Man v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)
[2011] QCAT 10
•7 January 2011
| CITATION: | MAN v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2011] QCAT 10 |
| PARTIES: | MAN |
| v | |
| Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML102-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 7 January 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, senior member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 January 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | Application for review is dismissed |
| CATCHWORDS : | CHILD PROTECTON – decision to restrict contact between mother and child in care – applicant no longer wanting to proceed with application for review – early end to proceedings – section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 22 June 2010 MAN lodged an application for review of a decision made by the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) (the respondent) on 16 June 2010 to restrict her contact with her son. MAN also applied to stay the effect of the respondent’s decision until the conclusion of the review application.
The child was born on 12 December 2009. On 14 December 2009 an application was filed in the Children’s Court seeking a short term custody order to the chief executive of the respondent. An interim custody order was made and the child was placed into the care of approved carers on 14 December 2009.
The respondent had agreed to MAN having contact with her son subsequently to 14 December 2009. For some of that period MAN lived with her mother and then with her father. The contact arrangements varied according to where MAN was living at the time but generally contact was to take place twice a week.
On 9 June 2010 MAN ceased residing with her father. She requested an increase in the contact with her son. The respondent informed MAN that an assessment had to be undertaken before contact arrangements could be increased. On 16 June 2010 the respondent notified MAN that the contact arrangements were to be one visit a week for two hours duration in a regional town supervised by a departmental officer and one visit a week for two hours duration in another regional town at the department offices.
The tribunal scheduled a hearing of the stay application for 7 September 2010 and also scheduled on that same date a compulsory conference when the parties would have the opportunity to discuss the issues involved in the review application.
On 2 September 2010 MAN informed a staff member from the tribunal registry that she no longer wanted to proceed with the review application. MAN informed the staff member that circumstances had changed since she had lodged the application and she was happy with the current contact arrangements. MAN was asked to confirm this notification in writing with the tribunal.
As no written notification was received by the tribunal registry, a staff member wrote to MAN at the address on her application form on 13 October 2010 asking for written notification that the review application was to be withdrawn by her. The letter was returned to the tribunal with the notation “not known at this address”.
A staff member from the tribunal registry sent an email to MAN at the email address she had acknowledged on 2 September 2010 was a contact email address. In this email a request was again made of MAN to provide written confirmation of her intention not to proceed with her review application. No response had been received from MAN.
The tribunal finds that MAN has taken no steps to proceed with her review application since June 2010. The tribunal finds that MAN gave verbal notification on 2 September 2010 that she no longer wants to proceed with that application.
10. The tribunal must deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. A party to a proceeding in the tribunal is under an obligation set out in section 45 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the Act) to act quickly in any dealing relevant to the proceeding. The applicant in this case caused the stay hearing to be adjourned in September 2010 and then gave notice that she did not intend to proceed any further with the review application.
11. Section 47 of the Act gives the tribunal power to bring a proceeding to an early end if the tribunal considers that an application is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or is lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process. The tribunal considers that it is tantamount to an abuse of process to permit the application for review to remain unresolved when MAN has given verbal notification, but not written notification, that she does not intend to proceed with her application.
12. In the circumstances, the tribunal considers that the review application must be dismissed under section 47 of the Act.
0
0
0