GZC v Office of the Children's Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 328;

1. The Applicant provided the application for administrative review attaching her original WWCC application, a number of unsigned character references, a letter from her psychologist, Mr Mark Olsen, and her submissions.
2. The Respondent submitted a number of bundles of documents which included their submissions, a psychologist report prepared by Mr Raymond Hudd, police fact sheets and court attendance records, and extensive documentation regarding the Applicant's criminal convictions and mental health assessments.
3. The Respondent also provided a bundle of documents filed under s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (the ADR Act), as well as written submissions to the Applicant and the Tribunal.
4. The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross examined at the hearing held on 3 December 2025. Both parties made oral submissions at the hearing.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision pursuant to s 30 of the CAT Act and sections 6, 7 and 9 of the ADR Act.
2. The Tribunal notes that the Act was amended as at 23 September 2025 upon the enactment of the Child Protection (Working with Children) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025. However, applications for review of decisions, which were made prior to those amendments taking effect, continue to fall within this Tribunal's jurisdiction for determination, as per cl 27, Part 6 of Schedule 3 of the (post-23 September 2025) Act.
3. All references in this decision hereafter and otherwise to the Act, will therefore refer to the version of the Act in place prior to 23 September 2025.
4. Section 27(1) of the Act provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review of a decision to refuse a WWCC.
5. The Application was made within 28 days of the Decision, in accordance with s 27(1) and the Tribunal is satisfied it currently has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Applicant's application.
6. As per s 63(3) of the ADR Act, the Tribunal may make orders including to affirm or vary the decision of the Respondent to cancel the WWCC, or to set it aside and either make a decision in substitution, or remit the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration.

1. As per s 63 of the ADR Act, the role of the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to all of the material before it, including any relevant factual material which may not have been before the Respondent: YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 at [25].
2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act is protective and not punitive in nature as per BJB v Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111 at [110].
3. As per Commission for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111, at [63] citing Roberts v Balencio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436, the Tribunal has a "discretion to act on material which is rationally probative, but ...must determine in all the circumstances whether it is proper to act on such material and must act fairly towards the parties."
4. The objects of the Act are to protect children, as per s 3(a) by not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and s 3(b) by requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have Working with Children Check clearances.
5. Section 4 of the Act provides that the paramount consideration in the operation of the Act is the "safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse."
6. Section 8(1) of the Act prohibits a person from engaging in "child-related work" unless they hold the relevant WWCC clearance or there is a current application for a WWCC on foot.
7. Section 14 of the Act requires that a person be subject to a (risk) assessment requirement if any of the matters specified in Schedule 1 apply to that person. Offences against ss 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 are listed as assessment requirement triggers per cl 1(2)(g) in Schedule I of the Act.
8. Subsection 18(2) of the Act provides that the Children's Guardian must grant a clearance to a person who is subject to a risk assessment under Division 3 unless the Children's Guardian is satisfied that the person poses a risk to the safety of children.
9. In making a risk assessment, the Respondent may consider the following factors set out in section 15(4) of the Act:

(a) (a) the seriousness of any matters that caused the assessment in relation to the person,

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

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

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

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

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

(g) (g) the person's present age,

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

(i) (i) the likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct or of any other matters that caused the assessment and the impact on children of any such repetition,

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

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

1. The Applicant has a duty to disclose all relevant material pursuant to s 27(4) of the Act.
2. Section 30(1) of the Act sets out the factors the Tribunal must consider in determining a review application under section 27 of the Act. These essentially replicate the factors set out in s 15(4) of the Act to which the Respondent may have regard, when conducting their risk assessment, and are as follows:

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

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

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

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

(g) (g). the person's present age;

(h) (h) the seriousness of the person's total criminal record and the conduct of the person since the offences occurred;

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

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

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

1. Section 30(1A) further provides that the Tribunal may not make an order which has the effect of enabling a person (the affected person) to work with children in accordance with the 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.

1. The Applicant has sole custody of her two children (aged approximately 12 and 13 years old currently) and is currently unemployed. They reside on a rural property. The Applicant's ex partner and children's father has previously been incarcerated with regard to a range of serious criminal offences.
2. The Applicant and her children are avid athletes, who all participate in local competition, and engage frequently with the sporting community. The Applicant has previously provided mentoring and other assistance on a voluntary basis, however was instructed that she needed to provide a WWCC in order to provide coaching and other support going forward.
3. It was not in dispute that the Applicant has a significant criminal and mental health history.
4. The Applicant has a significant history of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, for which she is receiving ongoing psychological treatment and medication. The Applicant further has a history of sporadic epileptic seizures, which led to the disqualification of her drivers' licence.
5. The Applicant has convictions covering a range of conduct, including (i) in 2011, possession and supply of a prohibited drug, for which she was incarcerated (ii) in 2018, making a false document to obtain a financial advantage/steal property as a clerk or servant/embezzle as a clerk or servant, for which she was subject to an ICO for 18 months, which expires in January 2026; (iii) in 2023, three convictions for driving while disqualified; and (iv) in 2024, commit an act of cruelty upon an animal (2 counts), commit an act of aggravated cruelty upon an animal (6 counts), failure to provide vet treatment when in charge of an animal (10 counts), for which she was subject to an ICO for 28 months, which expires in September 2026, although she has completed the relevant community service work hours in the interim.
6. The drug offences date back to when the Applicant was 18 years old, although remain relevant in the sense that the Applicant has an alleged history of using marijuana almost continuously since, currently under a medical prescription.
7. The dishonesty offences relate to the Applicant's former employment as an administrative assistant, during which she forged a recommendation letter to secure a rental property, forged withdrawal slips to obtain cash from her employer's account, and stole monies deposited by her employer's client.
8. The animal cruelty charges involved the attendance of the RSPCA at her property in May 2023 and again in November 2023. At their first visit, the RSPCA found that the Applicant had approximately 36 dogs, 11 cats, 2 horses and several birds around the property. The RSPCA found that there were no clean litter trays, enclosures were soiled, a lack of clean drinking water, and several dogs were in very poor condition. The RSPCA issued the Applicant with a caution on that occasion, and formal written directions ordering the rectification of the issues identified.
9. Upon receipt of further reports in this regard, the RSPCA attended the property in November 2023, on a 36 degree Celsius day, at which time they discovered a number of dead animals, euthanised a number of unresponsive animals, and removed the remainder. The overall condition of the animals and the squalor in which they resided had deteriorated considerably since their May visit. The dogs were found to be suffering from various health conditions, and a total of 60 dogs and 8 cats were seized by the RSPCA.
10. The Applicant's child (then aged 10) had been given responsibility for the care of the animals on that day, and was present when they were seized. They had been instructed to provide water to the animals, but had mistakenly moved the animals to a shipping container, believing they would be cool and protected. The container became exceedingly hot, resulting in the death of some of the animals.
11. The Applicant's child was subsequently sent to live with their grandparents for two months following the event.
12. The courts have sentenced the Applicant variously to incarceration, ICOs, community service, an electronic monitoring device, evening home detention and disqualification orders.
13. The Applicant submitted that she had been heavily involved in volunteering her time to assist with sporting activities in the community, and providing equine therapy to disadvantaged or disabled youths. She further provided coaching to her children's sports teams, ground marshalling, team management, canteen services and injury assistance when required.
14. Upon being advised that volunteers would require a WWCC, the Applicant sought to obtain one, and received an interim bar whilst the Respondent conducted a risk assessment. The Respondent subsequently determined that the Applicant presented a real and appreciable risk to children and refused to issue her with a WWCC.

1. The Applicant submits the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the Respondent's decision and grant the Applicant a WWCC. Her grounds for this review include the following:

(a) That she has taken full responsibility and accountability for her previous convictions, and has completed her community service hours.

(b) That her criminal record has no bearing on her ability to provide support, guidance and coaching to children in the school, local and/or sports community.

(c) That she had pleaded guilty to the animal cruelty charges, as she did not have the resources or support to challenge them, but they did not represent the truth of her care for the animals.

(d) That, due to her traumatic childhood, she is highly motivated to protect children and support vulnerable young people, and has a strong history of doing so;

(e) That her history of resilience and perseverance equips her to provide effective guidance and role-modelling to young people;

(f) That she is receiving proper treatment and support in relation to her mental health issues.

(g) That she is a devoted mother who places the safety of her children above all else.

(h) That she has provided a number of references attesting to her kindness and generosity and community spirit.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that whilst she had a 'horrible' criminal history, she was highly motivated to protect children and help young people in the community, and that she had never engaged in conduct which would put a child at risk.
2. The Applicant has been seeing a psychologist regularly, and is using medical marijuana currently, to assist in the treatment of her PTSD, anxiety and depression, and is committed to her mental health treatment plan.
3. The Applicant submitted a letter of support for her WWCC application from Mr Olsen, the Applicant's psychologist, which contends that the Applicant is a "dedicated and responsible parent who demonstrates genuine care for the wellbeing of her children and those around her." He further states that she is 'a valued and trusted member of her local sports club, and that she has evidenced appropriate and compassionate care with children.' He posits that the sports club has come to rely on her commitment and contributions, and her continued involvement is not only important to its functioning, but that any restriction to the Applicant's interactions with children at the sports club would be detrimental to those children.
4. The Applicant gave evidence regarding her upbringing with 'toxic and narcissistic' parents, and the trauma resulting from being assaulted at age 16, and noted that she does not have any family support currently.
5. The Applicant gave an impassioned plea regarding her involvement in the sports community and the importance of the voluntary assistance she provides to that community.

1. The Respondent submitted that they made the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances, and that their decision to refuse a WWCC for the Applicant should be affirmed by the Tribunal, for the reasons briefly outlined as follows:

(a) That the Applicant poses a safety risk to children because she has a significant number of serious animal cruelty convictions, suggestive of her neglect and indifference to the suffering of vulnerable beings, a lack of empathy and inability to exercise appropriate responsibility.

(b) That the Applicant's criminal history is fairly extensive and insufficient time has elapsed since her last infraction, whereby she continues to be subject to two current ICOs, one of which will not expire until September 2026.

(c) That the animal cruelty offences were sufficiently serious as to satisfy the threshold in s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Further, offences against ss 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 are listed as assessment requirement triggers per cl 1(2)(g) in Schedule I of the Act.

(d) That the Applicant has a history of significant and continuous marijuana use, including whilst pregnant. The Applicant advises that this is a legal prescription to help her sleep at night, however it contributes to 'real doubt' that the Applicant can exercise sound judgement and pursue a law-abiding lifestyle.

(e) The Applicant has not accepted full accountability or displayed appropriate insight into her animal cruelty offences, leading to the real concern that she may engage in similar conduct in the future.

(f) The Applicant has driven while disqualified (due to risk of a seizure) with her children in the car. Further, the Applicant exposed her children to the suffering and cruel treatment of vulnerable animals in her care, without regard to the psychological impact on them.

(g) That Mr Olsen is an inexperienced provisional psychologist who provided his report after five sessions with the Applicant, and appeared to have simply accepted the Applicant's version of the events without applying 'meaningful scrutiny' thereto, and accordingly Mr Olsen's views should carry little weight.

(h) That 'risk to the safety of children' is a 'real and appreciable risk' as per s 5B of the Act, and is not limited in scope to a risk which would arise only in particular child-related work ie the test is simply whether the Applicant poses any risk to children, irrespective of context.

(i) That in a context where the welfare of a child is paramount, the Tribunal should take the Applicant's criminal and mental health history into account when assessing the risk she presents, regardless of whether her history relates directly to the care of children or not.

(j) That if the Tribunal does not find that the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children, they must then consider the supplementary tests in s 30(1A) of the Act before granting the Applicant a WWCC clearance.

1. The Tribunal has to consider all of the evidence adduced by the parties in light of, and pursuant to, the mandated considerations contained in s 30 of the Act.
2. An application pursuant to s 27 of the Act is a merits review and not a review in which the Applicant must show that the decision maker was wrong as per Re Control Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88.
3. The issue which must be decided is whether in all the circumstances the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.
4. In BKE v Office of Children's Guardian & Anor [2015] NSWSC 523 at [27], the Court noted that the assessment of risk under the Act is not limited to the circumstances for which an Applicant seeks a clearance and whether he/she poses a "risk to the safety of children" in those circumstances. Instead, an Applicant is "subject to the full gamut of assessment which is applicable to persons who seek work in a child-related area."
5. The Applicant made numerous, highly emotional submissions regarding her traumatic childhood and background. It is clear that she has suffered significant trauma in her youth, and feels a genuine and urgent compulsion to help and protect children.
6. Despite the particulars of her criminal history, the Applicant presented as deeply empathic and well-intentioned in her desires to contribute to the well-being of the children in her community. By her own admission, she feels unsupported by family, and accordingly she considers her involvement in the sporting community while also supporting her two children who are keen athletes, to be of vital importance.
7. Whilst there was nothing disingenuous or furtive in her demeanour when cross-examined, there were significant contradictions and inconsistencies throughout her testimony. The Respondent submitted that these were indicative of the Applicant's pervasive lack of insight into her conduct, and we tend to agree.
8. The Applicant stated vehemently that her parents were toxic and narcissistic and had caused her an extreme amount of trauma and that she had the barest semblance of relationship with them now. However, subsequently in the context of stating that she had sent her child to live with those same people for two months after the RSPCA visit and charges in November 2023, she explained that she did this so her child would be in a safe and supportive environment.
9. The Applicant responded vehemently, when questioned, that she would never drive her children whilst she was disqualified. However, moments later when asked why she had chosen to drive whilst disqualified, she admitted that on one of those occasions, it was raining and she needed to drive her children to school.
10. The Applicant advised that she currently sees her psychologist once or twice a month, but also has him on call for when she has a 'breakdown' or requires advice and assistance with a situation. However, the example she then provided indicated that she continues to act impulsively and emotionally, before consulting him. When the Respondent subsequently enquired as to how often she has 'breakdowns', the Applicant objected to the use of the word breakdown and submitted that she does not suffer those.
11. The Applicant advised that she no longer has to drive her children to school because there is a bus that picks them up from near their farm, and that this arrangement works well for her children. This was followed up some minutes later, with a reference to her child being beaten on the bus, and her angry interactions with the bus company as a result.
12. The Applicant admitted responsibility for what happened to the animals that day, in that she accepted that it was not the role of her 10 year old child to have been responsible for the care of those animals. However, she was insistent that she had not mistreated the animals and that they had been well cared for, and that her children had not been exposed to any psychological harm through those events.
13. The Respondent submitted that there had been reports regarding the condition of her home and the cleanliness of her young children. The Applicant vehemently dismissed these allegations as having no substance.
14. Similarly, the Respondent drew attention to a number of contact records in evidence which were provided by the Department of Communities and Justice reporting the Applicant's previous drug use, including heroin which she denied, and malnourishment of her child when they were an infant.
15. The Respondent submitted a report by a psychologist, Mr Hudd, who spoke to the Applicant on a number of occasions between August 2018 and April 2024. Mr Hudd noted that the Applicant presented as engaging, but very anxious with noticeable depression. Mr Hudd further noted the Applicant exhibited periods of vacillating moods and disassociation.
16. Mr Hudd conducted testing in accordance with 10 clinical scales measuring the psychological impact of trauma and anxiety related disorders. The Applicant was found to exhibit significantly elevated scores in most of those, including PTSD, chronic anxiety, depression/hopelessness, anger/irritability/picking fights, susceptibility to triggers (nightmares, flashbacks, memories), defensive avoidance (ie drug/alcohol usage to evade painful memories), disassociation, externalisation of distress (involving aggression and self-harm), together with impaired self-knowledge and self-confidence presenting as easily excitable and less functional under stress.
17. Mr Hudd's conclusion was that the Applicant suffers from complex PTSD and a generalised anxiety disorder. These conditions led, in his opinion, to a distortion and fragmentation of the Applicant's core identity, a lack of trust and boundaries, difficulty in emotional self-regulation and attention-regulation, and problems with aggression and impulse control.
18. At one point in the proceedings, the Applicant asserted that Mr Hudd's report contained inconsistent and 'misinformed information', however this appears limited to Mr Hudd incorrectly reporting her middle name and the death of her father (he is alive).

Consideration of the factors in s 30(1) of the Act

1. We have set out below our findings as to the factors in s 30(1) of the Act (other than the factors in s 30(1)(e), (f) and (j1) which are inapplicable).
2. With regard to s 30(1)(a) and (h), we find that the Applicant's relevant conduct and criminal history are extremely serious. Despite the Applicant's submissions that she had not been neglectful or cruel to the animals in her care, and pleaded guilty due to poor legal advice and other reasons, the evidence and convictions in this regard are substantial and disturbing.
3. It is clear that the neglect was at least partially attributable to the Applicant's mental health issues at that time, however it is also clear that the animals under her care suffered serious neglect for an extended period of time, at least between the RSPCA's first inspection visit and caution in May 2023, and their eventual removal of the surviving animals in November 2023.
4. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's mistreatment and neglect of the vulnerable animals in her care, should rightfully inform any consideration of her suitability to care for children, and we agree with that assertion.
5. With regard to s 30(1)(b) whilst some years have elapsed since the Applicant's drug-related offences, her dishonesty and animal cruelty offences are relatively recent, such that she continues to be subject to relevant ICOs in respect of those convictions. We therefore consider that insufficient time has passed since the commission of those offences, to enable us to make any compelling findings about her conduct since.
6. With regard to s 30(1)(c) and (g), the Applicant was aged 18 at the time of her first offences, and 30 at the time of her most recent (animal cruelty) offences. She is now 32 years old.
7. With regard to s 30(1)(d), the relevant 'victims' were the animals in the Applicant's care. As per above, the multiple counts of aggravated animal cruelty cannot be dismissed as irrelevant with regard to caring for children. The Applicant has suffered significant mental health problems, and whilst she is engaged with a treatment plan, these are by no means resolved.
8. Despite the Applicant's vehement denial of any deficiency in her parenting at any time, the Respondent has adduced sufficient evidence of several complaints and contact records over the years indicating that the Applicant has had difficulty at times in meeting her day-to-day responsibilities with regard to the care of her children. This is not an indictment of the Applicant, who is clearly a devoted and highly protective mother to her children, but rather an indication that her mental health struggles and their impacts, remain a significant factor in considering whether a WWCC should be granted in the circumstances.
9. With regard to s 30(1)(i), a sentencing assessment report prepared at the time of the Applicant's dishonesty offences suggested she should be considered a low-medium risk of reoffending. No evidence was adduced by the Applicant as to why the Tribunal should be confident that her animal cruelty offences will be her last. On balance, the Applicant has a criminal history which is varied and extends from the beginning of her adult life, until a year or so ago. Particularly, with the ICOs still on foot, we do not think sufficient time has passed since her most recent (and most serious) infractions, to reasonably make a finding that she is unlikely to reoffend.
10. As per FPV v Children's Guardian [2023] NSWCATAD 59 at [104], which we adopt: _"_In assessing the evidence as to risk, the Tribunal is not required to find that there is a likelihood of the same conduct / misconduct. All that is required is the presence of risk of a sufficient level, not necessarily likely or significant risk of harm but the presence of a risk of harm".
11. With regard to s 30(1)(j), the Applicant has provided a number of unsigned character references from people within the community, supporting her application. These references acknowledge her criminal history and all speak fondly of the Applicant's loyalty and support, for them and their children, and praise her empathy and generosity.
12. Throughout her testimony, the Applicant displayed significant anger, a lack of impulse control and a lack of emotional self-regulation. It is clear that she is a young woman with a desire bordering on desperation, to do good in the world, and help children and be a role model to young people in her community. She is clearly passionate, kind, generous and resilient, having survived unfathomable trauma. However, she remains emotionally volatile and prone to angry outbursts, and her ability to be a voice of quiet calm and to model de-escalation for the children in her care, is questionable.
13. The Applicant states that she has taken 'significant rehabilitative steps' but did not elucidate what these steps comprise, so we cannot afford them any weight.
14. With regard to s 30(1)(k), we consider that the matters raised by the Respondent have compellingly demonstrated that the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Her recent and serious animal cruelty offences, current ICOs, ongoing mental health issues and dishonesty offences combine to create a real and appreciable risk on any ordinary understanding of that term.
15. The Respondent considers that the Applicant demonstrated a lack of insight, responsibility and integrity during the course of her testimony, and submitted that her evidence should not be accepted at face value. Without ascribing any intent to deceive, we agree that the Applicant's evidence was often inconsistent and contradictory, sought to overlook or downplay significant periods and examples of neglect and dysfunction, and did indeed point to a material lack of insight and acceptance of responsibility overall.
16. We have considered all of the matters in s.30 (1) of the Act, and are satisfied that the available evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that there is a real and appreciable risk of harm to children posed by the Applicant.
17. The Respondent's decision is therefore affirmed.

(2) (2) An order pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting, with the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or disclosure of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings including mandatory reporters or risk of harm reporters.

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.