Introducing "The Defendant Day Care Centres"!!!!!!!!!!! With the NSW Supreme Court tick of approval!
I think my mum and dad sent me to a Convent School because they were pretty confident the nuns were good people who'd set a good example.
Isn't that what we want from the people into whose care we entrust our children?
The NSW Office of the Children's Guardian has taken insufficient exception to the approval by the NSW Supreme Court of a man who has failed a "working with children" check as now being a fit and proper operator of child care centres.
The individual who has avoided being named in the proceedings has the following criminal history/antecedents:
During a two-month spree in 1982, he variously:
- grabbed a 23-year-old woman's crotch,
- grabbed the crotch and breasts of another 29-year-old woman
- exposed his penis to her
- pulled up the T-shirt of a 20-year-old woman and grabbed her breast
- invited her to perform fellatio
- approached a 15-year-old girl and asked her to sit on his penis
- entered another woman's car without her consent and ignored her requests to get out
- grabbed her breasts, pushing off her bikini top in the process
His further criminal and civil offence history includes:
- a drink driving offence in 1988,
- a 1992 incident in which he entered a woman's bedroom and pulled down her nightdress
- road rage
- a 2002 episode at a hotel where he racially abused patrons
- groped two policewomen
- made sexually lewd remarks to an elderly woman after grabbing her bottom
- a conviction for cocaine possession in 2003
- damages payment after he urinated on the floor of a hotel in 2003,
- was charged over an altercation on a golf course – though the charges were later withdrawn
- fined for opening a childcare centre without a licence in 2004.
- faced allegations of domestic violence by two former partners and
- reported to the Department of Community Services in 2015 after one of his teenage sons wrote a story about his dad swearing and hitting him.
A forensic psychiatrist retained by the children's guardian considered that the man posed a low-to-moderate risk of sexual or violent behaviour, but said he could not provide a definitive opinion because the man refused to have a psychiatric assessment.
Justice Richard Button found the tribunal accepted the man had behaved "boorishly, unattractively and anti-socially" but this did not mean he posed a risk to children and it had made no error of law.