Foster dad accused of sexual assault sues State Government after kids removed

A foster dad is suing the State Government for economic loss he claims he suffered when five boys were removed from his care, following a child sexual assault allegation he was never charged over.

A FOSTER dad of five boys accused of molesting a teen who visited his home, but never criminally charged, is suing the government over economic loss he claims he suffered after the boys were removed from his care.

The matter will now proceed to trial, with the Supreme Court of Tasmania this month dismissing an attempt by government lawyers to have the claim struck out.

In his judgment, Associate Justice Stephen Holt said a 14-year-old boy claimed he was sexually assaulted in 2013 after staying overnight on several occasions at the foster home the man ran with his partner.

The man reported the allegation to the Department of Health and Human Services, with police investigating but deciding not to lay charges.

MORE NEWS:

Premier flags easing of COVID-19 restrictions in state recovery plan

Elite Hobart private school reduces fees amid virus pandemic

Name and shame: Tasmania's drug dealers revealed

The department undertook its own investigation, with an officer publishing a report implying the man had sexually abused the boy, Associate Justice Holt said.

“The result was that the five foster children, then in the care of the plaintiff and his partner, were removed from the foster home with resultant economic loss to the plaintiff,” he said.

The man claimed the officer recklessly disregarded “the scope of her authority” by making a finding of guilt and disseminating it and, in doing so, engaged “in misfeasance of public office”.

He also made a claim of negligence against the government.

The state argued the case shouldn’t go ahead as it wasn’t “a reasonable cause of action” likely to succeed, and that as a government it couldn’t be held liable for a claim involving the element of malice.

The government argued a person conducting a risk assessment for the protection of children “can owe no duty of care to an alleged perpetrator of abuse” as that was irreconcilable with a duty of care owed to a child.

But Associate Justice Holt said the officer could still be held liable, even if she was acting in good faith.

He also said that as she acted under the de facto authority of the government, the government could potentially be held liable.

The case will proceed to trial at a later date.