GVK v Children's Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 66;

1. Due to the sensitive nature of these proceedings and to protect against the identity of any child being disclosed, an order was made on 6 February 2025 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ("the NCAT Act") that with the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited.

1. On 21 November 2025, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal, with a copy provided to the respondent's legal representative, requesting an adjournment of the hearing which was set down for Monday, 24 November 2025. The reason given for the requested adjournment was that the applicant was engaged in family law proceedings for three consecutive days commencing on 25 November 2025, and that she would be unable to properly prepare for or attend the Tribunal hearing.
2. The applicant's email also noted her partner's medical condition and the allowances to be made to accommodate his comfort during the applicant's oral testimony and, if required, his participation as a witness.
3. The Tribunal issued an Order on 21 November 2025 stating that the request for adjournment would be considered at the commencement of the hearing on 24 November 2025 and that the parties were to attend in person and be prepared to proceed with the hearing on that day.
4. On the first day of hearing, 24 November 2025, the applicant again sought an adjournment. The applicant advised the Tribunal that approximately five weeks before a Family Court hearing, her legal representative in those proceedings had withdrawn due to a heavy workload and that she had only obtained new legal representation around 10 days before the Tribunal hearing. The applicant advised the Tribunal that her request for an adjournment of the family law proceedings had been refused. She also advised the Tribunal that she had obtained legal representation with respect to her application before the Tribunal during the weekend immediately preceding 24 November 2025.
5. The applicant submitted that she had been focused on obtaining legal representation in both the Family Court and Tribunal proceedings and upon preparing for the Family Court proceedings such that she had been unable to prepare with her legal representative for the Tribunal hearing. As a result, the applicant asked the Tribunal to defer the hearing to another date.
6. The respondent did not oppose the request, noting that there was no prejudice in granting an adjournment since the applicant was presently barred from engaging in child-related work.
7. It was apparent to the Tribunal that the applicant had made genuine efforts to prepare for two separate Family Court and Tribunal proceedings in circumstances where she found herself, at short notice, without legal representation in either proceeding. It was also apparent to the Tribunal that the close proximity of hearings in the two proceedings had made it difficult for the applicant to prepare for the Tribunal hearing, particularly as a self-represented party.
8. Since there was no prejudice caused to the respondent, a refusal to grant an adjournment in the circumstances prevailing for the applicant, may have unfairly disadvantaged her. Accordingly, the requested adjournment was granted, and the matter was set down for hearing on 5 December 2025.

Participation by AVL and Second adjournment request

1. On the morning of the relisted hearing day (5 December 2025) the applicant sent, relevantly, two emails to the Tribunal, with copies to the respondent:
2. The first email sent at 8:37am asked to participate in the hearing via audio-visual link ("AVL") due to an unexpected medical emergency involving her partner such that she was not in a position to travel to the Tribunal. The applicant attached a letter from her partner's treating neurologist dated 2 December 2025 advising of the environmental accommodations that would facilitate his comfortable participation in the proceedings.
3. In a second email sent at 9:50am, the applicant advised the Tribunal of two issues. Firstly, a "flare-up" in her partner's medical condition brought on by multiple court proceedings over a short period of time meant that he was unable to attend the Tribunal hearing or be cross-examined on 5 December 2025. The applicant asserted that his evidence was central to her case and that his absence would be highly prejudicial and would deny her procedural fairness. Secondly, the applicant advised that her legal representative would not be appearing due to constraints of affordability and that, without the opportunity for legal assistance, she would suffer significant detriment and prejudice. In those circumstances, the applicant requested another adjournment.
4. The respondent had no objection to the applicant's participation by AVL and also did not oppose the requested adjournment, again noting that there was no prejudice in granting an adjournment since the applicant was presently barred from engaging in child-related work.
5. When asked about the nature of her partner's evidence, the applicant indicated to the Tribunal that it involved information in his affidavit that had been filed in the family law proceedings addressing inconsistent information about her alleged use of alcohol. The applicant also proffered that the information in her partner's affidavit may answer questions raised by the respondent concerning that issue, and that she could seek permission to have information that had been filed in the family law proceedings also filed in the Tribunal. However, it was acknowledged by the parties that the logistics for seeking permission for that material to be filed may extend into a lengthened period in the New Year. Additionally, the applicant acknowledged that the date by which she anticipated she may be legally represented in the Tribunal proceedings was a date with an unknown variable that could not be considered with any reliability, or within a timeframe that could reasonably be anticipated. The Tribunal noted that the risk of the applicant's partner not being sufficiently well to appear at a later date was another risk to be considered.
6. The Tribunal noted that, pursuant to s 38(1) of the NCAT Act, it may determine its own procedure. Importantly, the Senior Member explained that the Guiding Principle as set out in s 36 of the NCAT Act, required the Tribunal is to facilitate the "just, quick and cheap resolution" of the real issue in the proceedings, namely, the determination of whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal reasoned that, whilst the issue of the applicant's offending conduct including her use of alcohol around her own children may be examined in the broader context of the family law proceedings, those proceedings and their outcome may have some relevance, but they were not necessarily a determining factor, with respect to the real issue before the Tribunal.
7. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal was satisfied that although the applicant was not legally represented, she presented as a confident and highly articulate individual, and appeared to be well-acquainted with the relevant material to be considered. Further, the Tribunal formed the view that no procedural unfairness would arise in hearing her evidence under cross-examination as a self-represented applicant. Indeed, it appeared to the Tribunal from the applicant's second email that any further delay in hearing the matter carried some risk that it may exacerbate her partner's medical condition. The respondent did not press the need to cross-examine the applicant's partner. The Tribunal decided that it would proceed to hear the applicant's evidence and then consider what further material, if any, may be filed at a later date.
8. After hearing her evidence in cross-examination, the Tribunal gave the applicant an opportunity to file material from her current Treating Counsellor and submissions in relation to that material, by 17 December 2025. The respondent was given the opportunity to file submissions in reply to the applicant's further material, by 19 December 2025. Subsequently, the applicant required an extension of time to file her material. The respondent did not object to this. The Tribunal agreed to extend the date for the applicant to file her further material by 16 January 2026 and for the respondent to file submissions in reply by 30 January 2026.
9. On 20 January 2026, the applicant filed a letter from her Treating Counsellor. Then, on 22 January 2026, she filed a further document which she described as being a condensed version of an affidavit she had submitted to the Family Court as part of her ongoing family law proceedings ("Unsworn Affidavit").
10. The respondent filed submissions in reply to the applicant's further material on 30 January 2026. The respondent did not in principle oppose the Tribunal's receipt of the further material. However, the respondent submitted that the Unsworn Affidavit largely repeated the matters set out in the applicant's other evidence before the Tribunal.
11. Whilst we agree with the respondent's assessment of the limited probative value of the Unsworn Affidavit, we decided to accept the document into the body of evidence upon which the applicant sought to rely. For completeness, both the Treating Counsellor's letter and the Unsworn Affidavit were marked for the purpose of identification (see below).

1. The following material was filed on behalf of the applicant in support of her application:

(1) A bundle of documents filed on 7 August 2025 comprising generally:

(2) a personal statement dated 1 August 2025;

(3) a statement dated 29 July 2025 from the applicant's partner in support of her application;

(4) details of therapy and psychological services accessed by the applicant;

(5) Orders made by the Family Court on 6 March 2024 and 22 July 2024 concerning a range of matters including custody and contact arrangements for the applicant's children;

(6) a Treatment Report dated 21 March 2025 prepared by the Psychologist appointed by the Family Court, pertaining to the applicant, her ex-partner and their children pursuant to Family Court Orders;

(7) a Family Report dated 29 January 2025 prepared by the Court Child Expert appointed by the Family Court, pursuant to Family Court Orders made on 22 July 2024;

(8) documents relating to the applicant's applications to the Department of Communities and Justice and the NSW Police Force for information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW);

(9) certificate of conviction relating to the applicant's ex-partner concerning an offence of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception;

(10) correspondence between the applicant's legal representative and the NSW Police Force concerning an alleged threat by the applicant towards her ex-partner;

(11) pathology reports on blood and urine testing of the applicant between November 2023 and July 2024;

(12) correspondence concerning the applicant's employment and alcohol breath-testing results;

(13) (altogether marked for identification as "Exhibit A1").

(14) Submissions in reply to the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's clearance, with reference to the transcript of Local Court proceedings on 25 January 2024 concerning the offences of common assault and contravening the prohibition/restriction in an Apprehended Violence Order, and including a chronology of events, filed on 23 October 2025 (marked for identification as "Exhibit A2").

(15) Final Parenting Orders made by the Family Court on 25 November 2025, filed on 4 December 2025 (marked for identification as "Exhibit A3"). The Final Parenting Orders were accompanied by short submissions which were not marked.

(16) A letter dated 20 January 2026 from the applicant's Treating Counsellor (marked for identification as "Exhibit A4").

(17) The applicant's undated Unsworn Affidavit (marked for identification as "Exhibit A5").

1. The following material was filed on behalf of the respondent:
2. a bundle of documents filed on 11 February 2025 pursuant to s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ("the ADR Act") (marked for identification as "Exhibit R1");
3. a supplementary bundle of documents filed on 14 February 2025 pursuant to s 58 of the ADR Act. In written submissions, the respondent conceded that this bundle had limited probative value or otherwise contained information that is available from other sources, and the respondent did not intend to rely upon them. They were marked, for the purpose of identification only, as "Exhibit R2");
4. bundle of supplementary evidence filed on 22 April 2025 (marked for identification as "Exhibit R3");
5. bundle of further evidence and evidence in reply filed on 18 September 2025 (marked for identification as "Exhibit R4");
6. written submissions dated 13 November 2025 (not marked);
7. further written submissions in reply dated 30 January 2026 (not marked).

Background - Family arrangements and employment

1. The applicant is 50 years of age and is separated from her husband with whom she has three children who are now aged 13, 11 and 9. The parties commenced their relationship in or around 2012 and decided on 6 August 2023 to separate. They both remained living together in the family home until the applicant moved out on 6 September 2023.
2. The applicant now lives with her new partner who has an adult daughter from a previous relationship. That adult daughter does not reside with the applicant.
3. The applicant's ex-husband lives with his new partner along with her teenage daughter from a previous relationship. He has two adult children from a previous relationship, and his three sons with the applicant spend time with their step-siblings on special occasions.
4. In December 2023, the children's father unilaterally relocated the children interstate, to live with him and his new partner.
5. The applicant commenced family law proceedings in February 2024 and the father was ordered to return the children to live in their previous State. Since the time of a Family Court Order dated 6 March 2024, the children have lived with their father.
6. The Family Court Order of 6 March 2024 provided that the children would spend time with the applicant for not less than two hours each fortnight on days and times to be agreed between the parties at a professional supervision centre. Pursuant to a further Family Court Order dated 22 July 2024, the parties were encouraged to discuss and reach a consent position with respect to arranging phone contact between the applicant and the children.
7. Also pursuant to Family Court Orders dated 22 July 2024, the applicant, her children and her ex-husband participated in a court-ordered expert assessment by a Court Child Expert ("the Child Expert"). The Child Expert provided a Family Report dated 29 January 2025. The purpose of the Family Report was to assist the Family Court in determining the parenting arrangements for the children. The Child Expert recommended that the children live with their father and that they spend time with the applicant as agreed by the parents. The Family Report is considered in more detail in these Reasons under the sub-heading "Court Child Expert Family Report".
8. Also pursuant to Family Court Orders dated 22 July 2024, the applicant, her ex-husband and the children were required to attend family therapy with a registered Psychologist ("the Family Therapy Psychologist") who prepared a Treatment Report dated 21 March 2025. Treatment was primarily focused on facilitating reunification between the children and the applicant. The Family Therapy Treatment Report is considered in more detail in these Reasons under the sub-heading "Family Therapy Treatment Report".
9. Pursuant to Family Court Orders made on 25 November 2025, the children are to live with the father who is permitted to relocate interstate with them. Subject to completing hair follicle tests to test for alcohol consumption, the applicant is permitted to spend time with the eldest child as agreed between the parties and is permitted to spend time with the middle and youngest child on the dates specified in the Order (accommodating the school terms as well as school holidays).

1. The applicant was employed as a Paramedic at the time of the offending conduct, and has been employed in that capacity for around 15 and a half years. She had previously served for six years in the Australian Defence Force, and her military service included an overseas posting in East Timor.
2. As a matter of historical note, while working as a Paramedic the applicant was subject to disciplinary action by her employer following a conviction in June 2011 for a high-range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol ("PCA") offence. As a result, she was temporarily demoted to the role of Patient Transport Officer, with duties excluding driving. That action was finalised in October 2011.
3. Following cancellation of her clearance, she was suspended from duty as a Paramedic and placed on leave without pay. We understand that, after using her annual and long service leave entitlements, the applicant remains on leave without pay, pending a workplace investigation which has not yet been completed.
4. Her employer directed her to undergo the organisation's Alcohol Breath Testing program for six months commencing from 9 February 2024. She was fully compliant with the program and her employer's record of alcohol breath testing results demonstrated that, on 22 occasions, she returned negative test results. The program was successfully completed and finalised on 26 August 2024.
5. The applicant has remained on leave without pay and has not resumed active duties with her employer of 15 years. Her oral evidence to the Tribunal was that her long-term employment was subject to the outcome of her application for a clearance. In the meantime, in April 2025, she took on work as a contractor on a "fly-in fly-out" basis with an organisation unconnected to her employer. The contract work involves the applicant working 12 hour shifts for seven days, followed by seven days off.
6. The Tribunal understood that there are otherwise no disciplinary proceedings or complaints recorded against the applicant during her employment as a Paramedic.

Events leading to the application before the Tribunal

1. The applicant was named as defendant in two provisional ADVOs, the first made on 14 July 2023, naming her then husband as a protected person. This ADVO was ultimately withdrawn. The second provisional ADVO was made on 23 August 2023, naming the applicant's three children (then aged 11, 8 and 6 years) as protected persons. A final ADVO was made at the sentencing hearing on 24 January 2025, naming the applicant's three children as protected persons.

1. Turning to the first provisional ADVO, one of the conditions was that the applicant must not approach or be with her husband for at least 12 hours after drinking alcohol.
2. The accompanying facts (setting out the grounds for the application) included details of allegations of family violence that both the applicant and her then husband made against each other (which they each denied). The husband had left his residence on 13 July 2023 with his three children and drove to a location where the Police spoke with him. He said that the applicant had been drinking heavily and he left his residence so things would not escalate further after he tipped out the applicant's bottle of wine. He asserted that the applicant had tried to take a coke bottle from him and that, in the struggle that ensued between them, his IV medication line was pulled out slightly. His shirt was ripped slightly due to the incident and he said he was forced to hit the applicant's hand away to stop her. He said he immediately walked away and left with the children.
3. When questioned by Police, the applicant stated that her husband was angry with her drinking alcohol, and grabbed her by the shoulders and shook her in frustration. She asserted that she fell down onto her back and he got on top of her, still shaking her by the shoulders. She said she had kicked him multiple times to the chest to get him away from her.
4. The applicant said she had drunk three glasses of red wine that evening but that she was not affected by alcohol. The Police observed her to be slightly intoxicated at the time of her interview. She disclosed two previous incidents of domestic violence in which she asserted her husband had struck her to the face with his elbow, causing a black eye. The applicant claimed to have photos of her injuries, but was unable to retrieve any from her mobile phone. She asserted that, in the second incident, her husband put a cigarette out on her hand. She showed a scar mark on her hand to the Police. She also stated that she didn't know why he did it, and that it may have been an accident.
5. The applicant's husband denied both the applicant's allegations. He told Police that she had been very drunk, stumbling around the bedroom and fell, causing the injury to herself. He asserted that the applicant had self-inflicted the burn, to be used as evidence if the two ever broke up. He said that the applicant often threatened him that if he ever left her, she would take the children and he would not be allowed to see them. He said he had been documenting the applicant's behaviour, as he feared she would make reports to the Police about him. He showed photos of the applicant passed out (presumably after drinking alcohol), photos of empty bottles of spirits, photos of hidden alcohol around the house and videos of her which he asserted showed her to be very intoxicated.
6. When questioned about her alcohol use, the applicant stated that since moving relatively recently and experiencing financial hardship, her drinking had become worse.
7. As previously noted, the first provisional ADVO was ultimately withdrawn.

1. The second provisional ADVO, naming the applicant as defendant, was made on 23 August 2023 to protect her three children. One of the conditions was that the applicant must not approach or be in the company of any of her children for at least 12 hours after drinking alcohol. The ADVO included orders that the applicant must not assault or threaten any of her children.
2. The grounds for the application noted that the first provisional ADVO was already in place. The applicant's husband attended the local Police Station on 21 August 2023 to report incidents involving the applicant and their children which predated the incident on 13 July 2025 that had resulted in the first provisional ADVO being in place. He reported three separate alleged incidents on 29 May 2023, 21 June 2023 and 7 July 2023. Police were shown photographs, videos and a text message in support of the allegations. He also showed Police photographs of injuries to the youngest child from the night of 7 July 2023 including scratches and redness to his upper chest, upper back and lower back.
3. The following day, on 22 August 2023, the husband took the children to the local Police Station where the eldest and youngest children participated in video recorded interviews.
4. The incidents were set out in the grounds for the ADVO, as follows:
5. "In the evening of 29 May 2023 - [the applicant] was laying on the lounge in the lounge room at their unit and was well intoxicated by alcohol. [The youngest child] who suffers from autism was leaning on [her] groin area using one of his fists. [The applicant] tried stopping him by sluggishly pushing him away and asking him to stop. [The youngest child] continues his behaviour and started slapping her in the leg and at one point punches her in the left cheek (softly). [The applicant] (still laying down) kicks [the youngest child] who is standing next to her which causes him to step back then jump back on the lounge next to [the applicant] while apologising to her. [The applicant] then sits up, raises her right leg and kicks [the youngest child] in the chest with some force causing him to hold his chest and cry. This incident is captured on a 2 minute video that was recorded by [the applicant's husband]."
6. "9.25pm 21 June 2023 - [The applicant's husband] was away working on another house he own's out west. He received messages from [the eldest child] saying "Help Mums hurting me Mum scratched me it hurts please help!! Mums hurting me (crying emojis). [The applicant's husband] then received a short video from [the youngest child] where he appears upset and says "Mums really hurting me" while pulling down the collar of his shirt to show redness to his upper chest and then says "She scratched me right there".
7. "9pm 7 July 2023 - [The applicant's husband] showed Police a note he wrote himself on his mobile phone - 'I was on the veranda and when I came inside [the eldest child] was holding [the applicant] back. I stepped in and stopped [them]. [The youngest child] ran off crying so I followed him and found the marks on him.' "
8. In his recorded interview, the eldest child recalled the alleged incident on 21 June 2023, saying that his mother had been drinking Vodka, stumbling around everywhere. He said that he used his mother's mobile phone to contact his father because of his mother's drinking. He said that his mother was angry and asked for her phone and then "tried to jump at him to grab her phone but lost her balance and fell against him" and that whilst doing so, scratched him to his chest just below his neck.
9. The youngest child, in his recorded interview, did not mention the incidents on 29 May and 7 July 2023 but said that he felt sad when his mother drank alcohol.
10. The ADVO was served on the applicant on 23 August 2023.

1 September 2023: Applicant charged with breach of an ADVO and alleged common assault (DV) of eldest child

1. On 1 September 2023, the applicant was charged with common assault (DV) of her eldest child and breaching an ADVO, with her three children named as the victims.
2. The alleged conduct giving rise to the charges is described in the Police Facts Sheet as follows:

"During the morning/early afternoon of Friday 1 September 2023 the accused consumed an unknown amount of alcohol.

About 3pm the accused picked the three victims up from school in [location redacted] and drove them to [store]. Whilst the accused was inside the store, [the eldest child] opened up a 600 ml bottle of Pepsi Max that was in the car, smelt alcohol coming from inside and so tipped it out. The accused has returned to the car and drove the children back home to [address redacted].

Shortly after arriving home the accused has poured herself an amount of Vodka into an open Pepsi Max can, walked upstairs to the loungeroom and sat down on the lounge while consuming the alcoholic drink. [The eldest child] grabbed this Vodka bottle and took it upstairs to his bedroom. The Vodka botte has a small amount of Vodka left. The accused has fallen asleep at some point and spilt some of the alcoholic drink on the lounge and carpet.

The accused was unable to be awoken and so Police were contacted.

About 6.10pm Police attended and spoke with the accused and victims and observed the almost empty Vodka bottle that [the eldest child] was holding. The accused denied the allegations however.

As soon (sic) Police left [the eldest child] and his two brothers went upstairs to [the eldest child's] room all the while being on a video call to their father. The accused has entered [the eldest child's] bedroom and in a state of anger began yelling at [the eldest child] to give her the empty Vodka bottle he was holding, He initially refused and the accused has grabbed him on left arm near his elbow and then on his left shoulder. The accused pushed him into a wall and grabbed the Vodka bottle from him. Police were contacted.

About 7.30pm Police attended again and spoke with the accused and [the eldest child]. These conversations were recorded on Police body worn video cameras. The accused was placed under arrest and conveyed to [the local] Police Station..."

1. An Amended Police Facts Sheet alleged that the applicant breached her ADVO by consuming alcohol while caring for the children.
2. The applicant participated in an electronically recorded interview in which she denied drinking alcohol and denied assaulting her eldest child. She said she had last consumed an alcoholic drink three weeks prior. The Police Facts Sheet noted that she told Police she did not know where her eldest child got the empty Vodka bottle from as she must have drunk it "a long time ago".
3. The father signed a written statement dated 1 September 2023 concerning the incident involving his eldest son on that date. He stated that the applicant had had a problem with alcohol for about 5 years and that it had been getting progressively worse. After receiving text messages from his son, he called Police to attend the family residence and do a welfare check on the children.

8 September 2023: Applicant charged with common assault (DV) of youngest child regarding incident on 29 May 2023

1. The father signed another written statement dated 7 September 2023 concerning the incident involving his youngest son on 29 May 2023. He produced video recordings of exchanges between the applicant and his son, and screenshots of notes he made on his mobile phone about the exchanges.
2. Subsequently, on 8 September 2023, the applicant was charged with common assault (DV) of her youngest child, with respect to the incident on 29 May 2023 (the details of which are set out above). The Police Facts Sheet noted that the applicant had acted in self-defence in her actions leading up to the victim stopping and apologising to her. However, it was alleged that her final kick to the victim's chest was not done in self-defence and was done in retaliation.
3. The Facts Sheet also noted that the applicant declined to answer any questions in relation to the matter.

1. In an interview with Police officers on 21 September 2023, the eldest child said that he had seen his mother pouring vodka into her Pepsi Max can and hiding the vodka in the freezer. He said that his Mum was telling a lot of lies to Police, saying the vodka was a bottle from some time past. He said that in between the Police officers' first and second attendance at the residence, his mother was hurting him. He described being against a wall, with the applicant "pushing into me like scratching me. I showed you a scratch right here. She tried like getting the bottle and just ripping it out of my hands and pushing me against the walls so I didn't know what to do." He said his mum was screaming at him "give me the bottle".
2. In his interview with Police, the middle child said "I think mum was walking up to [eldest child's] room and then grabbed [eldest child] and I started screaming and [eldest child] was hurt and then mum let go. I said to [eldest child] just give mums bottle so she'll stop hurting you." He said that his mum was holding his brother's wrist and that his brother was in the corner where he couldn't run. He said that he felt scared and afraid because he didn't want his brother to get hurt.

24 November 2023: Applicant pled guilty to breach of ADVO and common assault (DV) of youngest child

1. On 24 November 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to breaching the ADVO and to the common assault (DV) of her youngest child. The alleged common assault of her eldest son was withdrawn and dismissed. The matter was listed for sentencing on 25 January 2024 in the Local Court.

1. On 22 January 2024, Community Corrections prepared a pre-sentencing report which assessed her as having a low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R).
2. The pre-sentencing report noted:
3. that the applicant "did not minimise her actions and expressed remorse which appears to be of a genuine nature." The applicant disclosed that she was "devastated she acted in such a manner and there is no excuse for the assault on her son";
4. that the applicant reported she is fully aware of the impact her behaviour has had upon herself and the victim. She also reported that she was willing to engage in counselling as she "identified she needs to address her offending behaviour and restore the relationship with her children";
5. that the applicant acknowledged that her alcohol use had become problematic and that it had "increased owing to working long hours and overtime to meet her family's financial commitments". She had used alcohol to help her relax and to assist with sleeping. The applicant reported that she had ceased her consumption of alcohol since the offence;
6. that the applicant had been living in a strained relationship at the time of the offence but that she has since moved into a different environment;
7. that the applicant has no previous record of aggression. She said her violence was a loss of control in response to being hit by the victim after asking him to stop. She asserted that her behaviour was uncharacteristic.

Sentencing hearing in the Local Court - 25 January 2025

1. On 25 January 2024 the applicant was sentenced to a Conditional Release Order without recording a conviction for a period of 20 months with respect to the common assault offence and (concurrently) 10 months with respect to the breach of ADVO. On the same date, a final ADVO was made for the protection of the children, until 24 January 2026.

Court Child Expert Family Report (dated 30 January 2025)

1. In November 2024, the applicant, her children and her ex-husband participated in a court-ordered expert assessment to assist in determining the parenting arrangements for the children. According to the Child Expert's Family Report dated 29 January 2025, the ex-husband was informed by Police that the applicant "had agreed to plead guilty to the charge of assaulting [the youngest child], if the charge relating to [the eldest child] was dropped" and that the ex-husband had agreed to this proposal so that the children would not have to give evidence in the matter. The ex-husband reported that the eldest child was "very angry" about his father's decision to agree to those charges being dropped.
2. The applicant's ex-husband said that he started to become concerned about the applicant's level of alcohol consumption in or around 2017 and that he had become increasingly concerned when it started to affect her interactions with the children and her ability to care for them. He alleged that she masked her consumption by drinking vodka rather than rum and by drinking from cans of Pepsi Max into which she had put alcohol.
3. The Child Expert reported that the applicant denied that she has ever experienced any difficulty with alcohol. The applicant said she stopped using alcohol in September 2023 due to the allegations that had been made and so there was no confusion in the urinalysis and alcohol testing. She said that she only consumed alcohol on her days off, one to two times a fortnight, and that her children had never seen her intoxicated or behaving in ways that would have caused them concern. However, the applicant did acknowledge that she had breached the condition of the ADVO by drinking in the presence of her children. She referred to feeling like she was "suffocating" by her ex-husband regularly videoing her which she said he began doing around April 2021.
4. Each of the children were individually interviewed by the Child Expert:
5. The youngest child was easily distracted and the Child Expert was only able to engage him in a few questions.
6. The eldest child was reported to be polite but was frustrated that he was asked to participate in another assessment, and he had not wanted to attend. He said that he feels "sad" a couple of times per week and indicated that he sees himself and his father as "depressed and angry". He was reported to make the following disclosures during the interview:

"[60] [The eldest child] reported having no good memories of his mother, although in his interview for the Child Impact Report, [the eldest child] said he had previously had a good relationship with her, but understood this to have changed because of her alcohol use.

[61] [The eldest child] believes that his mother started drinking alcohol in a concerning way when he was in Year 4 (2022). He said that his mother was drinking two to three bottles of rum, vodka, or wine each day, and that when they moved to [location redacted] (2023), he started hiding her alcohol, although his mother thought it was his father doing that. [The eldest child] said that sometimes he and his father would look for and hide his mother's alcohol together, and that his father had saved up a lot of evidence for three or four years regarding his mother's alcohol use.

[62] [The eldest child] reported an incident where his mother had tried to push his father off the balcony, and that he [the child] had intervened. He described another incident which he said occurred when his father was away. He said that his mother tried to hurt him, and also [the youngest child], and that his mother had "pinned" him "against a wall" and "strangled" him, and that he had pushed her onto the bed in response. [The eldest child] said this occurred after he had emptied her bottle of alcohol (referring to a bottle of vodka), and said that his mother had become angry when she couldn't find her alcohol. [The eldest child] said that he called his father, so that his father would hear his mother asking where her alcohol was, and that his father had then called the police. [The eldest child] said that he had wanted his mother to get in a lot of trouble with police" and expressed anger that she had acted like nothing was wrong. It appeared to the CCE that the incident that [the eldest child] was describing had led to [the applicant] being charged with assault of [the eldest child], as recorded earlier in this report. [The eldest child] said there were other incidents that were "physical", but he was not able to recall them.

[63] [The eldest child] said that he does not want any contact with his mother, and that he would run away if the Court made a decision for him to live with her. [The eldest child] stated that if he was asked to be in the same room as her, he would leave."

1. The middle child was reported to be polite and comfortable to meet with the Child Expert. He was reported to make the following disclosures:

"[55] [The middle child] described his father as "caring" and "kind" and indicated that their relationship has become closer. [The middle child] said that he has good memories of his mother, that he remembers playing together and that she gave good hugs. [The middle child] said these memories are from when his mother "didn't drink". [The middle child] appeared to have been told about alleged incidents, for example ["the youngest child"] said Mum scratched him, think she kicked him in the chest or back", and "pretty sure Mum pulled out his [the father's] PICC ... would have to ask Dad". [The middle child] indicated that he had witnessed an incident between [the eldest child] and [the applicant], although said that he could not remember much. He stated, "I think [the eldest child] had Mum's bottle, and I yelled to [the eldest child] to let go because I was worried".

[57] [The middle child] said that he is not ready to have contact with his mother, and was not sure when that would be. [The middle child] said that it was important to him that his mother apologise for "hurting [the eldest child] and [the youngest child]."

1. The Child Expert noted that considerable weight could be given to the eldest child's views if there is substance to the allegations regarding the applicant's alcohol use. However, the eldest child's views may have been caused by manipulation by his father. The Child Expert also noted that the middle child's views may be due to a sense of loyalty to his brothers and his father.

Family Therapy Treatment Report (dated 21 March 2025)

1. The Family Therapy Treatment Report noted that each of the children had been consulted, individually and in joint sessions. The eldest child had strongly refused to see his mother for observed contact, and this was thought to be due to his age/development stage, together with his lived experience of the prior violence and, significantly, his unwavering alignment to his father.
2. The father was reported to challenge the therapeutic interventions used, and his concerns increased as the children made progress in therapy. The Family Therapy Psychologist noted that if a significant attachment figure expresses chronic mistrust in the therapist and techniques used, this can be detrimental to a child's engagement in therapy. The Psychologist observed the father's "limited insight into his own contributions to the family's dysfunctional patterns".
3. The applicant's engagement with family therapy was reported as having been positive. The Psychologist observed that the applicant had had appropriate interactions with her middle and youngest children, and was receptive to therapeutic suggestion. A key area for her growth was noted to be her "ability to acknowledge the children's perspectives of their experience of family life with open curiosity and validation, and develop further insight into how her past actions intersect with the current family pathology".
4. In the Family Therapy Psychologist's opinion, the eldest child was a "perturbed adolescent" with unwavering alignment to his father. He idealised his father and vilified his mother (the applicant), attributing all negative outcomes to her. He was assessed as having emotional enmeshment with his father and role confusion whereby he felt responsible for his father and his father's well-being.
5. The middle child was assessed as being triangulated in his allegiances to his father, his older brother, his new "mum" and the applicant. He appeared to be motivated to maintain positive relationships with all family members but struggled to do so in the context of strong "tribal warfare" among older familial figures. He expressed resistance prior to contact with the applicant but, once contact occurs, he embraced his mother and showed no signs of disconnection.
6. The youngest child was observed to be hyperactive and inattentive, with apparent cognitive limitations that materially reduced exploration of his emotional state and his experience of family dynamics. He demonstrated physical and verbal affection towards the applicant, indicative of a preserved attachment, and an experience of safety in her presence.
7. In view of the father's reluctant engagement in therapy, the prognosis for successful reunification remained limited. Ultimately, treatment was ceased due to the father's behaviour and the children's entrenched alignment with their father.

1. The Act was amended by the Child Protection (Working with Children) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW) effective from 23 September 2025, being the date of assent. As the application for review was filed prior to the introduction of the amending legislation, the Tribunal has retained jurisdiction to decide this matter.
2. The protective jurisdiction of the Act is plainly evident from its stated object as set out in s 3:

3 Object of Act

The object of this Act is to protect children -

(a) by not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and

(b) by requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have working with children check clearances.

1. The paramount consideration in the operation of the Act is set out in s 4:

4 Safety, welfare and well-being of children to be paramount consideration

The safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration in the operation of this Act.

The Tribunal's jurisdiction is protective, and not punitive

1. Having regard to that paramount consideration, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s 27 of the Act is protective, and not punitive, in nature: DAI v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308 (DAI) at [8]; AYU v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69 (AYU) at [34]; Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111, per Young JA at [61]. The object of the Act is not to impose additional punishment on a person such as the applicant, but to eliminate possible risks to children: CYY v Children's Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262 (CYY) at [26].
2. The protective jurisdiction of the Act was emphasised in CXZ v Children's Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338 (CXZ) per Simpson AJA at [58]:

"It is plain that in some cases this will be the cause of potential injustice to the applicant for a clearance. A person entirely innocent of any allegations may be refused a clearance because the evidence does not permit a conclusion that the allegations are without foundation and the inability to reach such a conclusion leaves open sufficient possibility that the risk exists. Analysis of the relevant provisions of the Child Protection Act satisfies me that the legislature preferred the risk of injustice to an applicant to risk to the safety of children."

Definition of "children", "child abuse" and the meaning of "risk to the safety of children"

1. "Children" is defined in s 5(1) of the Act to mean "persons under the age of 18 years".
2. The words "child abuse" appearing in s 4 above are not defined in the Act. The Tribunal stated in BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 at [29] that the words would be aptly described as "maltreatment of a child consisting of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, neglect, or any combination of these, and includes exposure to harm caused by or being subjected to family violence".
3. The meaning of "risk to the safety of children" is defined in s 5B of the Act to mean a "real and appreciable risk to the safety of children." The meaning of the word 'risk' was considered by Young CJ (in Equity) in Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476 at [42]:

"One does not define risk as meaning minimal risk. One would... exclude fanciful or theoretical risk but what one is looking for is whether, in all the circumstances, there is a real and appreciable risk in the sense of a risk that is greater than the risk of any adult preying on a child. One, however, must link the word 'risk' with the words that follow, namely 'to the safety of children'..."

1. His Honour's consideration of the meaning of risk was cited with approval in a number of cases before the Tribunal and the NSW Supreme Court: CTE v Children's Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28 at [30]; BKE v Office of Children's Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 (BKE) at [26] and AYU at [39]. Ultimately, the Tribunal must consider whether a clearance, if granted, will create a "real and not fanciful" risk to the safety of children: CXZ per Basten JA at [26].

1. Under s 8(1) of the Act, a worker must not engage in child-related work unless the worker holds a clearance. A worker who is subject to an Interim Bar must not engage in child-related work: s 8(2) of the Act.
2. Work that involves direct contact by a worker with a child or children and that contact is a usual part of and more than incidental to the work is defined as "child-related work" for the purposes of the Act: s 6(1) of the Act.

Test to be satisfied that a person is not a risk to the safety of children

1. Under s 18(2) of the Act, the Children's Guardian must grant a clearance to a person who is subject to a risk assessment unless satisfied that the person poses a risk to the safety of children.

1. Subsections 15(1) and (2) of the Act set out circumstances in which the respondent must conduct a risk assessment into a person who has applied for or holds a clearance. Section 15(3) makes clear that the respondent may decide when to conduct a risk assessment concerning a person who holds a clearance. That discretion is not limited by subsections 15(1) and (2).
2. In making an assessment, the Children's Guardian may consider the matters set out in s 15(4) of the Act. The Children's Guardian does not limit its consideration to offences involving children because some offences or behaviours might have an impact on children in the community or home. This is clearly advised to applicants applying for clearance.
3. If the Children's Guardian is not satisfied of risk based on the s 15(4) matters alone, the 'reasonable person' and 'public interest' tests set out in s 15(4A) of the Act must be considered:

(a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the applicant that was not directly supervised by another person while the applicant was engaged in any child-related work, and

(b) it is in the public interest to make the determination.

1. If the person fails either the 'reasonable person' or the 'public interest' test, clearance will not be granted.

1. The issue for determination is whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children and, consequently, whether the correct and preferable decision (under s 63(1) of the ADR Act) is to affirm the cancellation of her clearance.
2. For the purpose of determining an application for administrative review, the Tribunal exercises all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision: s 63(2) of the ADR Act.
3. However, in exercising those functions, the Tribunal must not simply "stand in the shoes" of an administrator. The Tribunal does not conduct a review of the respondent's decision to impose an Interim Bar. As explained in DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136 at [21], the Tribunal must conduct its review without any presumption as to the correctness of an administrator's decision:

"The effect of these two subsections is sometimes characterised as the Tribunal being required to "stand in the shoes" of the administrator who made the decision. But that is not entirely accurate. I must conduct this review without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision: McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VicRp 36; [1993] VR 521 at [530] and I am required to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before me. It is clear that that may include material which postdates the making of the decision: YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 ('YG') at [25], Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 at 77."

1. The Tribunal has regard to the material before it, including material that may not have been before the Children's Guardian, and the applicable law: YG at [25], per Hodgson JA (with whom Foster and Brownie A-JJA agreed); applied in BHY v Children's Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91 at [14].

1. The Tribunal may make orders that affirm, vary, set aside or remit the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration, with or without any directions or recommendations from the Tribunal. If the decision is set aside, the Tribunal may make a decision in substitution for the decision it set aside: s 63(3) of the ADR Act.

Mandatory matters for the Tribunal's consideration under s 30(1) of the Act

1. In determining this application, the Tribunal must consider the matters set out in s 30(1) as set out below:

30 Determination of applications and other matters

(1) The Tribunal must consider the following in determining an application under this Part -

(a) the seriousness of the offences with respect to which the person is a disqualified person or any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance or imposition of an interim bar,

(b) the period of time since those offences or matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred,

(c) the age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred,

(d) the age of each victim of any relevant offence or conduct at the time they occurred and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim,

(e) the difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person,

(f) whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child,

(g) the person's present age,

(h) the seriousness of the person's criminal history and the conduct of the person since the matters occurred,

(i) the likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition,

(i1) any order of a court or tribunal that is in force in relation to the person,

(j) any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application,

(j1) any relevant information in relation to the person that was obtained in accordance with section 36A,

(k) any other matters that the Children's Guardian considers necessary.

1. In addition, if the Tribunal is considering making an order enabling an applicant to work with children, it must then consider the two-part test set out in s 30(1A) of the Act:

(1A) The Tribunal may not make an order under this Part which has the effect of enabling a person (the affected person) to work with children in accordance with this Act unless the Tribunal is satisfied that -

(a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the affected person that was not directly supervised by another person while the affected person was engaged in any child-related work, and

(b) it is in the public interest to make the order.

First limb of the two-part test under s 30(1A)(a) - the "reasonable person" test

1. The first limb of the two-part test is known as the "reasonable person" test. It requires the application of an objective standard based upon the views of the "reasonable person". It assumes that the "reasonable person" is acquainted with all the relevant facts of which the Tribunal is aware: CHB v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214 at [127]; CYY at [26].
2. The legislation in Victoria contains provisions similar to those in s 30(1A) of the Act. In VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789 (VQB) at [36], the Tribunal held that an objective test was called for by the legislation:

"... The reasonable person would, in reaching his or her conclusions, acquaint himself or herself with all of the matters that have been placed before me, giving an applicant for a positive assessment a right to be heard, as well as considering the material gathered by the Secretary. A reasonable person would not approach the task with a closed mind, thinking that once a person has offended, he or she can never be redeemed. The reasonable person, however, would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution in this most difficult area in some over-optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation."

1. The reasonable person approach taken in VQB was endorsed in NSW in CRG v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295 at [85] and DAI at [90]. In DAI at [91], the Tribunal said:

"In order to properly consider this test, a 'reasonable person' would need to know about the disqualifying offence, the circumstances surrounding the offence, the applicant's entire criminal history, the length of time since those offences occurred, his conduct since then and any expert assessment made for him."

Second limb of the two-part test under s 30(1)(b) - the "public interest" test

1. The second limb of the two-part test is referred to as the "public interest" test. The notion of "public interest" was addressed by the High Court of Australia in ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162 in which French CJ, Gummow and Crennan JJ said at [20]:

"The term 'in the public interest' is one of broad import. When used in a statute, the term classically imports a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute in question."

1. Accordingly, in proceedings under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the "public interest" must be considered in light of the paramount purpose of the Act, namely, to ensure the protection of children from sexual or physical harm: s 4 of the Act.
2. When applying the public interest test, the Victorian Supreme Court has endorsed a broad and not a narrow approach: ZZ v Secretary Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267 (ZZ) per Bell J at [205]. While emphasising the main purpose of the Victorian legislation (equivalent to the NSW legislation) is the protection of children from harm, the decision in ZZ at [202] also acknowledged the relevance and importance of rehabilitating offenders and their right to work. The private interests of an applicant such as their right to work in their chosen area of employment are also a factor to be taken into consideration insofar as those private interests also have a broader community benefit as per Bell J at [203]:

"In the context of the right to work, the tribunal has (in my view, correctly) taken into account the public interest in enabling persons to engage in their chosen field of employment or in the field in which they are most suited to work, in not lightly turning people away from their commitment to a chosen career and in encouraging people to use their qualifications, experience and expertise for the benefit of others."

1. The concept of public interest has been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of giving priority to the broad interests of the community over private interests: Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184; CYY at [75].
2. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that an applicant has met either of the first or second limbs in the two-part test, it is precluded from making an order enabling the applicant to work with children.

The approach to fact finding and the assessment of risk

1. In recognition of the protective jurisdiction of the Act and the paramount consideration being the safety, welfare and well-being of children, the Tribunal is bound to follow the decision in BKE at [33] when assessing risk:

"Thus in such cases it may be that NCAT can be satisfied that an allegation of sexual abuse against an applicant is established. Equally, NCAT may be affirmatively satisfied that the relevant incident did not occur, in which case it can be put aside. However, in a context where the welfare of the child is paramount and the question being posed concerns the risk of harm to children, NCAT may not be satisfied that an allegation of abuse has been made out, but nevertheless conclude that the circumstances surrounding a particular incident or course of conduct means that there is a risk to a child or, more correctly, that the existence of a risk has not been disproven."

1. The approach to fact finding as explained in BKE at [33] has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Tilley v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174 at [34]- [45] and in CXZ per Simpson AJA at [57]:

"The task of the Tribunal is, to expand on what Beech-Jones J said in BKE, to determine, even if it is unable to be satisfied one way or the other as to the truth of all or any of the allegations, whether, by reason of the possibility that the alleged conduct occurred, the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children. [emphasis in original] If so, the Tribunal must refuse to grant a clearance. Of course, in that process the Tribunal will give consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the allegations and will, inevitably, reach conclusions about the truth or falsity of some. If it finds any allegation to be without foundation it will discard it from further consideration. If it is satisfied that the allegation is well founded, it will assign to it such weight as it sees fit, in the consideration (inter alia) of the circumstances listed in s 30. It is the allegations between those two extremes, those that are neither proved nor disproved, that the Tribunal must address in determining whether the applicant for a clearance poses a risk to children."

1. Thus, relying upon the analysis in CXZ at [51], many cases will not lend themselves to definitive factual determination. Where an allegation is neither "well founded" nor "groundless", the Tribunal must decide whether, on the evidence before it, the possibility that the conduct did occur justifies a finding that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children: CXZ at [52]. The assessment and the weight to be assigned to allegations will depend upon the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of any evidentiary support for those allegations, and the relevance of the conduct the subject of the allegations to the risk to the safety of children if a clearance is granted to the applicant: CXZ at [53].
2. In determining the application, the Tribunal is required to consider "the totality of the evidence": BKE at [28] citing The Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136 at [83]- [84]. The Tribunal is to make a decision based on the "cumulative effect" of the matters before it: CYY at [69]-[71].

1. Neither party bears an onus of proof in relation to an application for review under s 27 of the Act: BJB v The Children's Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 at [32].
2. The standard to which the Tribunal must be satisfied before making a positive finding in relation to an allegation is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities, and not the criminal standard: CFW at [14]-[17], subject to the need to have regard to the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (Briginshaw). The Briginshaw principle can broadly be described as a standard of satisfaction to be reached where serious allegations are concerned. Put simply, serious allegations with serious consequences require more compelling evidence for the decision maker to reach the necessary state of reasonable satisfaction that the facts in dispute are more likely than not to exist.

1. In light of the applicant's guilty plea and the findings of the presiding magistrate, there is no need for this Tribunal to engage in any fact finding exercise in order to be satisfied about the truth of the allegations in relation to which the applicant was sentenced to a Conditional Release Order for 20 months. However, it remains an issue for the Tribunal to consider the relevance of the applicant's conduct in assessing whether she poses a risk to the safety of children.
2. In making that assessment as to risk, we must have regard to the matters set out in s 30(1) of the Act. If we determine that the applicant does not pose a risk, before making an order which has the effect of enabling her to work with children, we must first be satisfied under s 30(1A) of the Act that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant whilst she is engaged in child-related work. We must also be satisfied that it is in the public interest to make the order.
3. In light of the evidence presented in this case, there are four key aspects to consider:
4. first, the broader context of the applicant's deteriorating relationship with her ex-husband and the extent to which this may have contributed to the circumstances surrounding each of the offences and her conduct;
5. second, the particular circumstances surrounding each of the offences that contributed to or impacted upon the applicant's conduct;
6. third, the applicant's relationship with alcohol and the negative dynamic it created in her marital relationship and her relationship with her children, and the extent to which this may have contributed to her conduct;
7. fourth, the efforts by the applicant to rehabilitate and whether there are sufficient protective measures in place to ensure she does not repeat her offending conduct.
8. The first, second and third aspects identified above are considered in the context of assessing the extent to which those factors contributed to the applicant's conduct. The fourth aspect is considered in the context of assessing the likelihood of the applicant repeating the offending conduct.
9. The information obtained through the children's interviews with police serve to corroborate the ex-husband's statements. Information in the CCE and Psychologist Reports also contain statements by the ex-husband and the children which we have considered carefully.
10. The applicant's oral testimony was critical to the Tribunal's understanding of the circumstances surrounding the offences and the broader context of the toxic marital relationship which impacted upon the family dynamics. Her oral evidence was also critical to understanding the level of insight she has with respect to the impact of her use of alcohol on her relationship with her children.

The seriousness of the offences with respect to which the person is a disqualified person or any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance or imposition of an interim bar: s 30(1)(a) of the Act

1. The presiding magistrate in the Local Court proceedings commented that it was very concerning that the accused allowed her problems to get to her to the extent that she assaulted her own child in the way that she did. Her Honour considered the assault on a child with a disability to be very serious, deserving of a conviction being recorded. In addressing the applicant, her Honour stated:

"It is a very rare case where a conviction would not be recorded against somebody who assaulted a seven year-old in the way that you did."

1. With respect to the breach of the ADVO, her Honour described the applicant's conduct as:

"disappointing because by then you are aware that you are not supposed to drink, and yet you drink around your kids."

1. Her Honour considered that the assault of the child was deserving of a conviction but was "very sympathetic" to the applicant's subjective circumstances, taking into account a number of factors including:
2. the serious issues in the applicant's home life at the time, including that she had a partner who was described as "actively working against her" which was evident from the fact that he filmed the incident but held onto the footage for some months before reporting it to Police;
3. the financial pressures that meant the applicant was working extra shifts which caused her to be irritable and tired;
4. the applicant's alcohol consumption, used at the time to manage stress;
5. the medical evidence indicating that there was no excessive or ongoing use of alcohol;
6. the psychological counselling that the applicant had been undertaking since the incident and that it was to be ongoing;
7. the applicant's good character and lack of criminal history;
8. the favourable Sentencing Assessment Report which assessed the applicant to be a low risk of reoffending and indicated the applicant would not repeat her offending conduct;
9. her military service and her contribution to the community in her work as a Paramedic;
10. her relationship with a new, supportive partner who provided a positive reference to the Court.
11. Whilst a number of the above factors explained the applicant's behaviour, they did not mitigate the seriousness of it. The presiding magistrate acknowledged, in particular, the contribution that alcohol had on the applicant's conduct:

"I accept that alcohol played a part in your behaviour, that does not mitigate the seriousness of it, but it does explain why you behaved in a way that you might not otherwise have done."

1. Additionally, her Honour noted that the recording of a conviction would probably result in the applicant losing her employment (whilst acknowledging there was no evidence of that before the court).
2. In all the circumstances, the presiding magistrate was persuaded to not record a conviction. Her Honour noted that if there was not a conviction, the sentence would involve a very lengthy Conditional Release Order. Accordingly, the applicant was sentenced to a Conditional Release Order for a period of 20 months with respect to the common assault offence and (concurrently) 10 months for the breach of the ADVO. Acknowledging the protective role of the Court, a final ADVO was made for the protection of the children, expiring on 24 January 2026. Her Honour cautioned the applicant against contravening the ADVO which would also be a breach of the Conditional Release Order, and would attract a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

1. The offence of kicking her youngest child in the chest (a 7 year old child with special vulnerability because of his neuro-diversity which was well-known to the applicant) in an act of retaliation against him, is considered to be very serious.
2. Additionally, the applicant's breach of the ADVO that was in place to protect her children, in particular against her use of alcohol, was also serious. We regard this conduct as a flagrant breach of the law that had been put in place to protect the children. The applicant's conduct demonstrates a very concerning attitude and decision on her part to disregard the law and ignore the potential consequences which, as it turned out, have been significant.
3. The applicant's initial false denial of the offences to police compounded the seriousness of her conduct, and her disregard of the law. However, she pleaded guilty to the offences and the Sentencing Assessment Report concluded that she did not minimise her actions and expressed genuine remorse. She acknowledged that her alcohol use had become problematic, and that she had increased her alcohol consumption to cope with long hours and overtime to meet her family's financial commitments which made her feel stressed and overwhelmed. The applicant asserted that her aggressive behaviour after drinking alcohol was uncharacteristic. The report concluded that she had insight into the impact of her offending, disclosing that she was devastated that she had acted in such a manner and acknowledging there was no excuse for the assault on her son.
4. The applicant has no history of child-related offences and no history of aggressive or violent conduct either before or after the offences (excluding the allegations of domestic violence by her and her ex-husband against each other). Her employment record as a Paramedic is clear of any complaints of aggressive or violent behaviour or any other disciplinary actions (with the exception of a conviction in 2011 for driving with a high range PCA).

Broader context of deteriorating marital relationship

1. Looking first at the broader context, the applicant's oral evidence was that after moving from one regional area to another in March 2023, the relationship with her ex-husband was "toxic" and she increased her alcohol consumption to "quieten everything down". The information contained in the Court Child Expert Report, based on disclosures made by both the applicant and her ex-husband about each other, describes an abusive marital relationship that had begun to deteriorate from around 2017. After years of engaging in verbal and physical abuse towards each other, often in the presence of the children, the applicant said she felt trapped in the relationship and was deeply agitated by what her ex-husband was saying to the children (generally about her competence as a mother, and about her drinking). She asserted that her ex-husband believed that he would gain custody of the children if he accused her of child abuse or substance abuse. Her evidence was that he was not working (or only worked intermittently), and the applicant was working long hours to provide the necessary income for the family's needs. He was incessantly following her around and "screaming" at the children.
2. The applicant said she wanted her ex-husband to stop dragging their children "into an adult world". For the protection of the children, and in an effort to get him to promise to stop screaming at them, she agreed to say whatever he wanted her to say to a Community Drug and Alcohol Counsellor ("D&A Counsellor"). The applicant asserted that her ex-husband "stood over her" during her first phone call to the D&A Counsellor on 15 May 2023. She asserted that some of the things she told the D&A Counsellor were true, and some were not. However, she said that she recognised that her alcohol consumption had been increasing, and she wanted to find some strategies for a healthy way to end her marriage.
3. It was evident that she endured significant stress in her relationship with her ex-husband for a period of around five to six years before the incidents. The video footage indicates that both parties engaged in antagonistic conduct towards each other, which appeared to escalate during periods when the applicant drank alcohol. In our view, this broader context of an intensely abusive relationship in which both the applicant and her ex-husband argued about who would obtain custody of their children in the event that the parties went their separate ways, fuelled the circumstances surrounding the incidents.

1. With respect to the circumstances of her assault of her youngest child, the applicant became visibly distressed when recounting the incident to the Tribunal. She said that it was an emotional subject and that she had reacted poorly at the time. After finishing a long row of shifts, and being followed by her ex-husband taking videos of her, she felt sad and frustrated. The child was trying to get her attention by punching and slapping her, and she pleaded with him verbally to "please stop". Her ex-husband was recording the incident, and saying deprecating things about her as a mother. She asked him to help her to calm the child down but he gave no assistance and continued to capture the incident on video while he casually smoked a cigarette on the balcony. She pushed the child back with her feet. She said she didn't know what she was thinking at the time but she was distraught. She and the child each said they were sorry. They had always had such a good relationship and she said "let's just go to bed". The arrangements were such that the youngest child always slept next to the applicant and that for the preceding 7 years, she and her ex-husband did not sleep together. She said that she and the child went to bed, without a lot of discussion between them. She said that the incident was forever one of the moments she regretted, and that she will never forgive herself.
2. The incident took place on 29 May 2023 and her ex-husband only produced his video recording of the incident when he knew the parties were separating, some months later. He first produced the video to Police on 21 August 2023. Her evidence was that this was a contentious issue in the FCA proceedings, demonstrating that the ex-husband was not concerned about the welfare of the child at the time of the incident, and his focus was on how the video would enable him to seek custody.
3. The evidence indicates that the ex-husband behaved provocatively towards the applicant who had sought his assistance in managing their child. He continued filming the incident and allowed it to escalate. He not only refused to help the applicant, but offered no assistance to the child whose behaviour had clearly become difficult to manage. This does not excuse the applicant's conduct. However, it does demonstrate the highly dysfunctional relationship between the parents which reached a crisis point with the applicant's retaliatory conduct towards the child.

1. With respect to the circumstances of her breach of the ADVO, the applicant acknowledged that she was aware of her obligations under the Order. She also acknowledged that she had initially lied to Police, but then admitted she had been in the wrong. She emphatically denied ever laying a hand on her eldest child. Her evidence was that she was unhappy and angry with her ex-husband's behaviour in attempting to find evidence against her, to ensure that he would have custody of the children.
2. The Court Child Expert reported that the applicant had said that she breached the "no alcohol" condition of the ADVO when the children's father was away and that it was a "bit of a fuck you" to him. She also referred to feeling like she was "suffocating" and felt affected by him regularly videoing her, which she said he had started doing in April 2021. According to the Court Child Expert report, the ex-husband said that he had begun documenting the applicant's behaviour associated with alcohol use because he was fearful that he would not gain custody of the children.
3. This incident demonstrates the high level of stress within the marital relationship and the effect that the ex-husband's behaviour (in following and videoing her) had upon the applicant. Clearly, the applicant's contravention of the ADVO was a deliberate decision arising from her feelings of frustration and anger towards her ex-husband. However, the applicant understood her obligations and should have complied with them despite her antagonism towards her ex-husband.
4. We cannot ignore the possibility that both the applicant and her ex-husband engaged in conduct that formed part of a longer standing pattern of abusive behaviour towards each other, in the presence of the children. Since the ex-husband was not available for cross-examination, it is unsafe for the Tribunal to make any positive findings about a pattern of behaviour that may have assisted in determining the applicant's level of risk.

1. The information contained in various reports (Sentencing Assessment Report, Child Court Expert's Report, D&A Counsellor's notes) on the extent of the applicant's alcohol consumption was inconsistent. It was not possible to test the evidence of the ex-husband and the children in these proceedings. For that reason, the applicant's oral testimony on her relationship with alcohol was critically important in assessing her credibility and level of risk.
2. Under cross-examination, the applicant said that from the time she fell pregnant, until the birth of her youngest child, and while breastfeeding, she did not drink alcohol (from 2012 to 2017). After that time, she drank socially, on her days off. After relocating to another regional area in March 2023, her marriage was breaking down and her drinking increased in the period from March to September 2023. She acknowledged that she used alcohol inappropriately at that time and regretted having lost control. Her evidence was that she did not drink to intoxication in front of her children. She said that her ex-husband constantly told the children that she was drinking even when she was not. She often slept on the lounge, not because she was drunk, but because she was tired after working her shifts.
3. She acknowledged that she had initially lied to Police, explaining that she was not thinking straight at the time, but that she subsequently pleaded guilty.
4. The applicant participated in a number of counselling sessions with a D&A Counsellor commencing in May 2023. Her evidence was that she agreed with her ex-husband to do this in order to stop him from incessantly following her around and shouting at the children, and to provide assurances to him that she was getting help to cope with long hours of work. She was interested in finding strategies for a healthy way to end her marriage, and she wanted to ensure she was the best mother possible.
5. The D&A Counsellor's note of the first session on 15 May 2023 recorded that the applicant had blacked out when intoxicated and had experienced tremors and anger. It also noted an occasion where she had fallen down stairs and hit her head against a brick wall. Under cross-examination, the applicant acknowledged that she had fallen down some steps, but denied that alcohol was in fact the cause of the fall. She also denied that she had ever blacked out when intoxicated.
6. In another note following a review on 24 July 2023, the D&A Counsellor referred to the applicant's use of alcohol as being "accelerated". The applicant asserted that "accelerated" did not mean "out of control". She acknowledged that she was definitely drinking more than usual in the period after relocating in 2023, but she was not drinking every day.
7. The applicant said that references in subsequent D&A Counsellor notes to her bumping into walls and blacking out were simply a repeat of information she had provided in the first session. Importantly, under cross-examination, she asserted that some of her statements were true, and others were not. She asserted that she had explained to the Counsellor that accusations of alcohol abuse were made by her ex-husband in an attempt to find evidence against her in an application for custody. She also said that a reference to drinking 700ml of rum in the Counsellor's notes was impossible to achieve, when working a roster that routinely involved eight or nine straight days of work. She asserted that there is no room for drinking while at work or required to be "on call". Paramedics work in close proximity with their colleagues and would know if an officer was drinking to excess. The applicant said there was no evidence that she had ever been intoxicated or inebriated at work.
8. When questioned about the culture within the Paramedicine profession, the applicant's evidence was that in the 1970's and 1980's there had been a drinking culture where alcohol was used to cope with stress. Now, the emphasis is on having a healthy lifestyle, with physical exercise. Colleagues are more likely to meet in a park with families and do physical activities rather than meet in a pub to drink.
9. The culprit in this unfortunate stream of events culminating in the applicant's offences is alcohol, and her relationship with it. Indeed, her ex-husband acknowledged that the incident would not have occurred if the applicant had not been drinking. The applicant's relationship with alcohol, combined with her ex-husband's growing criticism of her drinking, appears to have gradually become the source of strain in their marriage and, ultimately, destroyed it.

1. The seriousness of the offences is acknowledged. Our analysis of three key factors serves to explain their contribution to the conduct, but does not mitigate the seriousness of the offences. However, in the overall assessment of the applicant's risk towards the safety of children, we have considered the circumstances immediately surrounding the assault (including the provocation caused by the ex-husband filming the incident and not assisting in management of the child), the broader context of the unhealthy marital relationship reaching a crisis point, and the impact of alcohol upon the applicant's behaviour such that she momentarily lost control. On balance, we find that the applicant was overwhelmed by her subjective circumstances, that the assault was an isolated, situational incident and that her conduct was uncharacteristic.

The period of time since those offences or matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred: s 30(1)(b) of the Act

1. The offending conduct occurred in May and September 2023.
2. Since the offences occurred and she was sentenced, the applicant complied with the Conditional Release Order which expired on 24 September 2025. She was subject to the conditions of an ADVO for the protection of her sons until 24 January 2026 and, as at the date of hearing, had fully complied with the ADVO.
3. We accept the written submissions made by the applicant that there have been no new criminal charges or concerns about her for any offence against children.

The age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred: s 30(1)(c)

1. The applicant was aged 48 at the time of the offending.

The age of each victim of any relevant offence or conduct at the time they occurred and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim: s 30(1)(d)

The difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person: s 30(1)(e)

Whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child: s 30(1)(f)

1. The applicant's children were 11, 8 and 6 years old at the time of the offending conduct.
2. Because of their age, each of the children were vulnerable. The youngest child was particularly vulnerable due to his medical diagnoses, with which the applicant was well acquainted. The evidence suggests that she usually acted protectively towards this child and was vigilant in monitoring his medical conditions and prescribed medications. Their relationship appears to have always been very close. According to the Family Therapy Treatment Report, that remains the case. In our view, the incident on 29 May 2023 was an aberration. Alcohol and the applicant's frustration at being filmed and not being supported by her ex-husband in managing the child's aggressive behaviour played a significant part in the applicant's departure from her normal protective care of the child.

The seriousness of the person's criminal history and the conduct of the person since the matters occurred: s 30(1)(h)

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has a criminal history before or after the time of the offending conduct, with the exception of having been convicted in June 2011 for a high-range PCA offence.
2. The totality of the applicant's criminal history, with a crime-free period from 2011 to 2023, is therefore not considered to be serious.

The likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition: s 30(1)(i)

1. There is no question that if the applicant repeated her offending conduct, it would negatively impact upon her children, potentially causing physical, emotional or psychological harm. If she repeated her offending conduct in the context of working as a Paramedic, and children were either the victims of an assault or aggressive behaviour, or observed her engaging in such conduct, they may also be harmed.
2. The applicant has not provided an independent, expert psychological assessment of her risk or the likelihood that she may, in the future, repeat her offending conduct. However, the Tribunal has before it some information attesting to the applicant's successful efforts to rehabilitate.
3. There is evidence before the Tribunal of the applicant's efforts to reflect upon her conduct and the contributing factors. She has undertaken counselling and therapy with a number of expert psychologists and trained experts, both voluntarily and as directed (discussed below).

Avoiding alcohol as a key step in the applicant's rehabilitation

1. The applicant's ability to refrain from drinking alcohol on an ongoing basis is a key achievement as part of her rehabilitation. Her use of alcohol had prompted sharp and repeated criticism from her ex-husband in front of their children and this, in turn, provoked arguments which escalated into episodes of domestic violence. Her relationship with her ex-husband had deteriorated over time such that he had made video recordings of her when she was consuming alcohol. The father's denigration of the applicant to the children was the source of extreme discord between the parents. Indeed, when giving her oral testimony, it became very evident to the Tribunal that the ex-husband's disparaging comments about her to the children caused the applicant significant distress. This created a complex dynamic for all concerned (the applicant, her ex-husband and the children), which was examined in both the reports provided by the Court Child Expert and the Family Therapy Psychologist. The Psychologist identified a key area for the applicant's growth at paragraph [20] of his report:

"A key area for growth will be [the applicant's] ability to acknowledge the children's perspectives of their experience of family life with open curiosity and validation, and develop further insight into how her past actions intersect with the current family pathology."

1. We are satisfied that, resulting from her ongoing counselling, the applicant has reflected upon and gained insight into how her past actions caused the current family pathology resulting in the alienation of her children, her deepest regret. Her remorse for her conduct is sincere and a powerful motivation for her sustained rehabilitation.
2. We acknowledge that she appears to have abstained from drinking alcohol since September 2023, as demonstrated by producing negative blood results when tested. The applicant also, of her own volition, arranged to have her blood tested for recent or ongoing excessive alcohol use. Blood samples collected on 9 November 2023, 18 November 2023, 19 January 2024, 25 March 2024, 18 April 2024, 17 June 2024 and 12 July 2024 returned negative results. We acknowledge that the applicant's steps to have private testing demonstrates her desire to be transparent about her alcohol usage and her motivation to avoid alcohol.

1. The Offender Case Plan dated 30 January 2025 prepared by the Department of Corrective Services noted that the applicant was to continue with psychological counselling as an "ongoing" matter.
2. The applicant undertook three months of counselling with the D&A Counsellor and consulted with an EAP Counsellor through her employment on 12 December 2024, 27 December 2024 and 24 January 2025. She also attended counselling with a Clinical Psychologist, as asserted to the presiding magistrate.
3. One of the D&A Counsellor's notes recorded that the applicant's motivation for change included "focusing on the children, relationship with her husband and having a healthier lifestyle e.g. enjoys cooking, training for charity walk".
4. The notes of her session with the EAP Counsellor principally mention the alienation of the applicant's sons, her ex-husband's mental health issues, the stress of dealing with her new partner's health issues, and her outbursts of anger. The notes confirm that not seeing her children made her feel lonely, exhausted and frustrated which provides powerful motivation for the applicant's rehabilitation.
5. We note that the applicant saw another Counsellor on 5 March 2025, 30 April 2025 and 21 May 2025. The notes from that Counsellor confirm the dysfunctional marital relationship and the applicant's anxiety over the loss of her children.
6. We acknowledge there are stresses associated with her current situation of being alienated from her children, and of navigating her way through the dissolution of her marriage and the custody of her children, with the possibility of restoring the relationships with them. There are, no doubt, stresses associated with the care of new partner who has a debilitating, degenerative disease.
7. The applicant is currently invested in ongoing therapeutic counselling with her Treating Counsellor to deal with her identified sources of stress and implement strategies for positive change. She first saw her Treating Counsellor in August 2025 and attends consultations, mostly on a fortnightly basis.
8. The applicant's evidence (both written submissions and oral testimony) was that she has implemented a number of changes to her lifestyle as protective strategies against further re-offending. They include the following:
9. ceasing the consumption of alcohol (for her, a poison to be avoided);
10. ongoing therapeutic counselling with her Treatment Counsellor;
11. removing herself from the violent, toxic marriage and commencing divorce proceedings to accommodate acceptable custody and contact arrangements for the children and achieve appropriate asset management;
12. living with her new supportive partner who does not consume alcohol;
13. gardening (growing vegetables) and cooking healthy meals, ensuring she eats well;
14. practising yoga;
15. sleeping well for restorative health;
16. taking supplements to maintain a healthy iron level and thyroid function;
17. eating well and exercising daily, including competitive biking and training for bike racing (requiring strict diet and exercise and avoidance of alcohol).
18. The Treating Counsellor's report dated 20 January 2026 supported the applicant's oral evidence that she was engaged in ongoing consultations and confirmed the range of issues addressed. The report noted the applicant's grief and loss at being separated from her children. It also mentioned the applicant's childhood experiences and alcohol. The Treating Counsellor confirmed that the applicant has shown insight into the significant events in her life and her role in relationships, and that she has actively made changes to benefit her relationships. The report confirmed that the applicant has engaged "tirelessly" in her steps to regain contact with her children despite stressors which were described as "high end". The applicant's resilience and resolve to continue with her rehabilitation and re-establish relationships with her children are acknowledged in the following statement:

"Throughout the stressors of Family Court you have continued unabated in your career as paramedic involving weekly interstate travel, maintained a positive relationship with your partner, followed through on recommendations to focus on your wellbeing, moved home and focused on your children as your first priority. You have engaged well with the therapeutic/counselling process."

1. We have taken into account the efforts that the applicant has made since September 2023, firstly to abstain from alcohol and provide medical evidence of that abstinence, and secondly to seek therapeutic counselling to understand the triggers for her use of alcohol and her actions impacting on the family dynamics. She appears to be fully committed to engage in ongoing therapeutic counselling with her Treatment Counsellor. We have also taken into account the positive and protective strategies that the applicant has implemented to ensure she abstains from alcohol and embraces a healthy lifestyle. We are satisfied that the applicant's rehabilitation has been genuine and sustained, reflecting the depth of her character to apply discipline to her life and be accountable for her actions.
2. We note, additionally, the current ongoing requirement for the applicant to undergo hair follicle tests to check for alcohol consumption.
3. Having regard to all the evidence, and in particular the applicant's oral testimony, we are of the view that the applicant's likelihood of repeating her offending conduct, provided she abstains from drinking alcohol, is low.

Any order of a court or tribunal that is in force in relation to the person: s 30(1)(i1)

1. The ADVO to which the applicant was subject, expired on 24 January 2026.

Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application: s 30(1)(j)

1. The applicant provided a personal statement, as well as a statement from her current partner and two personal references in support of her application to the Tribunal. She had previously provided a written submission to the Children's Guardian as part of the risk assessment, along with three written references from colleagues.

Submission to the respondent during the risk assessment

1. The applicant's submission to the Children's Guardian during the risk assessment process contained a candid description of the circumstances leading to the charges having been made. In addition to the ongoing hostility between the parties, the applicant asserted that the marriage suffered additional strain due to her ex-husband's admissions to hospitals for mental health reasons which included suicidal ideation and episodes of rage, irrationality and erratic behaviour. No medical evidence concerning those matters was put before the Tribunal. However, we accepted the applicant as a truthful witness and appreciate that her ex-husband's mental health may have contributed to additional stress within the relationship and the family dynamics. She openly acknowledged that she had been at an extremely low point in her life and had behaved poorly. She referred to her youngest son as the "victim" of her behaviour, and stated that he had effectively lost his mother for reasons that he does not have the capacity to understand. Whilst the applicant noted that her youngest son appeared to be relatively unaffected by the assault incident on the two occasions on which she had spoken with him, she accepted responsibility for the seriousness of the incident in saying:

"... I wish it to be clearly understood I have not done so to diminish my responsibility or the seriousness of the incident."

1. The marital relationship in the three years preceding the incidents was described by the applicant as being "strained" and "coming to an end." She said they stayed together to provide stability and care for the children. Her ex-husband had been unemployed for around four years and even before that time his employment had been intermittent. The applicant therefore worked regular shifts, as well as overtime, in order to meet their financial commitments. She asserted that she also undertook most of the domestic responsibilities. According to her submission, her ex-husband suffered with mental health issues and was declining rapidly. She described herself as having been "in a constant state of fatigue, stress, frustration and worry."
2. The applicant acknowledged that "alcohol is a terrible way to deal with stress". She recognised that it decreased her capacity to appropriately manage a bad situation. She asserted that she has permanently stopped drinking alcohol.
3. The applicant has acknowledged the impact upon her children and understands the efforts that will be required to meet their needs, stating:

"The psychological toll on my children is enormous and will take many years to address. They will require a lot of love and support, child psychologists and lengthy and complicated discussions about the last 6 months."

1. Her personal resolve is evident in the following statement:

"The last 6 months has not only affected me but everyone around me... I am working unbelievably hard to move forward in a positive way. I will not waiver from this path and never want to go through these circumstances again."

1. The applicant's statement demonstrates the level of insight she has with respect to the need to be pro-social and to function with healthy, supportive relationships in place.

1. The applicant's personal statement to the Tribunal refers to her understanding of having acted in good faith throughout the risk assessment. She also noted that she had engaged with therapeutic services to support her personal insight into the consequences of the emotional damage affecting her children.
2. The respondent submitted that the applicant has failed to recognise her alcohol consumption as a behaviour linked to child protection concerns. However, having regard to the applicant's submission during the risk assessment and her evidence under cross-examination, we are satisfied that the applicant has accepted the critical link between the two. More importantly, she has taken pro-active steps to eliminate alcohol from her life and to put protective strategies in place to ensure her continued abstinence.

1. A reference dated 22 January 2024 from the applicant's new partner confirms that the applicant had been "completely transparent" with him, with respect to pleading guilty to two offences. The referee also stated that he was aware that an accusation of alcohol dependence was a significant factor with respect to the two offences. He stated that, in his opinion and observation, the applicant has not displayed any signs of alcoholism or history of alcoholism.
2. The applicant's partner also stated that he had seen clear evidence of the shame that the applicant feels, as she is well aware that the kick in the video should never have occurred and the breach of the ADVO was her failing. He attested to the applicant being a loving mother, with the welfare of her sons being her highest priority, and sole supporter of the family financially.
3. In his statement dated 29 July 2025, he confirmed that he has known the applicant for around 29 years, as a friend and colleague. More recently, in the last 18 months, he has lived with the applicant in a committed relationship. He stated that he has worked with individuals experiencing alcohol dependency, and that in his opinion the applicant is not a person dependent on alcohol. In his opinion, it was not clinically plausible for a person with such a dependency, to abruptly and voluntarily abstain.
4. This reference is articulate and expresses an opinion on the video footage of the applicant with her younger son. His various comments are set out below:

"I have viewed this video multiple times... It does not show [the applicant] assaulting a child in any conventional or malicious sense. It shows her being physically attacked by her son while lying on the lounge, a child with a complex behavioural history, while her former partner stands by, filming her, taunting her, and making no effort to intervene.

The video is evidence of a mother being ambushed in her own home, provoked and abandoned by her partner, and reacting in an unguarded moment. That [the applicant's former partner] waited almost four months before submitting this footage to police, after repeated legal positioning, further demonstrates that it was used strategically, not for the safety of the child, but for leverage."

1. The applicant's partner stated that he has seen the applicant under extraordinary pressure, yet throughout she has remained "calm, honest, reflective, and focused on the wellbeing of her children, even when they have been taken from her". This accords with the applicant's own description, that she does not have a lot to be proud of, and that not seeing her children has been "crippling". Whilst the close personal relationship between the applicant and her partner detracts from the independence of his statements, we accept that he has known the applicant for almost three decades, including as a colleague, and has intimate knowledge of her circumstances and challenges. We have, accordingly, given a moderate amount of weight to his statement.

1. As a work colleague and parent of children who attended the same school as the applicant's children, this reference dated 20 January 2024, acknowledged that the applicant had been accused of substance and child abuse. The referee stated that his interactions with the applicant both at work and outside the workplace had never alerted him to any concerns regarding substance abuse. He said he had never seen the applicant intoxicated or suffering from substance abuse or withdrawals. He also said he had witnessed interactions between the applicant and her children and he did not observe that the children were fearful or apprehensive, and thought that their communication and body language appeared to be normal. This referee has not mentioned the applicant's criminal history in any detail and we have given only a small amount of weight to this reference.

1. In a reference dated 20 January 2024, another colleague attested to the applicant's integrity, compassion and professionalism towards patients, colleagues and members of the community. She also stated that she had seen the applicant interact with her sons as a kind, loving and supportive mother. It was noted that, in a supermarket environment, after the applicant had left the marital home, the children were comfortable and talkative, and freely approached the applicant after seeking their father's approval. This referee also vouched for the applicant's sobriety. This referee has not referred to the applicant's criminal history, and we have given only a small amount of weight to her reference.

Any relevant information in relation to the person that was obtained in accordance with section 36A: s 30(1)(j1)

1. The Tribunal understands there is no other relevant information in relation to the applicant obtained in accordance with s 36A of the Act (exchange of information to bodies in other jurisdictions) to be taken into consideration.

Any other matters that the Children's Guardian considers necessary: s 30(1)(k)

1. In closing oral submissions, the respondent acknowledged that the decision in this case was not without some difficulty. The applicant's assertions that her conduct would not be repeated and that she posed no threat to the safety of children were considered (by the respondent) to be sincerely held beliefs. However, the respondent held a concern that the applicant's engagement in therapeutic counselling was only very recent and that there was a risk of her relapsing to use alcohol if she was exposed to stress such as may be associated with her attempts to rebuild the relationship with her children, her return to paramedicine, and dealings with her ex-husband.

1. The determination of this application was not without some difficulty. The evidence in the D&A Counselling notes and statements made by the applicant's ex-husband and children are generally burdensome for the applicant. However, the statements of the ex-husband and children have not been tested, and it is quite clear that the adult parties have been in an unhealthy and toxic relationship for several years and the applicant's ex-husband evidence is heavily biased against the applicant due to his desire to obtain custody of the children. The three children are dependent upon their father for their daily care. This encompasses their physical and emotional needs, schooling and overall general activities. Having regard to the children's emotional connection with their father and the views expressed by the Court Child Expert and Family Therapy Psychologist, the reliability and probative value of their evidence is questionable.
2. The applicant presented as a truthful and credible witness, declaring that she had always sought to be open and honest. Her oral evidence was critical for the Tribunal's understanding of the circumstances surrounding the incidents and the broader context in which they occurred. Whilst some of her testimony was accompanied by emotional distress, she gave her evidence without embellishment or exaggeration.
3. There is no doubt that the applicant has suffered a harrowing two and a half years since her offences. The applicant's main focus now is on restoring her relationship with her children, whom she described affectionately as "good little boys" after finishing her closing oral submissions to the Tribunal.
4. The respondent had previously noted in written submissions that, as a self-represented litigant, the applicant's evidence should not be read ungenerously, particularly in light of the distressing circumstances surrounding the offences. The Local Court magistrate had also identified, with some particularity, the applicant's subjective circumstances. Her Honour found the applicant was in a "very difficult home environment at the time" and had a partner who was "actively working against her".

1. After hearing the applicant's evidence, the respondent submitted that the applicant had not accepted that two courts (the Local Court and the FCA) were satisfied that she posed a risk to the safety of children where alcohol is involved.
2. With respect, we do not agree with this submission. In response to a question framed along the lines of: "Do you accept the court thought your use of alcohol explained your behaviour?" the applicant responded with words to the effect: "The Court saw two instances and saw alcohol as being problematic at the time". When asked a question as to whether the applicant accepted that her contact with the applicant's children is dependent upon her having hair follicle testing, she responded "Yes". In response to a statement put to the applicant along the lines of: "Two courts were satisfied you pose a risk to children where alcohol is involved?" the applicant replied "No". In response to a statement: "You would agree it would be harmful and poses a risk to children if you were drinking alcohol?", the applicant replied: "Anyone would pose a risk". In response to a statement posed that if the applicant was drinking heavily the night before a duty it would be a risk the next day, the applicant vehemently stated "Never", and we understood this to mean that the applicant agreed that drinking alcohol heavily on a night before duty is something that she would never do. The applicant agreed that her behaviour could have been harmful if it continued. She said that everything in the home was not good for her children which is why she removed herself and is now going through with a divorce. The applicant said that, after two years of not being with her children, she will never jeopardise them again. Her oral evidence, and her resolve, were compelling.
3. Of course, before making such a enabling order, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the reasonable person would be prepared to leave their children to have direct and unsupervised contact with her. That is known as the reasonable person test, in relation to which the applicant has submitted the Tribunal would be satisfied. That test assumes that the reasonable person would be acquainted with all the information that is before this Tribunal.
4. The other test on which the Tribunal must be satisfied is the public interest test and, again, the applicant has submitted that the Tribunal would be satisfied that it is in the public interest for her to be given a clearance.

1. Having regard to all the evidence, and in particular the applicant's oral testimony, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not pose a risk to the safety of children.

1. Before making an order that has the effect of enabling a person to work with children, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the reasonable person and public interest tests in s 30(1A) of the Act have been met.
2. The applicant presents as a compliant person, willing to follow direction and procedures with discipline and accountability.
3. A reasonable person acquainted with all of the evidence that is before this Tribunal, would be satisfied that the applicant has reflected on her conduct and developed insight into the impact of her behaviour, and would be persuaded that the applicant has the resolve and discipline to maintain her rehabilitation.
4. We are satisfied that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while she is engaged in any child-related work.
5. With respect to the public interest test, the broad interests of the community are clearly served by having persons such as the applicant provide their services as a Paramedic.
6. The applicant's right to use her experience and expertise as a Paramedic is of at least equal importance to the public interest, and is entirely consistent with the community interests.
7. The applicant has, throughout her career as a Paramedic and previously in the military, contributed to community life. Her submission to the respondent during the risk assessment referred to her work as a Paramedic with great pride:

"I have worked as a clinical on road paramedic for just short of 14 years. I love my job and have often said there is nothing else I would rather do. I have worked treating sick and injured children of all ages in that time. Through my work I have attended 2 of my children's schools to give talks on paramedics, ambulances and 000. I have also attended all of my children's pre-schools, before they started primary school, in the same capacity since 2014.

I have also volunteered in those 2 schools for many things involving my children including preparation for school pays & musicals, school assemblies and tuck shop duties."

1. There are no public interest considerations to suggest that it is not in the public interest for this applicant to have a clearance.
2. We are therefore satisfied that the public interest test in s 30(1A)(b) of the Act has been met.

1. The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 2 December 2024 to cancel the applicant's working with children check clearance is set aside and, in substitution of that decision being set aside, the respondent is to issue a clearance to the applicant forthwith

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.