SRB v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)
[2011] QCAT 250
•31 May 2010
| CITATION: | SRB v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2010] QCAT 250 |
| PARTIES: | SRB |
| v | |
| Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML006-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 31 May 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member E Benson-Stott, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 31 May 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Application for review is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | CHILD PROTECTION – application to review decision about contact – child not in the care of the respondent – no response from Applicant – application has no substance Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 8 January 2010 SRB lodged an application with the tribunal to review a decision made by the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) about her contact with her grand-daughter.
On 15 January 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry wrote to SRB asking for confirmation if she was meeting with the Department to discuss contact, and if a formal arrangement had been made regarding contact. No response was received from SRB.
On 20 January 2010 an Application for Miscellaneous Matter was received from the Department. The Tribunal Registry was informed by the Department that no decision had been made by the Department about contact between SRB and her grand-daughter. The Tribunal Registry was informed that the allocated Child Safety officer contacted SRB on the 15 January 2010 to discuss her request for contact to be arranged, with envisaging a formal contact decision to be made in the near future. The Department submitted in their Application that there had been no reviewable decision made by the Department and that the application for review should be dismissed. The Department submitted that when a decision was made, a decision letter would be forwarded to SRB outlining her review rights. The Department submitted that upon receipt of this letter by SRB that if she was aggrieved by this decision, then she could make application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and seek a review.
On 20 January 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry wrote to SRB enclosing the submissions lodged by the Department seeking her Application be dismissed as they had not made any formal decision in relation to the contact with her grand-daughter. The Applicant responded to this on the 25 January 2010 stating that she wished to proceed with her Application for a Stay Hearing.
On the 2 March 2010 the Department sent a decision letter to SRB regarding scheduled contact arrangements in relation to her grand-daughter. A decision was made for contact to occur each fortnight for one hour in SRB’s home. The contact visits were to be supervised and to be facilitated by a departmentally approved foster carer.
On 17 March 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry wrote to SRB enclosing details of the Directions Hearing Notice requiring her to attend a Directions Hearing on the 13 April 2010 at 3.30pm.
On 23 March 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry wrote to SRB and asked if she wanted to proceed with her application now that contact arrangements had been put in place since the 2 March 2010. No response was received from SRB.
On 7 April 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry again wrote to SRB and asked if she wished to proceed with her application. No response was received from SRB. SRB was also informed that a Directions Hearing had been listed for the Application for 13 April 2010 commencing at 3.30pm.
This matter was listed for a Directions Hearing on the 13 April 2010. SRB advised Tribunal Registry by telephone on the morning of 13 April that she wanted to withdraw her Application. SRB was informed that she would need to send in the Notice of Withdrawal Form to the Tribunal, and that the Registry would send out the Notice of Withdrawal Form for her to sign and return to the registry. The Directions Hearing was then cancelled. No Notice of Withdrawal Form has been received by the Registry from SRB.
[10] On 5 November 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry wrote to SRB asking for her views in the Application and if she wished to proceed. The Registry asked SRB to respond within three (3) weeks of the date of the letter and if no response was heard then the Tribunal would consider dismissal of the Application under Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009. No response was received from SRB.
[11] On 30 November 2010 an officer in the Tribunal Registry wrote to SRB asking for her views in the Application and if she wished to proceed. The Registry asked SRB to respond by 10 December 2010 and if no response was heard then the Tribunal would consider dismissal of the Application under Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009. No response was received from SRB.
[12] On the 10 May 2011 an officer in the Tribunal Registry again wrote to SRB and asked if she wanted to proceed with her application. The registry stated that if SRB wished to proceed with her application she would need to provide a copy of the latest Decision Letter by the Department and written confirmation that she wished to proceed. The letter requested a response within two (2) weeks of the date of the letter, and that if no response was received the Tribunal would consider dismissal of the Application and not proceed any further. No response has been received to date from SRB.
[13] The Tribunal Registry consulted with the Department on the 30 November 2010 and the 10 May 2011 to ensure that the Tribunal had the correct contact details for SRB. It was confirmed by the Department for each of these occasions that the Tribunal had the correct contact details for SRB.
[14] Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 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.
[15] The tribunal has an obligation to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. The Tribunal Registry has attempted on numerous occasions to obtain a response from SRB. To date the Tribunal has not received the Notice of Withdrawal Form from SRB even though she requested verbally on the 13 April 2010 that this matter be withdrawn. The review application is therefore lacking in substance. To continue with the review would be an abuse of process. It is appropriate to bring an end to the review application under section 47.
[16] The review application must be dismissed in accordance with section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
0
0
0