PLV v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)

[2010] QCAT 406

CITATION: PLV v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2010] QCAT 406

PARTIES:	PLV
v
Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   CSR066-09  

MATTER TYPE: Children’s matters

HEARING DATE:     6 August 2010

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott , senior member

DELIVERED ON: 6 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS :  Child protection, Children’s Court agrees to case plan

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties. 

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 16 March 2009 the then Children Services Tribunal (CST) received an application from PLV seeking a review of the decision of the then Department of Child Safety to restrict access to her children. This application was brought under section 87(2) of the Child Protection Act 1999.

1. The matter proceeded to a preliminary conference before the Tribunal on 28 April 2009.  At the conference the Tribunal joined KP as a party to the review and granted leave for her to be represented in the proceedings by a youth advocate from Legal Aid Queensland.  The Tribunal adjourned the matter because there were proceedings in the Children’s Court which could impact on the application before the Tribunal.

1. After a number of adjournments and mentions in the Children’s Court, the applications before the Court by the Department seeking protection orders for the applicant’s three children were determined on 4 March 2010.

1. Before making a child protection order, the Children’s Court must be satisfied that there is a case plan for any child that is appropriate for meeting the child’s protection and care needs.  The order made granted the Chief Executive custody of the children.  The case plans reflected agreed contact between PLV and the Department.

1. The Department, now the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) have submitted that the application of the 16 March 2009 should be dismissed on the basis that the matters of contact have been resolved during the conduct of the Children’s Court proceedings and the case plans reflect agreements reached in relation to contact between PLV and her children.

1. PLV was contacted by letter on 2 occasions by the registry of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) Tribunal in relation to the Departments submissions seeking her views about whether her application should be dismissed.  QCAT has assumed the functions of the former CST. No response has been received from her.

1. The youth advocate was also contacted and advised the Tribunal that KP did not oppose the dismissal.

1. Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provides that the Tribunal can dismiss an application if the Tribunal considers a proceeding is misconceived or lacking in substance. 

1. Given the date of the original application and given that PLV has been involved in negotiations earlier this year and has agreed to certain contact arrangements which have been endorsed by the Children’s Court, the Tribunal considers that there is no substance in her application.  In these circumstances the Tribunal will dismiss her application.