct and the prospect of apprehended harm in the future, it will be important to have regard to where on the spectrum of proof or satisfaction the information as to past conduct lies. It will be important to have regard to whether it represents, for example, proven past conduct, allegations based upon some sound factual basis and from an apparently credible source, or mere allegations without any identified factual basis or source. > > As to the seriousness of the risk, this involves a consideration of the potential gravity of the consequences for a child were the apprehended harm to occur. This may range from a risk of immediate and significant physical or sexual harm, through to a risk of a longer-term form of psychological or emotional harm. > > The assessment will often be multi-faceted, involving consideration of a range of information about past behaviours and risks, of varying types and with varying degrees of likelihood and seriousness. In such cases, it will require an assimilation and synthesis of this information, in order to arrive at an overall assessment of the risk that the relevant adult poses to children. > > The CAU must then make an evaluative assessment of whether the relevant adult poses an unacceptable risk to children. This involves an assessment against an objective normative standard of the risk that would be acceptable to the community, having regard to the objects of the CSPP Act and hence with a focus upon the best interests of children. > > It may be expected that a realistic prospect of relatively serious harm would ordinarily be unacceptable. Conversely, it may be expected that a fanciful, farfetched or theoretical prospect of mild or insignificant harm would ordinarily be acceptable. However, as should be apparent from the above articulation of the process, it is difficult, and generally unwise, to generalise.[9]

8. In GJC, the Tribunal found that unacceptable risk means that there is a risk that, if a person is allowed to work with children, this would not ensure the adequate protection of children.[10] This was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in the GM decision.[11]
9. The Court of Appeal also said that "the word 'unacceptable' connotes an objective, normative standard rather than merely the subjective opinion of the decision-maker".[12]

The Guidelines - dealing with assessable information

1. A determination on the ultimate issue of risk involves first a finding as to the likelihood of the conduct of concern having occurred, with reference to the weighting factors in Table 1 of the Guidelines.
2. Table 1 of the Guidelines under the CSPP Act contain indicia relating to whether information should be given greater or lesser weight depending on matters such as its quality, relevance and seriousness. The Guidelines state:

Information that is of low quality (i.e. incomplete, vague, circumstantial or uncorroborated) will be given less weight than evidence that is direct, unrefuted or supported by other information from a reliable source. For example, information provided by an independent witness or notifier regarding abuse sustained by a child will attract greater weight than information offered by a person whose evidence may be compromised in some way.[13]

3. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it sees fit.[14] However, the Tribunal observed in GJC that, as assessable information will often include information that has not been scrutinised or tested in a court or tribunal (and may include hearsay or mere allegations of misconduct obtained from diverse sources), a comprehensive and meticulous approach to the scrutiny and evaluation of the information is essential.[15] In GM, the Court of Appeal said:

Even if not formally bound by the rules of evidence, or the civil standard of balance of probabilities, this does not absolve the decision maker from an obligation to avoid making findings upon material which does not have any rational probative force. To the contrary, whilst permitted a degree of flexibility in the process of receiving and assessing material, the decision maker must still found any decision upon material which is logically probative of the matter(s) in issue.[16]

4. The conduct of concern may in some cases be proven to a high standard, for example, by admissions or by findings in criminal proceedings that are established on the usual criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
5. In other cases, the CAU or the Tribunal may be satisfied on the evidence that the allegations made against the applicant are groundless. Those allegations are to be ignored in the risk assessment.
6. The CAU or the Tribunal may be satisfied on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities (with, where relevant, additional consideration of the Briginshaw[17] factors) that the conduct of concern occurred.
7. In Briginshaw, Dixon J said at 362-363:

The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters 'reasonable satisfaction' should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences...This does not mean that some standard of persuasion is fixed intermediate between the satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt required upon a criminal inquest and the reasonable satisfaction which in a civil issue may, not must, be based on a preponderance of probability. It means that the nature of the issue necessarily affects the process by which reasonable satisfaction is attained.

8. Or, the CAU or the Tribunal may not be so satisfied but, nevertheless, cannot be satisfied that the conduct did not occur.
9. Where conduct of concern is admitted or proven to the criminal standard, it would ordinarily be given significant weighting in a risk assessment under the CSPP Act. Where conduct of concern is not admitted or proven to this standard, the weighting given to it in the risk assessment must reflect the possibility that the conduct of concern did not occur, although findings made on the balance of probabilities would generally have a decisive impact on the risk assessment. This is consistent with the Guidelines.
10. Once having determined the likelihood of the conduct of concern having occurred and the weighting to give it in the risk assessment, the decision-maker must conduct the risk assessment by taking account all other relevant matters to determine the risk posed by the individual, with reference to Table 2 of the Guidelines.
11. As the Court of Appeal said in the GM case, this requires an evaluation of the nature and degree of the risk posed by the individual and whether it is acceptable to allow it, i.e. a consideration of the likelihood of offending or conduct recurring in the future and the seriousness of the consequences if the conduct were to recur, and where the possible future harm is serious a minimal chance or possibility that it will occur would usually be sufficient to regard that outcome as unacceptable. Conversely, an acceptable risk might be one which is fanciful, farfetched or theoretical and where the potential consequences are mild or insignificant. It is not required that there be no risk of harm.
12. In the GM case, the Court of Appeal said that the determination of unacceptable risk need not be addressed to the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities and that the applicable standard is merely one of statutory satisfaction, as reflected in the Guidelines.[18]
13. The Guidelines provide that:

The standard of proof required when determining unacceptable risk is the statutory standard of reasonable satisfaction. This is a standard which cannot be measured against, or equated to, an evidential standard of proof. > > When determining whether a person poses an unacceptable risk to children, the decision-maker does not necessarily need to be satisfied that it is likely, to any standard or level of satisfaction (such as the balance of probabilities), that the person will cause harm to a child in the future, merely that there is a possibility of future harm to children, and that the potential consequences to children would be serious if the perceived risk eventuated. > > The requisite likelihood of future risk is that which is not fanciful, remote, theoretical or speculative; it must be appreciable.[19]

14. Table 2 of the Guidelines also contain indicia relating to whether the information points to an increased risk or decreased risk of harm to children. The Guidelines state that:

While the weight given to information relates to its quality, or the degree of reliance the central assessment unit decision-maker may place on the information before them, the risk assessment criteria is concerned with the content of the information.

Events or conduct referenced in this section includes alleged (unproven) events or conduct.

The central assessment unit decision-maker should consider the substance of the information and have regard to:

• the person's criminal, child protection, disciplinary or other relevant history, including whether a pattern of concerning conduct is identified;
• the nature, gravity and circumstances of the events or conduct detailed in the information and how those factors are relevant to children or child-related work;
• the length of time that has passed since the events or conduct occurred;
• the person's conduct since the events or conduct occurred;
• the vulnerability of any victim at the time of the events or conduct including the age of the victim, the age of the person at that time, the age difference between the person and the victim and the person's relationship to the victim or position of authority over the victim at the material time; and
• all other relevant circumstances identified in the assessable information including, but not limited to, those pertaining to conduct which may be indicative of child grooming, poor boundary recognition, prurient interests, or other behaviour that may pose a risk to children and impact on the person's suitability to be engaged in child-related work.

In weighing up the risk assessment criteria, the paramount consideration must be the best interests of children, having regard to their safety and protection_.[20]_

1. In the Tribunal's protective and disciplinary jurisdictions, including when the Tribunal deals with matters under the CSPP Act, the Tribunal is often called on to consider the degree of insight, remorse or rehabilitation exhibited by the applicant as this may be relevant to the risk of recurrence of the conduct of concern.
2. On the question of insight and reformation of character, it has been observed that insight might be reflected in a variety of ways, such as:
   • an understanding of the nature of the conduct;
   • an acceptance that the conduct was seriously wrong;
   • an appreciation of why the individual engaged in that conduct;
   • empathy with the consequences; and
   • a willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to avoid similar behaviour.[21]
3. In a matter concerning disciplinary action taken against a doctor, the New South Wales Court of Appeal[22] said:

Lapse of time since the events ... may also be relevant in determining whether the doctor has undergone a reformation of character and behaviour, or whether the incidents can be viewed as isolated or passing departures from proper professional standards or attributed to youth or inexperience.

... the Tribunal and this court should not assume that the doctor has become a reformed person. As Walsh JA said in Ex Parte Tziniolis (1966) SR (NSW) 448 at 461:

Reformations of character and of behaviour can doubtless occur but their occurrence is not the usual but the exceptional thing. One cannot assume that a change has occurred merely because some years have gone by and it is not proved that anything of a discreditable kind has occurred. If a man has exhibited serious deficiencies in his standards of conduct and his attitude it must require clear proof to show that some years later he has established himself as a different man.[23]

1. The Book of Documents indicates that the applicant has had a number of foster children placed in her care and that she was cleared to work with children in 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2021. The last of those was a WWCC.
2. In March and May 2022, notifications were received from the Department for Child Protection (DCP) relating to allegations of physical and emotional abuse of children in the applicant's care between July 2021 and April 2022. After assessment, the WWCC remained in place.
3. Between July and September 2022, notifications were received from SAPOL indicating that the applicant had been charged with six counts of aggravated assault against foster children that were in her care. A further WWCC was conducted and, on 31 October 2022, the applicant was prohibited from working with children.
4. Further details of the care concern allegations against the applicant and the allegations of offending are set out below.
5. The charges laid against the applicant were withdrawn on 1 February 2023.
6. On 1 May 2023, the applicant applied to have the prohibition notice revoked under s 33 of the CSPP Act. After subsequently inviting and receiving further submissions from her, the respondent conducted a further WWCC on its own motion.
7. The respondent issued the prohibition notice on 22 October 2024. It is this decision that is the decision under review in these proceedings.

1. The respondent indicated in the decision record that, in conducting the fresh WWCC, it took into account information from multiple sources, including several care concerns regarding the applicant's capacity as a foster carer which detailed allegations of child abuse between July 2013 and August 2022.[24] The respondent asserted that this information contained allegations about neglect, physical abuse and emotional abuse of five foster children born between 2008 and 2020, some of which was substantiated upon investigation by multiple authorities.
2. However, on examination of the decision record, it is clear that the assessable information taken into account by the respondent in making the decision under review essentially concerned only the three foster children most recently in the applicant's care. These three children were a girl born in 2012 (the eldest child), a girl born in 2016 (the middle child) and a boy born in 2020 (the youngest child) (together, they are referred to in the Tribunal's reasons as the Children).
3. In oral submissions, Ms Underwood said that allegations concerning other foster children are presented as part of the history of the matter but are not relied upon by the respondent.
4. The following is a summary of information obtained from the record of the decision under review and the assertions of the respondent contained in that document. In some respects, the decision record is inconsistent with material in the respondent's Book of Documents. Where that is apparent, I provide corrected details in the latter parts of these reasons. However, the particular inconsistencies in the decision record are not fatal to the decision and, in any event, the Tribunal now stands in the shoes of the respondent and makes the decision afresh.
5. The allegations against the applicant recorded in the decision in respect of the three Children recorded in the decision under review are that:
   1. in May 2020, the applicant hit the eldest child which resulted in bruising on her shoulders and upper arms;
   2. in January 2021, the applicant choked, swore at and verbally abused the Children, leading to a deficit in care being substantiated against her by DCP;
   3. between July and September 2021, the applicant hit the Children and was cruel to them. These care concerns were found by DCP to be substantiated instances of physical and emotional abuse and it was determined that no further children were to be placed with the applicant;
   4. in January 2022, the applicant disclosed confidential personal information about the youngest child on social media. Screenshots of Facebook posts confirmed this;
   5. in February 2022, the applicant was verbally aggressive to DCP staff who cancelled an appointment with her. DCP determined that the lack of regulation of the applicant's behaviours and insight, inability to work within a care team environment, and breach of confidentiality did not meet the competencies of foster caring;
   6. in May 2022, the applicant disclosed personal circumstances of the youngest child to hospital staff; and
   7. between April and August of 2022, physical and emotional abuse and deficits in care for the Children were substantiated, leading to the applicant being charged with six counts of aggravated assault of a child under 12 years of age. In respect of these charges, it was alleged that, between 3 December 2015 and 28 August 2020 during the eldest child's placement with the applicant, she physically assaulted the eldest child by putting electrical tape over her mouth as a form of punishment for crying; putting both her hands around the eldest child's neck and choking her; punching her multiple times; throwing her onto her bed, pulling her pants down, and smacking her bottom; and hitting her with a wooden spoon as a form of punishment; and it was also alleged that the applicant punched the middle child multiple times between 2 January 2018 and 23 June 2022.
6. The decision records that the applicant provided the following response to the aggravated assault allegations in respect of the Children:
   1. while she did have thick black electrical tape in her kitchen drawers, she did not have it at the time the eldest child was in her home and she denied taping the child's mouth shut;
   2. she denied putting her hands around the eldest child's neck in a choking manner;
   3. she did not have a wooden spoon in her possession and she did not hit the eldest child with one; and
   4. she denied punching both children or pulling the eldest child's pants down and smacking her bottom. She stated that the allegation was crazy.
7. The decision records that, in June 2020, the applicant informed DCP that she intended to relinquish care of the eldest child (then aged eight years) due to her struggle to manage her behaviours and, on 28 August 2020, DCP terminated that placement. The middle child and youngest child were subsequently removed from the applicant's care on 23 June 2022 as SAPOL and Child Protection Services (CPS) voiced concerns regarding their safety with the applicant in light of allegations of abuse. On 10 November 2022, the applicant's carer approval was cancelled. This information is confirmed by various documents in the Book of Documents and is accepted by the Tribunal.
8. The decision record also noted that, since December 2021, DCP held concerns over the applicant's suitability to be an approved carer, noting that she lacked demonstrated responsibility and accountability for her behaviours and often blamed others, despite having completed various parenting programs. It was also noted that, in July 2022, DCP reported that there had been ongoing concerns regarding the applicant's ability to regulate her emotions and prioritise the needs of the Children. She was reported by DCP to be explosive when challenged by health care professionals, resistant to all types of support, continually blaming DCP and others for making false reports, and continued to demonstrate a lack of ability and understanding despite the support and education provided by Connecting Foster Carers, Centacare and DCP.
9. The decision noted that no further disclosures of abuse have been made against the applicant since she stopped caring for the Children.
10. The respondent noted the following additional matters in respect of the allegations of offending against the Children:
    1. the disclosures made at different times to several agencies including DCP, CPS and SAPOL were consistent. They occurred after the applicant relinquished care of the eldest child and she was in another placement. A substantial period passed between the alleged incidents and the report, yet the information remained consistent;
    2. the agencies all report that there were a number of factors that supported the credibility and veracity of the disclosed information and several elements of the disclosures were corroborated. The fact that the charges did not proceed in court is not evidence that the disclosures were fabricated or that the allegations did not occur;
    3. the applicant acknowledged that she did hit the "two children in question"[25] on at least four occasions, and that she used smacking as a form of punishment for both children; and
    4. the allegations raised against the applicant originate from a variety of unrelated sources and there is consistency across them. Some were corroborated by electronic evidence. It is both logical and reasonable to assume that the concerns of multiple independent notifiers cannot simply be ascribed to the malicious actions of a few.
11. After considering these factors, the respondent was satisfied that the assessable information gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the allegations the subject of the criminal charges occurred as alleged. The weight afforded to this information was reduced by the respondent on account of the possibility that it did not occur.
12. The respondent stated that it considered it was likely that the remaining allegations concerning the applicant's lack of emotional and behavioural regulation are a substantially accurate reflection of the events described such that they warranted revocation of her carer approval.
13. The respondent stated that, having reached the above conclusions, it was satisfied that it is appropriate to include all allegations in assessing whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to children. The respondent said that the risks arising from the allegations are:
    1. multiple care concerns of a similar nature may indicate a pattern of highly inappropriate behaviour directed towards children. The information indicated that the applicant behaved in a violent and abusive manner towards the Children which resulted in physical injuries and significant emotional harm;
    2. the allegations arose in the context of the applicant holding a position of trust and power as a foster carer. The Children were all aged under 10 years and were therefore vulnerable. The information indicates that the applicant failed to provide the Children with an appropriate nurturing and safe environment in which to grow and learn; and
    3. DCP reported in July 2022 that despite the actions and interventions undertaken by them to address the care concerns, the applicant had not been able to adapt her parenting style or work with DCP to ensure the safety of both the middle child and youngest child.
14. The respondent accepted that the identified risks were mitigated to some extent given that all annual reviews conducted by DCP regarding the applicant's care status between 2013 and 2021 were approved and satisfactory.
15. The respondent also noted that the allegations remain unproven. The respondent however concluded that, having regard to the seriousness and apparent pattern of the alleged conduct and its relevance to the applicant's suitability to work with children, the mere possibility of their occurrence presents a risk of serious harm.
16. The respondent noted in the decision record that the applicant had not responded to an invitation made by letter on 11 April 2024 that she make submissions about the assessable information for the respondent's consideration when determining the WWCC. While this was not considered adversely in determining whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to children, the absence of any response from her meant there was limited information before the respondent on whether the identified risks were mitigated.
17. The respondent concluded that the nature and gravity of the assessable information relating to the applicant indicates that she posed an unacceptable risk to children and that her child protection history demonstrated a pattern of allegations of violent and abusive behaviour towards several children in her care over time. The aggravated assault charges laid against the applicant suggested that there is a possibility of her having engaged in a pattern of highly inappropriate behaviour resulting in physical and emotional harm to children in her care and the absence of a finding of guilt did not mitigate the identified risks. The potential for a repeat of such behaviour is unacceptable, particularly in the absence of any information submitted by the applicant to suggest this risk had been lowered.
18. Accordingly, the applicant was prohibited from working with children.

Applicant's submissions to respondent and additional evidence

1. The respondent's Book of Documents contains a lengthy written submission from the applicant in respect of her WWCC. It is undated, but I infer from its contents that it could have been provided prior to the withdrawal of the charges against the applicant. While I have taken into account the entire document, it is sufficient to summarise the relevant points the applicant makes in this document as follows:
   1. the eldest child demonstrated difficult behaviour from the outset of her placement with the applicant and had apparent learning difficulties. She was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and ADHD and the applicant had to fight with DCP to have the child take the prescribed medication;
   2. the applicant decided in early 2020 that she was unable to provide the eldest child with the support she needed and was struggling with her behaviours and approached Centacare and DCP to end the placement;
   3. she was at a loss to explain where the allegations of assault stemmed from and absolutely denied them. She speculated that the eldest child may be trying to gain attention. She said that no children in her care have ever had bruising or injuries consistent with abuse; and
   4. the middle and youngest child bonded well with her.[26]
2. The Book of Documents also contains a letter from the applicant's former daughter-in-law and mother of her two grandchildren.[27] It is not clear to me if she is the same former daughter-in-law in respect of whose children the applicant was found to be a "safe" person by DCP (see below). The former daughter-in-law states in her letter that:
   1. she has never witnessed any of the behaviours alleged against the applicant;
   2. the applicant's ability to educate, change behaviours and improve children's skills has absolutely amazed her and she is an excellent mother;
   3. her children have never indicated that the applicant deals with their behaviours in an aggressive or physical way;
   4. the eldest child became part of the family and she clearly had serious social, mental and behavioural issues. The worst she saw the applicant do was raise her voice and use time out; and
   5. she (the former daughter-in-law) is an enrolled nurse and mandatory reporter and has never believed she needed to report the applicant for any type of abuse.
3. In the applicant's application for review to the Tribunal she stated:

I believe the decision is wrong as the Screening Unit are going on the information of DCP, of which I believe many of their decisions were quite arbitrary to say the least. I also believe the Screening Unit was quite dismissive of fresh information and references provided. > > In support of my application, I have actually been required recently by DCP to live in the home of my ex daughter in law as a safe person and support so my grandchildren could return to her care. There was full disclosure to DCP about my Prohibited Status and they have access to my information, however they still considered me to be a safe person. I have also recently become a licenced Security Officer, which would not have been granted if the police considered me to be a risk to vulnerable people as the DHS Screening Unit is making me out to be. I strenuously deny the allegations of DCP against me which have caused this Prohibited status.

4. On 31 January 2025, the applicant provided the Tribunal with letters supportive of her from:
   1. Ms Chelsea Castle, reunification case manager, Aboriginal Family Support Services dated 3 June 2024. Ms Cottle's letter states that the applicant was then currently providing "intensive kinship care and support to her two grandchildren" and that, at the request of DCP, she has been required to support and assist with the care of the children for the foreseeable future. This letter is apparently addressed to Centrelink as it seeks an exemption from JobSeeker requirements for the applicant;
   2. Ms Rabia Aftab, case worker, Zahra Foundation, dated 23 January 2025. Ms Aftab stated that the applicant was enrolled in a 12 month Pathways to Empowerment program from February 2024, which is a program which supports women who have experienced domestic and family violence. She said that the applicant successfully completed three terms of the program, that she was punctual and engaged well with the content and interacted with staff and other clients respectfully in an open, non-judgmental manner. She stated that the applicant demonstrated self-awareness and insight and had been an active contributor to the group;
   3. Ms Nooria Haidari, allied health practitioner, Workskil Australia dated 24 January 2025. Ms Haidari stated that the applicant was referred to counselling in November 2022 after she reached out for assistance to help manage her mental health and that she engaged in 12 counselling sessions up to May 2024. She stated that, during this period, she observed the applicant's consistent commitment to improving her well being and addressing personal challenges. The applicant told her that the lack of a WWCC was significantly affecting her work prospects causing frustration and financial distress which was reigniting her mental health struggles; and
   4. a friend (undated). The applicant's friend stated that she has known the applicant for many years and that, since 2021, the applicant was a regular visitor to her home with the middle child and youngest child. She stated that, during those visits, the children appeared to be happy and well adjusted. She said she did not witness the applicant displaying any inappropriate behaviour towards either of the children or mistreat them in any way and she always presented in a kind and caring manner towards them and the children appeared to have a genuine, loving connection with her.
5. The applicant provided what is apparently an extract from a DCP case plan dated 20 June 2024. The extract is exceptionally brief and is redacted. Relevantly, it identifies the applicant as a "safe person" in respect of her grandchildren with whom she would be living.
6. On 24 April 2025, the applicant filed written submissions. These were essentially her unsworn responses to the care concern allegations and criminal charges laid against her that were set out in the prohibition notice. Briefly, the applicant states in this document that:
   1. the May 2020 allegation that she hit the eldest child which resulted in bruising on her shoulders and upper arms was not substantiated by DCP. She states the report was lacking information and it was determined no other person, including childcare nor a respite placement, had observed any bruising on the child and that DCP themselves stated that they thought it was a malicious report;
   2. a deficit in care was recorded in respect of the January 2021 allegation that she choked, swore at, and verbally abused the Children. (Seemingly, the applicant disputes that a deficit in care was substantiated);
   3. in respect of the allegations that she hit the Children and was cruel to them, she said the actual allegations were not presented to her in the care concern meeting which she said was arbitrary in nature. She said the treatment she was afforded in that meeting was in no way fair and expressed a number of other criticisms of the procedure adopted at this time;
   4. in respect of the allegation that in January 2022 she disclosed confidential personal information about the youngest child on social media, she said that this allegation was not substantiated. She said the Facebook post was not made public and not even all of her friends list could see it. She said it was mostly family and some close friends, one of whom worked at Centacare. She said the post was more about her distress at the possibility of the child leaving her care to go to a family member unknown to the child and sounding off about Centacare and DCP staff. She said that she explained at the care concern meeting that she felt the post was akin to having a private conversation with a few family members and friends who already knew the child's situation anyway;
   5. in respect of the allegation concerning her verbal aggression towards DCP staff, she essentially stated that she does not recall this;
   6. in respect of the allegation that in May 2022 she disclosed personal circumstances of the youngest child to hospital staff, she agreed that she disclosed information to a nurse and doctor as she believed this was helpful in the course of the consultation and also that the information would remain confidential;
   7. in respect of the allegations in the criminal charges, the applicant made some essentially irrelevant observations about the process at the time these matters were put to her at a care concern meeting. She indicated that the allegations were false and she strenuously denied them; and
   8. the eldest child has stated when having meltdowns that she wanted to get her foster carer into trouble.
7. Briefly, in her oral evidence and submissions to the Tribunal at the full hearing, the applicant:
   1. essentially denied all allegations made against her except that she conceded that she had smacked the children a few times. She admitted that she had smacked the eldest child three times and the middle child once. She said she was under a lot of stress with the eldest child's behaviour at that time. She said she does not agree with smacking children;
   2. submitted that DCP considered her guilty until proven innocent and that substantiation of allegations by DCP can be made with zero evidence.
   3. agreed that she posted information about the youngest child on Facebook and said that, in hindsight, it was not appropriate because social media is not the place to put your emotions; and
   4. could not explain why the eldest child would disclose these allegations about her and speculated that the child's medication may have been changed or she may have been trying to get attention. She noted that the eldest child would make up stories at school.
8. The applicant submitted at the full hearing that she posed no risk of harm to children and that she had been able to prove that because she lived for six months with her former daughter-in-law and two grandchildren who could not be left alone with their mother. She said that DCP have asked her whether she could take her grandchildren if necessary.

No submissions from the applicant on GM decision

1. At the commencement of the full hearing of this matter on 10 June 2025, the Tribunal invited the applicant to request an adjournment of the proceedings, explicitly noting that the Court of Appeal's decision in the GM case was expected to be delivered imminently and that it might be favourable to her position in the present review proceedings.
2. The applicant declined this invitation and requested that the Tribunal proceed with the hearing on that day.[28]
3. The Court of Appeal delivered its decision in GM on 18 June 2025 although it did not immediately release that decision to the public. On 8 July 2025, when the GM decision was made available to the public, I issued directions to the parties in the present matter inviting them to provide to the Tribunal any further submissions they may wish to make on the topic of the Court of Appeal's decision and to seek an opportunity to make further oral submissions if desired. A PDF copy of the GM decision was provided to the applicant together with those directions and also information about certain free or low cost legal services available to unrepresented parties.
4. The respondent provided brief further submissions which have been taken into account in my reasons.
5. The applicant has not to date provided any response to my directions of 8 July 2025, notwithstanding being reminded of my directions by the Tribunal Registry on 6 August 2025.

1. The respondent's original submissions of 21 May 2025 and its subsequent supplementary submissions of 22 July 2025 are consistent with the discussion of the law and the GM decision I have set out earlier. It is not necessary to repeat them here.
2. The respondent submitted that the decision under review should be affirmed.
3. Briefly, in written and oral submissions the respondent stated that:
   1. while the facts underpinning the assault charges have not been proven in a criminal court, the disclosures made by the eldest child were made to several different people. The disclosures were consistent and occurred across a lengthy period of time. For those reasons, the concerns raised should be considered in the risk assessment as the Tribunal cannot rule out that these events did not occur. There is a significant likelihood that these incidents occurred, based on the consistent and sustained disclosures, and therefore they should inform the risk assessment. This alleged conduct should be given moderate to great weight;
   2. some of the other allegations have been substantiated or admitted, including the applicant's use of smacking as a form of punishment for children in her care. This assessable information should be given greater weight in the risk assessment;
   3. where the care concerns have not been substantiated, the respondent accepts that this assessable information should be given lesser weight in the risk assessment;
   4. aspects of the allegations against the applicant cumulatively demonstrate an unacceptable risk of harm to children, including the seriousness of the allegations of assault and physical abuse towards children in her care and that the alleged conduct occurred over a sustained period of time, commencing in 2013 and continuing until at least 2020;
   5. as the most recent concerning allegations occurred in 2020, the applicant cannot rely on any argument as to rehabilitation of character or development of insight;
   6. to the extent that they comment on child protection matters, the character references provided by the applicant are not corroborated. The authors are biassed in the sense that they are persons connected with the applicant. While the authors speak to counselling and other programs the applicant has undertaken, they do not address the issues to be considered by the respondent in making a decision on whether to prohibit or not prohibit her from working with children. There is no evidence that the authors are aware of the myriad factors relevant to the assessment and the assessable information. These references are unreliable and should be given lesser weight in the risk assessment and are not sufficient to weigh against the significant evidence that establishes that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to children;
   7. the Tribunal should place minimal weight on the purported extract of a case plan which indicates that DCP have identified the applicant as a "safe person" as the full context of the statement made in the case plan is not known. In any event, the fact that DCP have identified the applicant as a safe person to have contact or be present in the house with other children is not akin to the risk assessment to be undertaken when determining whether she poses an unacceptable risk if allowed to work with children; and
   8. the totality of the evidence clearly demonstrates there is a possibility of harm to children under the supervision of the applicant. That risk of harm is neither fanciful nor imaginary.

1. The questions for the Tribunal are essentially the same as those dealt with by the CAU, namely whether the assessable information is reliable and relevant to the question of risk to children and then the weight to be given to this and other relevant matters to determine the fundamental issue of risk under the CSPP Act.
2. While I have agreed with the outcome of the decision under review, I should not be taken as endorsing all aspects of that decision. I am concerned that the decision does not reflect the meticulous approach to the scrutiny and evaluation of the assessable information that was referred to as essential in the Tribunal's GJC decision.

Assessable information: Table 1 considerations - reliability, relevance and source of information

1. Consistent with the factors identified in Table 1 of the Guidelines, I am satisfied that the assessable information obtained from DCP and SAPOL should be given substantial weight in the assessment. These sources are reliable and objective government agencies. This information consists of care concerns against the applicant, some substantiated following child protection investigations, which ultimately led to charges of aggravated assault being laid against her, the middle and youngest child being removed from the applicant's care and her carer approval cancelled. The assessable information from these sources is self-evidently highly relevant as it is closely connected to the question of whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to children.
2. However, I place no weight on a single conviction for driving an unregistered vehicle recorded against the applicant in 2006. I find that a single traffic offence is not relevant to the question of the applicant's risk to children and can be ignored.
3. As I explain below, I give comparatively reduced weight to information provided by the applicant.
4. I turn now to considering the weight to be given to individual elements of the assessable information.

1. The applicant essentially asserted that the eldest child made up the allegations that led to the six aggravated assault charges being laid against the applicant.
2. If these allegations against the applicant are correct, they demonstrate highly inappropriate and cruel conduct against young children by her. This would weigh substantially adversely against the applicant in the risk assessment.
3. The assessable information indicates that, when in her new foster placement, the eldest child said that her previous carer (the applicant) had choked her, hit her with a wooden spoon, smacked her to the head and back, and sworn at her and that the applicant had smacked the middle child.[29]
4. However, the eldest child was adamant that she did not wish to disclose information about her placement with the applicant when she was interviewed on 29 September 2021 by CPS, and walked out of that interview.[30]
5. On 20 June 2022, the eldest child gave an account of the alleged abuse to a CPS officer. The Book of Documents contains an email from SAPOL to DCP that contains the following assertions by Constable Jaensch of SAPOL:

I attended the CPS interview today for [eldest child] as requested and the following disclosures were made by [eldest child] in relation to her former foster carer '[EAZ]'. > > [EAZ] put tape over her mouth because she was crying

• This only happened once
• Tape was black and sticky
• Covered whole mouth
• Nose blocked, tried to cry but nothing came out
• Hurt pulling it off
• Happened in [eldest child]'s room

• This happened a 'long time ago'
• Struggled to breathe
• Stated she held me like this and put both hands around her neck
• Tried to scream but nothing came out
• Thinks it was night time
• In a separate room from [middle child]
• Can't remember if any injuries/how long

Incident where [eldest child] threw all the pillows from [middle child]'s bed onto the ground.

• [middle child] started crying and [EAZ] started 'hurting' [middle child]
• [EAZ] punched [middle child] multiple times
• [eldest child] told her it was her who threw the pillows to the ground
• [EAZ] punched [eldest child] multiple times everywhere (indicated to head)
• [EAZ] got wooden spoon and hit [eldest child]

[Eldest child] stated [EAZ] would regularly throw her onto the bed when naughty. Would turn her over, pull down pants and smack on bottom. > > [Eldest child] said if she cried she got smacked and if she continued crying [EAZ] would continue smacking her. > > [Eldest child] stated she disclosed the choking incident to Donna from DCP. However did not disclose to anyone else prior to disclosing to current foster carer ....[31]

1. In the SAPOL "Facts of Charge" document, the applicant is reported as having made the following statements to police (redactions in original):

She was aware of a number of Care Concerns, early last year maybe May 2021 and on one occasion was told by DCP there was an allegation of a choking incident. The accused was blown away and said she doesn't know anything about it. > > Last September early October - she was made aware of another care concern. Wasn't told what the allegation was; only that it was physical abuse allegation. > > In those meetings - the accused told DCP that she smacked [redacted] on the bottom a number of times and smacked [redacted] on the bottom once. > > In April 2020, the accused started requesting for DCP to put [redacted] in someone else's care. It took DCP 5-6 months to take her back. [redacted] hasn't been in accused's care for 2 years. > > Information provided about [redacted]: > > [redacted] was 3 years old when she went into the accused's care and then lived with the accused for 4 years. [redacted] was diagnosed with ODD and ADHD, which she was medicated for upon diagnosis. The medication helped but would wear off around 3-3.30pm, which was increasingly stressful for the accused because it meant [redacted] had bad behaviour when at home after school. > > The accused would ring CentaCare and tell them she was struggling. She requested to end placement due to not coping with her behaviours and was not able to offer what [redacted] needed. > > The accused advised that she would smack [redacted] on the bottom as a circuit breaker to snap her out of her behaviours. > > The accused would give her time out, by telling her to go sit in her bedroom. [redacted] would get time out if she was doing the wrong thing; breaking things, cutting stuff up and damaging stuff. [redacted] would resist and constantly come out heightened and arguing with accused, refusing to do time out. That was generally what the smacking was about. > > If [redacted] was sneaking out of her room into the kitchen, the accused would smack her on the bottom overtop of clothing and tell her to sit down in her room. The accused states she only did this on 3 occasions, it wasn't a usual thing. > > The accused describes [redacted] to be a beautiful little girl. [redacted] can be caring with other people but not towards the accused. [redacted] was defiant, busy but in a bad way. The accused's mother would say, "she's a little bitch [EAZ] you let her get away with murder". In hindsight, the accused states she has said it to multiple people over the last few years that she should've kept the other 2 girls instead of [redacted] > > The accused's feelings towards [redacted] weren't the same as when [redacted] was first in her care like when she thought, "I love this gorgeous little girl". The accused started to feel "dead". > > Information provided about [redacted] > > The accused states that [redacted] is a switched on sassy little girl who has just turned 6. [redacted] was 19 months when placed in the accused's care - around January 2018. [redacted] lived with the accused for 4 years. [redacted] was removed from the accused's care within the last 4 weeks. > > One day, [redacted] was mimicking [redacted] so the accused smacked her on the bottom. The accused can't remember the circumstances of this incident. The accused told DCP this. > > Black sticky tape over [redacted] mouth: > > The accused states that is definitely not true. The accused has thick black electrical tape (approx. 6-7cm in width) at home in the bottom drawer near the kitchen sink. She states the only person that would access the drawer is the accused but then further stated [redacted] might have poked around in there. > > The accused states she uses the black tape for sticking up the silver stuff on the windows in summer. > > The accused then advised when asked, that she can't remember when she last used it or what she used it for and then states she was in shock. The accused stated she didn't start using the black tape until after [redacted] left so she doesn't know how [redacted] would know about the black tape. > > The accused then advised she only used normal tape when [redacted] lived there. > > The accused then advise she remembered that one morning [redacted] said, "you tried to kill me last night". The accused asked her what she meant but [redacted] did not say anything further. The accused thought, "What's this girl on?" and then remembered she was taking medication for her ADHD. > > Choking, hands around neck of [redacted] > > The accused has no idea where she's got this from and states that it's not true. The accused knew of this allegation and has struggled with this. States her children never have bruises and people would have seen bruises had she of done that. > > Hitting [redacted] with wooden spoon: > > The accused responded with she doesn't have a wooden spoon and welcomed police to check her drawer. > > Punched [redacted] and [redacted] also pulling pants down to smack her on the bottom: > > The accused stated that is not true and is crazy.

2. I heard the applicant deny these allegations in her oral evidence. I found her evidence in this regard lacking in persuasiveness. I am not satisfied that I should prefer the applicant's evidence over the assessable information. I am not prepared to find that these alleged assaults did not occur.
3. Despite the applicant's denials of this conduct, the context of the eldest child's reporting of these events, in particular that her accounts were relatively detailed and remained consistent over a lengthy duration, is suggestive of her not inventing the allegations against the applicant. It is suggestive that the events actually occurred.
4. Nevertheless, in the face of the applicant's denials and the lack of corroborative evidence of the alleged assaults and also taking into account the cautionary approach required by Briginshaw, I cannot be satisfied that she committed the assaults for which she was charged by police. However, I cannot be satisfied that she did not commit those assaults.
5. I must reduce the weighting of my findings in the overall risk assessment to reflect the possibility that the assaults alleged against the applicant did not occur. Nevertheless, the weighting I give to my findings is not minimal. The assessable information is of such a nature that it has given rise to a reasonable and serious degree of concern in my mind that the applicant assaulted the eldest and middle child. I therefore give these allegations substantial weight in the risk assessment.

1. The Book of Documents provides somewhat different information from the decision record about the 2021 care concerns.
2. In respect of the January 2021 matter, the material in the Book of Documents alleges that the applicant choked the eldest child, hit her on the back of the head leaving bruises and called the child names. The care concerns did not relate to all the Children. After investigating the matter, DCP found allegations of emotional abuse (the swearing) and physical abuse (the choking and hitting the child on the head) to be unsubstantiated. However, DCP substantiated a "deficit in quality of care provided" as the applicant conceded that she used smacking as a form of punishment to the eldest child, which DCP stated does not meet the care standards required of a carer.
3. The allegations occurring between July and September 2021 concerned physical discipline (smacking) and inappropriate language directed to the three Children.[32] As a result of the applicant conceding that she smacked the eldest child four times and the middle child once, DCP found physical abuse to be substantiated. A "deficit in care" was also substantiated due to standards of care not being upheld. An action plan was put in place by DCP for the applicant to undergo further training and it would seem that DCP recommended that no further children be placed with the applicant while the action plan remained in place.[33]
4. A substantiation by DCP of care concerns alleged against the applicant is not necessarily proof that the relevant events actually occurred. My examination of the Book of Documents does not disclose that the DCP investigations in this matter had the rigour of the type of fact-finding exercise routinely undertaken by courts and tribunals. The Tribunal does not know what it takes for DCP to find a care concern "substantiated". Nevertheless, as noted above, the CAU and this Tribunal do not need to be satisfied that any particular incident actually occurred. Where incidents are not proven, the question becomes the weight to be afforded to them in the risk assessment.
5. On this occasion, as the applicant agreed in her oral evidence to the Tribunal that she smacked the eldest and middle children, I find her smacking of these children to be proven and give it moderate weight in the risk assessment. I cannot give it greater weight as there is no information as to whether the smacking resulted in any injury to the children or whether each incident of smacking was a single smack only or multiple strikes.

1. I place no weight on the care concerns against the applicant that were unsubstantiated, including:
   1. the care concerns in 2013 in respect of children then in her care, one of which (that the applicant left one of the children with a supermarket attendant while taking the other to urinate) was found to be unsubstantiated and the other (that the applicant hit the two children) was found to be malicious; [34] and
   2. the care concern of May 2020, which was found to be unsubstantiated.[35]
2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that would support any conclusion that these incidents actually occurred.

Disclosure of personal information about foster children

1. These allegations are proven by material in the Book of Documents[36] and the applicant's concessions in her oral evidence.
2. In oral submissions, counsel for the respondent stated that I should give lesser weight to the allegations that the applicant disclosed confidential personal information about the youngest child to various persons in January and May 2022.
3. I generally agree that, while they are not irrelevant and should not be ignored, these allegations should be given reduced weight in an assessment of the applicant's risk to children.

Letters from the applicant's former daughter-in-law, Ms Castle, Ms Aftab, Ms Haidari and the applicant's friend

1. I place low to moderate weight on the letter from the applicant's former daughter-in-law, noting that she has personal knowledge of the applicant and the children that have been in her care. However, I am mindful that the former daughter-in-law did not give evidence at the hearing and the Tribunal does not know of the extent of her knowledge of the allegations made against the applicant. Also, the applicant's conduct in a limited, private setting within her own family is an entirely different matter from the risk that she might pose to children if she were able to work or volunteer with them in a broader context. This reduces the weight to be given to the former daughter-in-law's observations of the applicant.
2. I place significantly lesser weight to the contents of the letters from Ms Castle, Ms Aftab and Ms Haidari. In particular, the information contained in those letters about the applicant's attendance at a course and for counselling have little apparent relevance to the specific question of her risk to children.
3. I also place significantly lesser weight on the contents of the letter from the applicant's friend as it is not clear if she is aware of the full history of child concern allegations made against the applicant. Also, similar to the comments I made about the former daughter-in-law's support of the applicant, there is a real difference between a person's conduct in a private setting and the risk that person might pose if they were able to work or volunteer with children more broadly.
4. I also take into account that the applicant's former daughter-in-law and friend, who each have had a lengthy relationship with the applicant, may not be sufficiently objective in their observations and comments about her and may be predisposed to think well of her.

DCP approval of the applicant as a "safe" person

1. I place lesser weight on the apparent approval given to the applicant by DCP to live in the same home as her grandchildren.
2. The Tribunal does not know the specific considerations which led to the giving of any such approval. I am not prepared to extrapolate from any such approval having been given to the applicant that DCP would regard her as safe to work or volunteer with children in any context.
3. I agree with Ms Underwood's submissions that the fact that, for seemingly a short period of time, DCP approved the applicant living in the same home as her two grandchildren is of limited assistance in the present matter. While relevant, the identification of the applicant as a "safe person" is not akin to the risk assessment that must be conducted for a WWCC that would, if granted, permit the applicant to engage in any and every activity for which a WWCC was required. The Tribunal has no information as to the circumstances that led to DCP approving these domestic arrangements.

1. I am not prepared to place any significant weight on the (unproven) assertion by the applicant that she holds a security agent's licence. While security agents must no doubt satisfy the licence issuing authority of their probity and suitability for that role, the applicant did not explain how her holding any such licence is particularly relevant to the specific question of her risk to children. I am not satisfied that it is.

Positive carer assessments and prior working with children clearances

1. I take into account in the applicant's favour the positive annual assessments and reviews conducted of her as a carer in April 2014,[37] February 2016,[38] February 2017,[39] February 2018[40] and June 2020.[41]
2. I also place some positive weight on the prior clearances received by the applicant in 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2021.
3. However, the positive weight to be given to these matters is reduced given that they predate by a significant period the serious allegations of abuse made against the applicant in respect of the three Children.

1. I give neutral weight to the November 2022 cancellation by DCP of the applicant's approval as a foster carer. It is not clear to me if this was entirely an inevitable consequence of the applicant being issued a prohibition notice by the respondent the previous month.

1. I turn now to evaluating under Table 2 of the Guidelines the nature and degree of the risk posed by the applicant and whether it is acceptable to allow it. I have considered the likelihood of the conduct of concern (physical and emotional abuse of children) recurring in the future and the seriousness of the consequences if the conduct were to recur in the context of the applicant's work or volunteering with children.
2. There are factors in this case that the Guidelines consider demonstrate an increased risk of harm. This includes that the allegations against the applicant involved an abuse of trust and power by a foster parent against a foster child and the repeated use of violence or force committed against children over a prolonged period. It includes that some of the allegations were substantiated after a child protection investigation and that the allegations are of conduct that is relatively recent.
3. In this respect, I have relied primarily (but not exclusively) on the allegations of aggravated assault made against the applicant and my serious concerns that those allegations are correct. I am satisfied that these allegations are based upon a sound factual basis, that they are from a credible source and are logically probative of the matter in issue, namely the question of risk to children. However, as noted, I do take into account that they are unproven and may not have occurred.
4. Table 2 identifies factors that would demonstrate a decreased risk, and which should be weighted in an applicant's favour. They are not a complete list and any relevant evidence of a decreased risk should be taken into account. In this regard, I take into account that no further disclosures of abuse have been made against the applicant since the Children ceased being in her care. I also take into account the non-adverse factors I outlined in my discussion on the Table 1 considerations (namely, the applicant's positive carer assessments and prior working with children clearances, her denials of abuse, the various references she has provided, her status as a "safe" person in respect of her grandchildren for a period and that she holds a security agent's licence).
5. However, I am satisfied that the weight to be given in the risk assessment to these non-adverse factors does not outweigh the substantial adverse weight that should properly be given to the other assessable information alleging physical and emotional abuse of the eldest and middle children.
6. On the matter of insight of misconduct, I note that an increased risk to children is also demonstrated, according to the Guidelines, by a rejection of personal responsibility, shifting blame to others and minimisation of actions. Clearly, a lack of demonstrated real insight and ownership of conduct is a substantial indicator of a serious risk of recurrence. The Guidelines indicate that a decreased risk is demonstrated by evidence of matters such as remorse, acceptance of responsibility and need for change, and articulation of changes to attitude or behaviour to address offending or misconduct. However, the applicant's case to the Tribunal is that she did not commit the abuse alleged against her, except for the smacking of the eldest and middle children. In those circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that the applicant has not shown remorse or insight into misconduct that she denies she committed. Even so, where there is no evidence of insight, remorse and rehabilitation, the Tribunal cannot afford the applicant the substantial benefit that would otherwise be given to a person who has shown "lessons learned" and that they have turned their life around.
7. On the whole, I have been unable on the evidence to positively find that the applicant would repeat the acts alleged against her. If she committed the assaults alleged against her, the serious consequences to her of having been issued a prohibition notice may be a strong disincentive against similar future conduct. If (as is not ruled out) she did not commit those assaults, the chance of similar conduct may potentially be small. The risk of recurrence may therefore not be substantial but there still exists a possibility of future harm to children. If the conduct did recur in the context of the applicant's work or volunteering with children, the consequences to children would clearly be serious as it could result in physical and/or psychological or emotional harm to children.
8. As noted earlier, where the possible future harm is serious, a realistic prospect that it will recur would usually be sufficient to regard that outcome as unacceptable. I find that is the case in this instance. Given the applicant's care concern history, there is a realistic prospect of a repeat of inappropriate conduct towards children. In my view, this is not a case of a risk that is acceptable because it is fanciful, farfetched or theoretical or where the potential consequences are mild or insignificant. I am therefore satisfied that allowing the applicant to work with children would not ensure the adequate protection of children.
9. For all the above reasons, I am reasonably satisfied that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to children and should be prohibited from working with children. I am satisfied that this outcome is consistent with the objects of the CSPP Act to minimise the risk to children and the paramount consideration, being the best interests of children having regard to their safety and protection. I am also satisfied that this outcome accords with an objective, normative standard of risk that would be acceptable to the broader community.

1. I conclude that the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review to issue a prohibition notice to the applicant.

[1] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [140].

[2] See generally M v M [1988] HCA 68; GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38; Marshall v Department of Human Services - Central Assessment Unit [2023] SACAT 83; GM v Department of Human Services [2024] SASC 23; GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68.

[3] Working with Children Check Guidelines, July 2024.

[4] See GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68.

[5] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [142].

[6] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [142].

[7] Badea v Department of Human Services - Central Assessment Unit [2024] SACAT 37 at [79].

[8] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [106]. In this respect, the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of a single Judge of the Supreme Court in GM v Department of Human Services [2024] SASC 23.

[9] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [107] - [115] (footnotes omitted).

[10] GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38 at [104].

[11] See broadly GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [72] - [122].

[12] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [89].

[13] Working with Children Check Guidelines, July 2024, chapter 9.

[14] Section 39 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

[15] GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38 at [83] - [84].

[16] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [176] (footnotes omitted).

[17] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34.

[18] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [173].

[19] Working with Children Check Guidelines, July 2024, p17.

[20] Working with Children Check Guidelines, July 2024, chapter 10.

[21] Wiliams v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2008] VCAT 1784 at [99].

[22] Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297.

[23] See also Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022] SACAT 111 at [51].

[24] See generally Respondent's Book of Documents, Volume 2, pp8 - 10.

[25] The Tribunal understands that this is a reference to the eldest child and middle child.

[26] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp268 - 271.

[27] Respondent's Book of Documents, p278.

[28] I note that this was also the applicant's attitude at a directions hearing on 30 April 2025 that set the matter down for full hearing.

[29] Respondent's Book of Documents, p62.

[30] Respondent's Book of Documents, p44, pp61 - 63.

[31] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp99 - 100.

[32] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp72 - 73.

[33] Respondent's Book of Documents, p118.

[34] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp30 - 32.

[35] Respondent's Book of Documents, p119.

[36] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp86 - 91.

[37] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp30 - 32.

[38] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp33 - 36.

[39] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp37 - 40.

[40] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp41 - 43.

[41] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp45 - 47.