SAT v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services

[2014] QCAT 32

CITATION: SAT v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services [2014] QCAT 32

PARTIES:	SAT (Applicant)
v
Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services   (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: CML260-13

MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Endicott

DELIVERED ON: 22 January 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application by SAT to review the decision of the respondent dated 26 November 2013 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CHILD PROTECTION – where decision being reviewed was superseded by a new decision – where applicant indicated objection to new decision – where review application no longer had substance – where early end to proceedings appropriate

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 47

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

1. SAT applied to QCAT to review a decision of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services dated 26 November 2013.  The decision was about the placement of her son with carers in a regional town.  The decision is a reviewable decision under the Child Protection Act 1999 by SAT as she is the mother of the child in the care of the chief executive of the Department.

2. Notification was given by QCAT to the Department that a review of that decision was sought by SAT. The Department was requested by QCAT under section 21 of the QCAT Act to provide a written statement of reasons for that decision together with copies of all documents relevant to the review of that decision.

3. The Department notified QCAT that a new placement decision had been made on 16 January 2014 whereby her son would reside with his father.  SAT had been notified that she could seek a review of that new decision.

4. A staff member from the QCAT registry asked SAT, that as a new decision had been made, whether she wanted to proceed with the current application for review or whether she wished to withdraw that application.  SAT responded by email on 22 January 2014 that she wanted to proceed with her review application.  She indicated in her email that she did not agree with the new placement decision.

5. The decision made on 26 November 2013 no longer set out the current placement decision of the Department.  There would be no useful purpose proceeding with a review of that decision when it had already been decided by the Department that her son should live elsewhere than with the carers in the regional town.  A review of the decision made on 26 November 2013 would not change the current placement of her son with his father.  It was apparent from her email that SAT now objected to the current placement of her son and that her dispute with the Department was no longer about her son residing with carers in the regional town.

6. QCAT has the power in section 47 of the QCAT Act to bring an early end to proceedings if it considers that the proceeding is misconceived, lacking in substance or otherwise an abuse of process. The review application of the decision made on 26 November 2013 lacked substance once a new placement decision had been made. The focus of that review would be on why the Department had decided that her son would reside with carers in the regional town and not on why a subsequent decision had been made changing his placement to his father. SAT had clearly indicated in her email that she now sought to dispute the placement decision made on 16 January 2014 whereby her son was to reside with his father.

7. It was a reasonable inference to draw from her email that she no longer had an interest in having the earlier and superseded decision reviewed.   In that circumstance, the review application no longer had any substance.  I considered that continuing with that review application would be an unacceptable use of the resources of QCAT and would be tantamount to an abuse of process.

8. I dismissed the application to review the decision of the Department dated 26 November 2013.  SAT has the right to seek a review of the decision made on 16 January 2014 and she is still in time to do so.  If she wishes to take that course, she must file an application in QCAT specifically to review that new decision.