This is an interesting case heard by Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. SMA had been issued with a Prohibition Notice under the National Law. the basis of the Notice was that SMA had used inappropriate physical discipline on children in her care; made inappropriate comments to children within her care; used a chemical compound (acid) as a cleaning substance without taking all reasonable steps to ensure children were not exposed to the substance; and lit a cigarette in the yard where children were present. SMA later unsuccessfully applied to the regulator (Department of Education) to have the prohibition notice cancelled. SMA had direct involvement in the management of and was the sole director of an early childhood learning centre. The case before the Tribunal was an application by her for her blue card to be reinstated. The Tribunal determined that there were not grounds to do so (paras. 36-7):
Having considered all the evidence in this matter, I am of the view that in the absence of tangible evidence to support a SMA’s assertion that her counselling and mentoring has reduced those concerns raised, there still remains an apprehension whether it would be in the best interests of children for a positive exemption notice and an exemption card to be issued to SMA at this particular time.
In reaching that conclusion just outlined, I acknowledge that SMA has taken steps to address those concerns raised. However, notwithstanding the approaches she has already undertaken, I am not satisfied that those steps have reached the appropriate threshold to address the concerns which led to the decision being made. Perhaps at some indeterminate time in the future, SMA might be better placed to reinvigorate her application with the assistance of further evidence of a therapeutic reduction of the risks identified.
No comments:
Post a Comment