QLD Will DVO Affect My Profession and Blue Card?

[Rod]

First, if she'd gotten into the car and had an accident in which she was at fault, the injured party would be allowed to bring an action against her, the driver, because she is the party who has a duty of care to other road users. It would not be allowed to bring an action against him, the driver's husband, for not 'using reasonable force to stop his drunk partner from getting in the car and driving'.

Agreed. DOC is only to his partner in this instance.

Likewise, she, the driver, would not be allowed to bring an action against him for not restricting her from driving, either. Owing a duty of care to someone is about eliminating a foreseeable risk of harm to others by managing their own actions. It's not about depriving another of their ability to act.

Do not agree. There is both a negative duty and a positive duty when there is a duty of care. If your drunk partner was on a cliff top and in danger of failing off and you saw the danger and did not use reasonable force to get them away from danger and they subsequently fell off, you could be charged with a crime (not sure what negligently causing death is in QLD) and a have a civil claim against you from your partner's estate.

The only differences between the two examples is causation and reasonable foreseeability. Harder to prove the link in the driving situation but still possible.

BTW, I still agree with you that a magistrate in a AVO/DVO case is not likely to care too much why someone caused the bruises when their partner makes a claim of violence against you.

 

[Jethro Tambo]

Some great feedback there and thank you all (so far).

I did what I did at the time in what I thought was the best interests of both of us - when I tried to stop her. I have lost two friends to drink drivers... and it is something I have zero patience or tolerance for. Maybe it was a mistake and in that case I am "guilty as charged yer 'on our" ... however if she had had an accident, injuring herself or worse some one else ... I am not sure I could have lived with that!

The opinion about accepting the order (and not breaching) also makes sense (I could be petty and say it was two way, and it was, but I am trying not to stoop that low).

I had been led to believe (incorrectly - yes, poor advice from an organization member who should have known better...that's all I will say) it could affect my status as a teacher. I only found out this morning that as a civil matter it cannot (especially as she took the order out and not the police). As long as I don't breach it - and I have not been anywhere I could - that should be the end of it!
Son is hers by a previous relationship.

Mortgage and house - all good advice again and many thanks. I am hopeful we can bring this matter between us to a speedy and sensible end - without crippling ourselves financially or personally. Personal stuff and collecting it - again great help. The local cops told me they will help - its just a shame its such a waste of their time. But I will have to do what I can.

Once again - thank you, one and all. Put my mind at ease (a little). If there are any more thoughts or advice out there - I am all ears

 

[sammy01]

Look, I think accepting AVO without admission is the easiest stress free (kind of) option. The fact that it is a personal application rather than one by the cops is interesting. I read that as she has made a complaint to the cops - they have decided it doesn't warrant their attention and told her that if she isn't satisfied she can always make a personal application....

That kind of leads me to think you've a better chance of challenging it. But are you flogging a dead horse? Spend the money on getting a good asset division and leave her the hell alone.

Go and get your working with kids check done ASAP - their system is going into meltdown. And once you get it you're cleared for 5 years ( I think).

Mate, I've lost sleep since I heard they were coming in, out of fear that my avo would screw me out of a job.... Gonna be interesting - I reckon lots of teachers will wind up in some strife because they kept secret some relatively minor criminal behaviour that they legally should have disclosed to the boss. Stuff like drink drive needs to be disclosed....

Any rant over

 

[MartyK]

I read that as she has made a complaint to the cops - they have decided it doesn't warrant their attention and told her that if she isn't satisfied she can always make a personal application....

Yes, especially if they were not called out at the time of an incident!

Jethro (and sammy), I cannot foresee that historic petty crimes and/or non proven civil actions will lead to any affect on your continuing teaching registration, where they have nothing to do with child welfare. Although, then again, stranger things have happened.

 

[sammy01]

MartyK - as far as AVO's go - I recall stressing because my kids were protected persons... So potentially challenging it and losing could have a worse effect than accepting without admission - because challenging and losing means there was evidence of abuse... And that would be something I would have had to notify the dept of education about...

Accepting without admission meant I had no obligation to tell the boss. I did tell the boss and nothing happened - but that is possibly because I accepted without admission.

 

[MartyK]

MartyK - as far as avo's go - I recall stressing because my kids were protected persons... So potentially challenging it and losing could have a worse effect than accepting without admission - because challenging and losing means there was evidence of abuse... And that would be something I would have had to notify the dept of education about... Accepting without admission meant I had no obligation to tell the boss - I did tell the boss and nothing happened - BUT that is possibly because I accepted without admission.

I'm sure this would have been a very stressful time for you sammy.

Yes, without admission means the allegations have not been proven. But like I said, I do not envision that you would need to worry about any 'future' implications on your career (you said you have recently been stressing?) from any changes that may or may not come in, unless there is a child welfare issue.

For Jethro, there are no children involved. For you, well, even if some ridiculous "any allegations under the microscope" changes came into play, with the Dept of Ed, I would say, that regardless of a past AVO listing the children, that firstly, this was a non proven civil action that has now expired and secondly, the family court has already agreed with you that you do not pose any welfare risk to children. Quite arguable to your benefit. Don't stress!