DAH v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services
[2012] QCAT 356
•24 July 2012
| CITATION: | DAH v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services [2012] QCAT 356 |
| PARTIES: | DAH (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML098-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 24 July 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Application for review filed on 12 June 2012 is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | CHILD PROTECTION – decision made by service provider – no reviewable decision made by the respondent – review has no substance – early end to proceedings Child Protection Act 1999, s 247, Schedule 2 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
DAH provides respite care for a child. That child is in the care of the respondent department. A non government agency, XYZ, receives funding from the respondent department to provide a range of services to children in out of home care. In the case of this child, XYZ provides intervention and support in relation to his placement.
On 8 June 2012 an employee of XYZ made a decision to have DAH cease providing the child with respite care. DAH has sought review of that decision by QCAT. The respondent department has confirmed that it did not make this decision and in fact has put in writing to DAH that the child’s placement with her on a respite basis has not been cancelled.
DAH was invited to withdraw her application for review on the basis that there was no decision to review by QCAT. DAH has declined to withdraw her application stating that future respite for the child has not been formalised and that XYZ has attempted to reduce the child’s respite with her.
QCAT can review decisions where jurisdiction has been conferred by an enabling Act. The Child Protection Act 1999 confers jurisdiction on QCAT. Under section 247 of that Act, an aggrieved person may apply to QCAT to have a reviewable decision reviewed. Schedule 2 to that Act sets out the types of reviewable decisions made by the respondent department over which QCAT has jurisdiction.
There is no jurisdiction conferred on QCAT to review a decision made by an entity other than by the respondent department about a child in the care of that department. The jurisdiction of QCAT is limited to reviewable decisions made by the respondent department. The decision in this case was not made by the respondent department. To the contrary, the decision was expressly stated not to have been made by the respondent department and was not a decision supported by the respondent department.
There is no jurisdiction in QCAT to review the decision objected to by DAH. Although DAH has been informed of this position, she has declined to withdraw her application for review.
Under section 47 of the QCAT Act, the tribunal can bring an early end to a proceeding if that proceeding is lacking in substance. This is one such case. It would be unacceptable to devote resources of this tribunal to the hearing of an application that has no basis for success.
The application for review filed by DAH must be dismissed.
0
0
0