Was v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services
[2012] QCAT 374
| CITATION: | WAS v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services [2012] QCAT 374 |
| PARTIES: | WAS (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML129-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 August 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The application to review the decision of the Respondent set out in letters dated 12 April 2012 and 18 May 2012 is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | CHILD PROTECTION – where decisions sought to be reviewed have been rescinded – where there is no longer a reviewable decision – review application lacks substance – early end to the proceedings Queensland Civil and Administrative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
WAS is the mother of five children who are subject to child protection orders granting custody of the children to the Chief Executive of the respondent department until 14 December 2012. The department sent a letter to WAS dated 12 April 2012 informing her that a decision had been made to impose conditions on her contact with four of her children. As a result of that decision, WAS could only have contact with the children at a departmental Service Centre and her contact visits were to be fully supervised by a departmental officer.
Those contact arrangements were reviewed by the department after about four weeks. A further decision was made after that departmental review and notified to WAS in a letter dated 18 May 2012. That new decision again placed conditions on her contact by requiring contact to take place at the Service Centre and contact was to be fully supervised by a departmental officer. That decision was to be reviewed by the department during the week of 11 June 2012.
On 26 July 2012 WAS lodged an application in QCAT for a review of the contact decisions.
The department applied to dismiss the review application on the basis that the application lacked substance. The department submitted that on 12 June 2012 the department had conducted a review of the contact arrangements and lifted the restrictions imposed by the letters of 12 April 2012 and 18 May 2012. The effect of the lifting of the restrictions was that the contact arrangements that WAS had with her four children reverted to the arrangements that had been in place prior to 12 April 2012.
The decisions sought to be reviewed are no longer in place. In view of that position, the tribunal registry staff asked WAS whether she wanted to withdraw her application. She responded on 17 August 2012 that she would only withdraw her application if she were to be guaranteed she would have weekend contact by the end of August 2012. Weekend contact arrangements were not part of the decisions being reviewed.
Section 47 of the QCAT Act provides QCAT with the power to bring an early end to a proceeding if the tribunal considers the proceeding is lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process. It would be impractical to continue with a review of the decisions notified to WAS on 12 April 2012 and 18 May 2012 as those decisions are no longer in effect.
The contact arrangements currently in place have been in place since 2011. WAS did not seek to review those longstanding arrangements. In any event, those arrangements are being further considered by the department with a view to accommodating the request by WAS for weekend contact due to her employment demands. QCAT’s review jurisdiction is restricted to a review of decisions specified in the Child Protection Act 1999. QCAT does not have the power to intervene in the development stage of decisions and only has jurisdiction once a reviewable decision has been made.
The application lodged by WAS no longer has substance. It would amount to an abuse of process to continue with the review when what the applicant is essentially seeking is have QCAT put pressure onto the department during the development stage of a new decision about contact. The application is dismissed.
0
0