Ibbotson v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency
[2015] QCAT 488
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Ibbotson v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 488
- Add to List
Ibbotson v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 488
Ibbotson v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 488
CITATION: | Ibbotson v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 488 |
PARTIES: | Nicola Ibbotson (Applicant) |
v | |
Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML119-15 |
MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
HEARING DATE: | 2 November 2015 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 December 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – BLUE CARD – NEGATIVE NOTICE – whether exceptional case – whether not in best interests of children to issue Blue Card - where protective factors include applicant addressing past behaviour by ceasing alcohol intake, seeking support, developing coping strategies and engaging in full-time work – where breach of Domestic Violence Order – where applicant seeking to justify and minimise involvement in offending behaviour presents as key risk factor – where community expects those working with children to have deep understanding of impact on others of breaching Domestic Violence Orders, to reduce likelihood of repeated behaviour - where applicant needs more time to develop insight into the impact of her behaviour on others sufficient for her to be authorised to work with children Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 6, 156, 167, 221, 226, 360, Schedule 1 BI v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 311 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492 CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219 Drinkwater v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 293 HIC v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2013] QCAT 403 Peri v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 56 Pritchard v Chief Executive Officer, Public Service Business Agency [2015] QCAT 25 Re TAA [2006] QCST 11 Stitt v Chief Executive Officer Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 257 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
APPLICANT: Ms Nicola Ibbotson appeared by telephone
RESPONDENT: Ms Natalie Taylor, Advocacy Officer appeared for the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this Application about?
- [1]Ms Nicola Ibbotson is a 55 year old lady trying to make a better future for herself after going through a volatile relationship. She applied for a Blue Card on 14 November 2014 so she can work in disability services. However, on 4 May 2015 the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Safety Business Agency issued Ms Ibbotson with a ‘negative notice’. This means that Ms Ibbotson cannot obtain a Blue Card to work in certain types of employment and volunteer work.[1]
- [2]Ms Ibbotson therefore wants the Tribunal to review the Chief Executive’s decision. Because Ms Ibbotson is not convicted of any ‘serious offence’, she is entitled to be issued with a positive notice for a Blue Card unless her case is ‘exceptional’.[2]
- [3]Ms Ibbotson expressed concern in her final submissions about being further “punished”. However, in reviewing the Chief Executive’s decision that Ms Ibbotson’s case is ‘exceptional’, the issue for me to decide is whether it would not be in the best interests of children to issue a positive notice for Ms Ibbotson to obtain a Blue Card.[3] To determine this, I must identify and balance protective factors with risk factors.[4]
Is it not in the best interests of children to issue a Blue Card to Ms Ibbotson?
- [4]Because a Blue Card authorises a person to work with children in any environment, the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount in deciding whether to issue a Blue Card to Ms Ibbotson.[5]
- [5]Every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[6]
What protective factors favour issuing a Blue Card to Ms Ibbotson?
- [6]Ms Ibbotson is a mature lady who has shown a willingness to rebuild her life following the breakdown of her relationship with her former partner. She has completed a Diploma of Community Services in 2013-14, has been employed full-time as a support worker and has stopped drinking alcohol since August 2012. She is a member of the Townsville Independent Advocacy Board. She has completed a three months drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and regularly attends ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’ meetings.
- [7]She has also been working with disability services for two years without incident and never been accused of physical violence or abuse against children or adults in her care, including a family with six children for whom she provided support.[7] She says she is remorseful for her actions in 2012 and sees her chosen vocation as a way of ‘making amends’.
- [8]Ms Ibbotson provided positive character references.[8] Many of Ms Ibbotson’s referees also gave oral evidence, consistent with their written statements to the effect that she is upright, honest and a team player with a positive effect on those in her care. However, most of Ms Ibbotson’s referees were unaware of the extent of her convictions, reducing the weight of their evidence.[9] Nevertheless, the evidence shows that Ms Ibbotson is supported by key friends and the Salvation Army, who also provided a positive reference noting that she reaches out for help when needed.[10]
- [9]Ms Ibbotson has sought counselling with her psychologist, Ms Wendy Arnold.[11] Ms Arnold considers that Ms Ibbotson has learned better coping techniques to deal with difficult emotions, with more appropriate conflict resolution strategies:
[Ms Ibbotson] has responded perfectly in a psychologically healthy manner to maintain control of herself despite great disappointments from the loss of employment and all things that encompass this event (eg financial hardship, loss of confidence, lower self-esteem, sense of worthlessness).
In my opinion, Ms Ibbotson is maintaining socially appropriate behaviour and displays a strong desire to respect others’ rights as shown be her impeccable record over the past 3 years. I have no hesitation in recommending that Ms Ibbotson is safe and suitable to work with both children and adults.[12]
- [10]However, Ms Arnold conceded in her oral testimony that she did not have Ms Ibbotson undergo psychometric testing or formally assess Ms Ibbotson’s suitability to work with children.
- [11]Despite this, and encouragingly, the weight of evidence suggests that Ms Ibbotson has resolved the issues with her former partner and is developing coping techniques, involving herself with her community and seeking to improve herself.
What key risk factors prevent issuing a Blue Card to Ms Ibbotson?
- [12]Both the Chief Executive and Ms Ibbotson addressed several risk factors, including a charge of assault in 2013 against Ms Ibbotson for which no evidence was ultimately offered. Ms Ibbotson strongly disputed the allegations forming the basis for this charge and indeed, the complainant himself later provided her with positive references.[13]
- [13]Regardless of the circumstances of this charge, the key concern is Ms Ibbotson’s other recent criminal history from May 2012 to August 2013 for which she received convictions.
- [14]In May 2012, Ms Ibbotson was convicted for breaching a Domestic Violence Order and in August 2012 she was convicted for breaching Probation and Bail Conditions. As recently as August 2013, Ms Ibbotson was convicted of stalking and threatening violence over a period from 25 March 2012 to 17 July 2012.
- [15]In her recent submissions dated 3 July 2015, Ms Ibbotson sought to minimise her involvement by explaining that the offences arose from her continuing to contact her former partner by emails, visits and non-violent and non-physical verbal contact, seeking forgiveness and passing on medication for her dog.
- [16]During the hearing, Ms Ibbotson also sought to minimise her behaviour by questioning why the Domestic Violence Order had been issued and suggesting that her former partner had used the system to ‘get me out of town’ because Ms Ibbotson had raised behavioural concerns about her former partner.
- [17]In her final submissions dated 27 November 2015, Ms Ibbotson again sought to minimise the Domestic Violence Orders, by referring to their abuse by ‘alleged victims’ to provide them with a ‘leg up’ in later court proceedings. Ms Ibbotson claimed this here and sought to justify her breach as an attempt to secure her own property.
- [18]I accept that the offences arise from the fallout of Ms Ibbotson’s relationship with her former partner of ten months. To her credit, Ms Ibbotson has taken active steps to remove herself from her toxic situation by having had no contact with her former partner for three years and moving to another town. I also note that the legislation does not deem these offences as ‘serious’,[14] nor did they involve children.[15]
- [19]However, the seriousness of Ms Ibbotson’s behaviour and the need to curtail it is reflected in the Court sentencing Ms Ibbotson to six months imprisonment to be suspended for two years, following her most recent convictions. Ms Ibbotson only finished serving her period of suspension in August 2015. The offending behaviour is still relatively recent and shows a pattern of placing her own feelings above court orders and the feelings of those for whom she purports to care about.
- [20]Moreover, by seeking to justify and minimise her involvement in the offending behaviour, Ms Ibbotson still lacks sufficient insight into the impact of her behaviour on others and the importance of abiding by the law, regardless of how upset she may feel. This is relevant to child-related employment.[16] Adult behaviours can harm children even when not directed towards them:
It can be harmful for children to become aware people they respect don’t obey the law because it can create confusion for them as they try to develop a sense of right and wrong.[17]
- [21]Regardless of her former partner’s motives for obtaining the Domestic Violence Order, Ms Ibbotson cannot transfer responsibility for her breaches of that Order once in place. Ms Ibbotson had an opportunity to oppose the Domestic Violence Order prior to its issue. The Court made the Order based on the evidence before it. Ms Ibbotson must abide by the Order once made. She still appears have difficulty accepting this.
- [22]Ms Ibbotson also denied any violence or stalking, despite being convicted of stalking. The Tribunal cannot go beyond the conviction and must accept it as is.[18] Moreover, Ms Ibbotson’s focus on her behaviour not involving actual violence ignores the psychological and emotional impact of her continual unwanted contact on her former partner. The community must be confident that Ms Ibbotson has awareness of the psychological and emotional impact of her behaviour on others sufficient to work with children, even when she herself is experiencing life’s travails and traumas.
- [23]I consider that the Ms Ibbotson’s current limited insight into the gravity of her breaches of domestic violence orders and stalking convictions, and the impact of that behaviour on others is a risk factor that presently outweighs the protective factors.
- [24]I therefore consider that Ms Ibbotson needs some more time to show a deeper insight into her actions and their effects, further develop her coping strategies and thereby regain the community’s trust in her, sufficient for her to be authorised to work with children.
Is this an ‘exceptional case’ to not issue a Blue Card to Ms Ibbotson?
- [25]The Tribunal commends Ms Ibbotson on the efforts she has made so far to reach out to others and get her life on track. However, the law requires that in considering whether to allow a person a Blue Card, the interests of children must take priority over an applicant’s interests.
- [26]Domestic violence is a scourge that takes many forms, extending beyond actual physical violence. Being aware of how breaching a Domestic Violence Order impacts others and the importance of abiding by the order means a person is less likely to repeat the behaviour, when subjected to similar stressors.[19] The community rightly expects those working with children to have the deepest understanding of this, as children depend on adults to have insight into their actions and their likely effect.[20]
- [27]Because Ms Ibbotson needs some more time to develop this understanding, her case is ‘exceptional’ and prevents issuing her with a Blue Card.
Conclusion
- [28]Unfortunately for Ms Ibbotson, issuing her with a positive notice at this time is not in the best interests of children.
- [29]The correct and preferable decision is therefore to confirm the decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency on 4 May 2015 to issue Nicola Ibbotson a negative notice.
- [30]Nevertheless, Ms Ibbotson appears to have demonstrated substantial insight into her previous alcohol use and redressed it. She has taken positive steps towards demonstrating that she might be eligible for a Blue Card in the future. She should continue with her endeavours and with some more time and continuing support, be in a position to show that she has earned the trust of the community to work with children.
Footnotes
[1] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 156 and
Schedule 1.
[2] Ibid, s 226.
[3] Ibid, s 221.
[4] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor
[2004] QCA 492.
[5] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, ss 6(a), 360.
[6] Ibid, s 6(b).
[7] Email Katie and Terry Collins dated 16 July 2015.
[8] Letter Professor Peter Kelly dated 2 July 2015, Letter Gary Eilersen dated 14 January
2014, Referee Report of Gary Eilersen dated 3 February 2014, Letter Trudy Lightfoot, Coordinator Access Street Van Townsville dated 7 January 2013; Referee Report of Max Younger, Training Team Leader, Community Training Australia dated 4 February 2014; Email Belinda Redenbach dated 14 October 2014.
[9] BI v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 311 at [32].
[10] Letter of Major David Twivey dated 22 July 2015.
[11] Reports of Wendy Arnold, Psychologist dated 15 November 2012 and 23 July 2015.
[12] Reports of Wendy Arnold, Psychologist dated 23 July 2015.
[13] Letter Gary Eilersen dated 14 January 2014 and Referee Report of Gary Eilersen dated
3 February 2014.
[14] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 167,
226(2)(a)(ii), Schedule 2.
[15] Ibid, s 226(2)(iv).
[16] HIC v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2013] QCAT
403 at [65].
[17] CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219 at [61] and
[67].
[18] Pritchard v Chief Executive Officer, Public Service Business Agency [2015] QCAT 25
at [36], citing with approval Drinkwater v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 293 at [19]; Stitt v Chief Executive Officer Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 257 at [37].
[19] Peri v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 56 at [49],
citing with approval Re TAA [2006] QCST 11.
[20] Ibid.