Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2015
  4. Moore v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency - [2015] QCAT 123

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Moore v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 123

Moore v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 123

CITATION:

Moore v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 123

PARTIES:

Ian Francis Moore

(Applicant)

v

Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML237–14

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2015

HEARD AT:

Innisfail

DECISION OF:

Member Johnston

DELIVERED ON:

20 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of the Public Safety Business Agency dated 13 November 2014 to issue a negative notice to Ian Francis Moore is set aside and the Tribunal directs that a positive notice be issued.

CATCHWORDS:

CHILDRENS MATTER – BLUE CARD – REVIEW – where applicant seeks a review of the Agency’s decision to cancel a blue card and issue a negative notice – whether exceptional case exists – whether not in the best interests of children to issue a positive notice – where change in criminal history

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 ss 261, 266

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 66

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Ian Francis Moore

RESPONDENT:

Peter Reid, in house counsel for the Public Safety Business Agency

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    On 22 October 2012, the Applicant, Ian Francis Moore, was issued with a blue card by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. The blue card functions are now administered by the Public Safety Business Agency (the Respondent).
  2. [2]
    Pursuant to the provisions of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (the Act), the Respondent was advised by the Queensland Police Service on 12 May 2014 of a change to the Applicant’s police information.
  3. [3]
    The Applicant was invited to make submissions about why the Respondent should not cancel the positive notice and blue card and issue a negative notice. The Applicant provided one written reference in response to the request for submissions.
  4. [4]
    On 13 November 2014, the Respondent cancelled the positive notice and blue card and issued a negative notice and provided the Applicant with a written notice outlining the decision, the reasons for the decision and the relevant review information.
  5. [5]
    On 1 December 2014, the Applicant lodged an application with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) to review the Respondent’s decision that the Applicant's case was an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Applicant to be issued with a positive notice and blue card.

Mr Moore

  1. [6]
    Mr Moore has a history of smoking marijuana that goes back to his teenage years.
  2. [7]
    His partner of four years Debra Kaminski was not prepared to accept the use of marijuana in her home and Mr Moore was required to leave.
  3. [8]
    Mr Moore has been attending the Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs Agency (ATOD’s) since November 2014 to deal with his drug addictions.
  4. [9]
    He was involved in an altercation on 10 May 2014 with the 24-year-old son of his partner Luke where a cane knife was thrust into a pole to cause fear. He admitted trying to scare Luke and acknowledged that his actions were wrong. This incident led the Police to their house where a bong (smoking utensil) was located. Mr Moore had intended to take the utensil to a party and to smoke marijuana socially.
  5. [10]
    This incident led to his partner telling him to leave. She was not aware of his smoking habit because he had not smoked in the family home or around the children in their care.
  6. [11]
    This incident also lead to the Child Safety Office imposing conditions on the time that he could spend in the family home. Mr Moore is on and 8 AM to 6 PM curfew.
  7. [12]
    There was another incident in February 2014 of domestic violence where he was allegedly drunk and threatening to his partner. It was alleged that his partner wanted to leave the house with the children. His partner denied that this was true and said that she had been sleeping when the police came and arrested her partner.
  8. [13]
    In relation to the Applicant’s offending and alleged offending, without restating that factual information of the offending behaviour in detail, the Tribunal notes the following key issues, considerations and risk factors. The Applicant’s Queensland criminal history includes a number of entries for offences committed between 1981 and 2014. Several entries relate to drug offences; these entries include sentencing dates of 28 February 1990, 12 October 1992, 28 March 1994, 11 July 1994, 12 January 1998, 23 October 2000, 14 September 2009 and 2 June 2014. The recent June 2014 entry suggests the Applicant continues to be a risk of illicit drug use and that in the event there were any previous attempts to undertake drug counselling or drug diversion, it is evident that the attempts proved the unsuccessful. The applicant’s behaviour at the time of the 2014 offending also suggests he continued to associate with known drug users. Notably, the Applicant’s criminal history also contains entries in relation to breaches of Domestic Violence Orders. In many instances, the Applicant acted in a violent and aggressive manner when intoxicated. Numerous other entries contained in the Applicant’s criminal history raise concerns about the Applicant’s ability to protect the welfare of children placed in his care.
  9. [14]
    Mr Moore denied ever smoking around the children. He has learnt various strategies to deal with stress. These included: walking away, using SMS texts with his partner so not to disturb the children. He listens to music and watches comedies on television. He acknowledged that he should not be under the influence of drugs when looking after the children.
  10. [15]
    He sees his partner, ATOD’s and United Care Community as part of his support network.
  11. [16]
    He saw the following risks: smoking marijuana, excessive alcohol consumption, and inability to manage stress in his life.
  12. [17]
    He accepts that his judgement is impaired when he drinks too much alcohol.

Hannah Muller, Child Safety Officer

  1. [18]
    Ms Muller represented Mr Ralph Laska the Manager of the Innisfail Child Safety Office.
  2. [19]
    Mr Ralph Laska in his letter of 11 March 2015 stated:

Ian received notice that his blue card was suspended and positive notice was cancelled on 13 November 2014 and therefore was issued with a negative notice from Blue Card Services. Mr Moore has stated to the Department that his blue card was suspended due to a recent police charge and blue card services had requested more information about this incident and his history for review, however Mr Moore admitted he did not return the requested information due to a combination of factors including embarrassment and literacy issues.

… A safety plan was entered into on this date [21 November 2014] by Mr Moore that allowed him to be in the family home outside of the times 6 p.m. – 8 a.m. so that he could still have contact with his foster children and this would hopefully cause minimal disruption to the placement for the children. Mr Moore agreed to make alternative accommodation arrangements while his blue card was suspended.

I am in support of Mr Moore in appealing the decision by Blue Card Services in relation to the issue of a negative notice. Mr Moore has been approved foster carer since 23 August 2013 and in this time, along with Deborah, has created a stable and nurturing environment for the foster children he cares for.

In discussion with Ms Kaminski and Mr Moore, they are aware that should a Blue Card not be reinstated this will cause stress in the current placement, which would have significant negative effect for the children within that placement. Should Mr Moore’s Blue Card not be reinstated, his current Safety plan is not a viable long-term option as Mr Moore would be considered, by definition under the Child Protection Act 1999, a household member and be still required to hold a Blue Card to visit at any regular frequency.

Deborah has been very clear with me that there is no question for her in this matter and that she will always do what is required in the best interest for the children, in this case she will not choose between the children and Mr Moore, as the children will come first.  Therefore, should this application in his application for reinstatement not be successful his relationship with Deborah and the children will cease, he will no longer be able to be a carer for the children and will only have infrequent and limited contact with the children; he will have no parental role nor be able to assist or support Deborah in raising and caring for the children, which is not a desired outcome for this family or children.

  1. [20]
    She told the Tribunal that the Child Safety Office was supporting Mr Moore having continued contact with the children because of the existing positive children's attachment.
  2. [21]
    The Child Safety Office has since the concerns have arisen put plans in place to manage the risks. This includes Mr Moore residing outside the family home and observing a curfew.
  3. [22]
    Ms Muller was aware of the incident between Mr Moore and Luke and aware that he had been caught with drug paraphernalia. She was also aware of his criminal history.
  4. [23]
    Ms Muller was aware that Mr Moore was attending ATOD’s and was awaiting feedback from the agency.
  5. [24]
    His marijuana use is a concern but Debra Kaminski has been the primary carer since 2005 and will always advise the Child Safety Office if there have been any issues.
  6. [25]
    The Department takes the view in relation to marijuana and alcohol use that as long as such habits don't impact on the children that such habits will not preclude a person acting in a foster carer role. The Child Safety Office has put in place plan strategies and is prepared to work with Debra Kaminski.
  7. [26]
    The issue for Mr Moore is that without a blue card he cannot be a member of the household. If there were any issues with marijuana or alcohol they would interview Mr Moore and if that impacted on his suitability would change the arrangements.
  8. [27]
    The Child Safety Officer who deals with Mr Moore has spoken in positive terms about him and stated that he is very good with the children.
  9. [28]
    Mr Moore needs to work on his alcohol use to ensure it is not excessive. The Child Safety Office records however show no evidence of Mr Moore being intoxicated in their dealings with him.
  10. [29]
    Mr Moore has a very positive bond with the two children in Debra Kaminski's care. Ms Muller told the Tribunal that Mr Moore needs to engage regularly with ATOD’s. She does not think that he is there yet.
  11. [30]
    The Child Safety Office would like Mr Moore to spend nights in the family home. They are quite confident that he can stick with the safety plan.
  12. [31]
    She feels that he has made a positive influence on the children. She believes that he has the ability to change. She told the Tribunal that four sessions with ATOD’s was not enough. She said that he had done an excellent job with family stability.

Samantha Mitchell, Placement Support Worker, Uniting Care Community

  1. [32]
    Ms Mitchell in her letter of 11 March 2013 wrote:

I am in support of having Mr Moore's blue card reinstated and believe Mr Moore is remorseful for his involvement in an incident that led to the cancellation of his blue card as Mr Moore has expressed his deep regret to me personally and I have seen the effects this situation has had on Mr Moore and his family. There is a legitimate concern that if Mr Moore's blue card continues to be cancelled there will be a family breakdown as Ms Kaminski has expressed her unwavering willingness to care for [the two children in her care].

[The two children] have displayed benefits of having Mr Moore a part of their life as Mr Moore gets involved in activities with the boys, such as football, athletics, fishing and camping, this has taught them necessary life skills along the way. Mr Moore is a great role model in the boys’ life from what they know of Mr Moore and understand that he is a significant support person when they need.

Mr Moore has attended pre-service training which includes the following modules: Context of Foster Care, Understanding the past for a child or young person, early days in placement and Quality Care working together. Mr Moore has also attended a Suicide Awareness and Prevention course. In my role as a support worker I do monthly home visits to Mr Moore and Ms Kaminski, in those home visits it is not unlikely that I will speak to them about trauma informed responses [to the two children]; during these conversations Mr Moore has been consistently open to taking on board any behaviour strategies that I may suggest and what this has done has taught him techniques about responding to children with trauma backgrounds and he is able to assist the boys in co-regulation

  1. [33]
    Ms Mitchell told the Tribunal that Mr Moore engages well with the two children and that he treats the United Care Community workers with respect. He has a close relationship with his partner. She was aware of the incident between Mr Moore and Ms Kaminski’s son involving the use of a knife and his possession of a bong. He had also disclosed his criminal history to her. She has no concerns about him being with children. His partner had shown the ability to work closely with the Child Safety Office. Mr Moore is now aware that there are a range of supports that he can utilise. She has seen a lot of positive changes in Mr Moore's life. She believes that he is remorseful for his past actions. This has come across in her conversations with him. He is a very dedicated man and tries to do things for the best. He is willing to listen and take on new strategies. He follows directions and has done the required courses.

Debra Kaminski

  1. [34]
    Deborah Kaminski has been a foster carer for 12 years. She has been in a relationship with Mr Moore for the past five years. She has no interest in illicit drugs. She told the Tribunal that Mr Moore had changed his alcohol consumption early in their relationship. She told the tribunal in relation to the incident on 17 February 2014 that she was asleep when the police came. Mr Moore was on the lounge and the police said that he was not drunk. She informed me Tribunal that the Police Officer woke her up and she wasn't concerned by her partner's demeanour on that night. In relation to the incident in May with her 24-year-old son she did not witness the incident. She had heard yelling but did not see the argument. She told the Tribunal that her son had threatened to kill Mr Moore and that he had responded by pulling out a cane knife and threatening to cause harm to her son. She told the Tribunal that both her son and Mr Moore needed to act differently towards each other. She told the Tribunal that he was remorseful for his actions and had gone to Luke and apologised for his actions.
  2. [35]
    Ms Kaminski told the Tribunal that she had never seen Mr Moore intoxicated. If he had an alcohol problem she would have helped him address the issue. They use a range of strategies to deal with their issues. This includes: taking a walk, texting each other, or talking through the issues. She believes that these strategies have been successful. She has never seen him angry with herself or the children. She believes that he is able to handle stress well. She told him to leave when the police found the bong. He needed to understand her feelings. He moved out and eventually went to ATOD’s to receive counselling. She believes that this was a very big step for him.
  3. [36]
    Ms Kaminski stated to the tribunal that Mr Moore had made a very positive contribution to her household and was very good with the children. She thinks the risks are very small and has seen nothing in his dealings with the children to raise any concerns.

Agency submissions

  1. [37]
    Mr Reid in paragraph 20 of his submissions relies on the Reasons document which accompanied the decision.
  2. [38]
    The Respondent is of the view that there was still an issue about the Applicant’s use of marijuana. The statement from Mr Innes does not take the matter much further. Mr Moore had only attended three sessions since November 2014. This is not enough to adequately provide evidence of what has been taught or gained.
  3. [39]
    The presence of the bong in May 2014 was the reason why he was told to leave the family dwelling yet Mr Moore did not start rehabilitation till November 2014 and limited weight can be attached to Mr Innes' report.
  4. [40]
    The Agency accepts that attending ATOD’s is a significant factor but Mr Moore has not sufficiently engaged in order to make that a major factor in addressing the issue.
  5. [41]
    Mr Moore has a long history of alcohol and marijuana use so that a significant period of rehabilitation will be necessary.
  6. [42]
    There are many protective factors. Ms Mitchell talks about the fact that Mr Moore has immersed himself in extra training for the benefit of children. Mr Moore has the support of the Department of Communities. Mr Moore has a good level of interaction with the Children’s Safety Office and United Care Community. There is evidence of harmony within the household.
  7. [43]
    Ms Muller expressed her thoughts about overnight access in stages. Ms Muller did not recommend a full-time return.
  8. [44]
    The Respondent finally submitted that Mr Moore did not demonstrate remorse for his actions.

Mr Moore's submissions

  1. [45]
    Mr Moore submitted that he was ashamed of his literacy impairment and that this had affected the way in which he approached the matter. He is now aware of the supports that are around him.
  2. [46]
    Mr Moore submits that his past convictions were all at a time in his life where he was partaking in a different lifestyle and that he was somewhat ignorant to the negative factors surrounding him and his ownership of responsibilities. He submits that his circumstances have changed in the past five years which has led him to a lifestyle and relationship that is more “commonplace”. His current relationship with Ms Kaminski poses a different influence in his life and has flowed on to his lifestyle. He has accepted responsibilities in his life that were once not a priority and he has dedicated himself to his partner and family.
  3. [47]
    His criminal history is one that he is not proud of and that apart from his last offence the last was in 2009. He states that since he has established a relationship with Ms Kaminski a change of lifestyle has kept him clean in regard to his offences. There was an offence in June 2014 which he did not foresee and he has great remorse over the fact that it played a huge part disrupting his life and his family. This has caused insurmountable grief to his partner and family and has disrupted the lives of foster children.
  4. [48]
    Mr Moore acknowledged that he had acted in a violent and aggressive manner in the past but that since his relationship with Ms Kaminski he had not acted violently or aggressively to her and would not do that because the relationship with her was respectful, safe and loving. He believes that he has the ability to act protectively towards children and has implemented strategies with his partner when times were stressful. He talks about the fact that they recognise the stress signals in each other and implement personal space through taking a walk or removing themselves from situation and engaging in activity in a different room in the house. He believes that he has gained extensive knowledge while being with Ms Kaminski around the benefits of communication and providing a safe, secure home for his family. Through training at Uniting Care Community he has learnt the importance of providing care to their foster boys due to the traumatic background they have encountered.
  5. [49]
    He acknowledges the temptation that he felt in his most recent offence. This has shown him that he needs to implement more support networks around him and seek out help from ATOD’s in the hope that he can be taught strategies to help fight the temptation that exists. He denies ever smoking marijuana in the presence of his partner or the children.
  6. [50]
    While his previous offences had been committed at a mature age he is now engaging in a different lifestyle and has a healthy relationship. While he has resorted to violence in confrontational situations he believes that he has learnt from his past not to engage in violent or aggressive behaviour through his partner Ms Kaminski. He is now prepared to seek counselling and to seek help to regulate his emotions when needed. He understands that triggers which includes meeting with old friends with whom he used to engage in drug taking. He has learnt that in the future that he needs to implement strategies that he has learnt through ATOD’s. He is willing to continue his engagement with program.
  7. [51]
    He submits to the tribunal that he is deeply remorseful for his latest actions. He states that he has nothing but remorse since his actions and understands how this now impacts on his life and the ongoing ramifications of his actions. He does not want to jeopardise his life, family or relationship and is prepared to engage in whatever supports he needs in order to get the help that is required.
  8. [52]
    Mr Moore states that he leads a simple life and his support network will help reduce his risk of recidivism. He has positive support from his partner Ms Kaminski. He is making great progress allowing the input of others in his life.
  9. [53]
    Mr Moore is prepared to put the needs of his children and partner first. He states that none of his offences are against children and that he would at no point harm a child.

What is an “exceptional case”?

  1. [54]
    The Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (the Agency Act) does not define the meaning of an “exceptional case”. Section 226 of the Agency Act refers to certain factors that the Chief Executive must have regard to in determining whether this is an exceptional case, including, amongst others, when the offence was committed, the nature of the offending behaviour and anything that the Chief Executive reasonably considers relevant to the assessment of the person.
  2. [55]
    The object of the Agency Act is to ‘promote and protect rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland’. The Tribunal must, in exercising its review function under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, in determining whether an exceptional case exists, ensure that (a) the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount; and (b) every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes child well-being.[1]
  3. [56]
    It has been previously determined by the Appeal Tribunal that the meaning of an exceptional case is a matter of discretion and should not be confined to “any general rule”.[2] The Appeal Tribunal in considering the decision in the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [3] stated:

The proper approach to it is that, with respect, adopted by Philippides J [in Maher’s case]: to consider its application in each particular case, unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation.[4]

  1. [57]
    The Tribunal in determining whether an exceptional case exists must be satisfied that in considering all of the circumstances including the nature of the offending behaviour, that there are exceptional circumstances that it would not be in the best interests for children for a blue card to be issued.
  2. [58]
    The Tribunal is of the view that there is a range of protective factors that do minimise risk factors. The protective factors include:
    1. stable long-term relationship, with only one further offence since 2009;
    2. change to alcohol consumption, towards a healthier lifestyle;
    3. support from the Department of Communities;
    4. support of his partner Ms Kaminski;
    5. has expressed remorse for his actions;
    6. attending drug counselling with ATOD’s to address his addiction;
    7. insight into the fact that he needs to address his addiction;
    8. insight into the effect of stress on his life and strategies to deal with those stresses;
    9. undertaken extra programs to help care for foster children;
    10. positive reports of his care for foster children;
    11. significant change in lifestyle and willingness to change;
    12. support network including his partner, Uniting Care Community and Child Safety Office;
    13. good interaction with stakeholders.
  3. [59]
    The Tribunal views the Department of Communities strong support for Mr Moore as a significant positive factor in Mr Moore’s favour. This shows that Mr Moore has been doing a very good job caring for the two children in his partner’s care. This speaks highly of his interactions with the Child Safety Office and United Care Community. Both these organisations talk about the respectful way he interacts with staff. He listens and takes on the advice that is given to him. This is all evidence that he has made substantial positive changes to his lifestyle. The Tribunal accepts this evidence of the changes that Mr Moore has made. These stem in no small part to his positive relationship with his partner
  4. [60]
    The Tribunal believes that it is significant that Mr Moore is willing to listen to others and take on board the strategies that are put to him. The fact that Mr Moore is willing to change and improve his life is a significant factor. The fact that Mr Moore has complied with the safety plan put in place by the Child Safety Office is a significant positive factor.
  5. [61]
    Mr Moore's character witnesses impressed the Tribunal. They all spoke of him in positive terms.
  6. [62]
    The Tribunal however accepts the Respondent’s contentions that the risk factors are significant. Mr Moore’s criminal history contains numerous drug offences. There are also three charges involving domestic violence and assault charges. The risks are as identified by Mr Moore himself: alcohol in excess; marijuana; and stress.
  7. [63]
    The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent in view of Mr Moore's history and his conviction in May of 2014 for possession of the drug implement that there is a risk in relation to substance abuse. The Tribunal is satisfied that this risk is mitigated by the following factors:
    1. the fact that Mr Moore is attending substance abuse counselling;
    2. the fact that Mr Moore has developed insight into the impact of substance abuse on his life;
    3. the fact that there is no evidence of Mr Moore smoking in the family dwelling or of him being intoxicated on the family home;
    4. fact that Mr Moore was able to alter his alcohol consumption within a short time of establishing his relationship with Ms Kaminski.
  8. [64]
    The Tribunal is satisfied and accepts the evidence that Mr Moore is highly motivated to address his marijuana addiction.
  9. [65]
    The Tribunal also notes the position of the Child Safety Office that takes the view that as long as a carer does not smoke marijuana or become intoxicated within the family home and does not impact upon the care of the children will not disentitle a person from being a carer.
  10. [66]
    The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Moore that he has never smoked marijuana in the family home and has never been intoxicated in the presence of the children. This evidence is supported by the evidence of Debra Kaminski.
  11. [67]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the issue of substance abuse is mitigated by the factors set out above. The tribunal notes that Mr Moore has complied with the requirements of the safety plan put together by the Child Safety Office. The Tribunal also notes that Ms Kaminski has a zero tolerance of substance abuse and will not accept substance abuse within the household. The relationship has been very positive for Mr Moore and he is highly motivated to continue the relationship.
  12. [68]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Moore has adopted strategies to deal with stress and has moderated his alcohol consummation.
  13. [69]
    The tribunal agrees with the submissions of the Respondent that the incident in May 2014 involving an altercation with Ms Kaminski’s son is a concern. However the Tribunal accepts that this incident was out of character given lifestyle changes that Mr Moore has undertaken. The gravity of the incident is minimised by Mr Moore's apology for his actions and insight into the harm caused by acting in this way.
  14. [70]
    The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that the importance of having appropriately developed insight into harmful behaviour cannot be overstated in assessment where such a history of negative behaviour exists. This was recognised by the former Children's Services Tribunal in the published decision of Re TAA [2006] QCST 11. At paragraph [97] the Tribunal stated:

The issue of insight into the harm caused in these incidents is a critical matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the view that good insight into the harm that has been caused is a protective factor. A person aware of the consequences of his actions on others is less likely to re-offend than a person who has no insight into the effect of his actions on others. This is particularly important with children because they are entirely dependent upon the adults around them having insight into their actions and the likely effect on children

  1. [71]
    There is evidence that Mr Moore has insight into his actions and he is remorseful for his behaviour. This comes from Samantha Mitchell and from Mr Moore himself.
  2. [72]
    The Tribunal was of the view that Ms Kaminski gave very powerful evidence that supported Mr Moore's case. Mr Moore referred to his relationship as being a positive protective factor.
  3. [73]
    The Tribunal is of the view that the support of the Department of Communities is a significant protective factor in this case. This is in the experience of the Tribunal never given lightly. The Tribunal puts weight on this factor.
  4. [74]
    The Tribunal is satisfied for the reasons stated that the positive protective factors outweigh the risk factors. This is not an exceptional case where due to the risk factors that exist it would not be in the best interests of children for the Tribunal to overturn the decision of the Chief Executive of the Public Safety Business Agency. The Tribunal overturns the decision of the Agency and directs that a positive notice and blue card be issued to the Applicant.
  5. [75]
    The Tribunal however would strongly recommend to Mr Moore that:
    1. he undertakes ATOD’s counselling for several months;
    2. he develops with his counsellor a risk management plan to deal with his drug addiction; and
    3. he complies with the requirements of the Child Safety Office.

Footnotes

[1] Formerly named Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, s 155 (see s 6 of the Act).

[2] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291.

[3] [2004] QCA 492 at [28].

[4] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 at [33].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Ian Francis Moore v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Moore v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCAT 123

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Johnston

  • Date:

    20 Apr 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Hattersley v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice & Attorney-General [2016] QCAT 3735 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.