WGS v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services - [2015] QCAT 417

CITATION:

WGS v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services [2015] QCAT 417

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

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML130-14

MATTER TYPE:	Childrens matters
HEARING DATE:	30 July 2015

HEARD AT:

Mackay

DECISION OF:

Member Quinlivan
Member Felton
Member Beckinsale

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:		The decision of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services dated 24 April 2015 is affirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	Childrens matters - Child Protection - applicant’s mental health - contact

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

WGS

RESPONDENT:

JOINED PARTY:

Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services represented by Mr Graham Murray

Office of the Public Guardian represented by Mr Benjamin Dighton, Counsel and Ms Melina Litchen, Child Advocate

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 30 June 2014, the Department advised the applicant that a decision pursuant to section 87(2) of the Child Protection Act 1999 had been made to restrict contact between him and his daughter DA (dob 26 December 2003). The decision restricted the frequency of contact and required all contact between the applicant and DA to be supervised.
On 18 July 2014, as an aggrieved person as defined in Schedule 2 of the Child Protection Act 1999, WGS sought a review of the decision.
On 30 July 2014 the Department advised the applicant that his contact with his stepdaughter DL would also be restricted and supervised.
Prior to these decisions being made the applicant was having a mixture of supervised and unsupervised contact with both children each Tuesday Thursday and Sunday.
At the time DA was subject to a Child Protection Order granting long term guardianship of her to the Chief Executive until 25 December 2021. She was placed with her paternal grandmother and kinship carer, WR.
DA was receiving support from Evolve Therapeutic Services for her behavioural, emotional and attachment needs. Her case plan was aimed at supporting improvements around her behaviours and emotions as well as her school engagement and progress.
At the same time DL was subject to a Child Protection Order granting short-term custody of her to the Chief Executive until 9 September 2014. DL was also living with her step-paternal grandmother and kinship carer, WR.
DL’s case plan was focused on supporting her biological father to access supports regarding parenting skill development and undertaking a risk assessment around his risk to her. On 30 March 2015 a Child Protection Order granting guardianship of DL to the Chief Executive was made. The goal of her case plan was long-term out-of-home care.
In his application WGS said that he wanted his entitlement to unsupervised visits to both children to be reinstated. He said that the decision was wrong because he considered he was not violent towards his mother and definitely not his children.
He asserted that over the time the children had been under Child Safety and he has had supervised visits there had not been one incident recorded of arguments. He considered the conflict with his mother resolved.
Consequently, he was seeking “equal share custody” (sic) of both children to be put back the way it was, that is, seeing them three times a week. He said that he considered they need him more because their mother is deceased.

Discussion of Evidence

In any Child Protection proceedings, the Tribunal is guided by the paramount principle as set out in section 5A of the Child Protection Act 1999 that “the main principle for administering this Act is that the safety and well-being and best interests of a child are paramount”.
Following the decision by the Department on 30 June 2014, the evidence from the Department indicates that further decisions restricting the applicant’s contact with his child and stepchild were made on 30 July 2014, 24 October 2014, 26 November 2014, 12 December 2014, 20 February 2015 and 24 April 2015.
Initially, the application was listed for hearing in Mackay on 27 March 2015. It subsequently came before the Tribunal on 30 July 2015. At that time the Department submitted that the decision of 24 April 2015 was the current decision under review.
The decision provided that the applicant would see the child DA weekly and the child DL fortnightly on a Thursday afternoon. The fortnightly visits with both girls would be supervised by the Mackay Child Safety Service Centre and the fortnightly visits with DA only would be supervised by the Mackay Children’s Contact Centre.
The reasons for the decision were set out by the Department in a letter dated 24 April 2015 and related to threats made by the applicant to kill people and various threats made to mental health staff. The Department was concerned that the applicant was experiencing psychosis, demonstrating reluctance to comply with his mental health medication, continuing to use drugs and displaying poor insight into his mental health needs.
In summary the Department expressed its view to the applicant that given he was recently very unwell with his mental health and was threatening to hurt people, that he was still under an Involuntary Treatment Order, was reluctant to engage in mental health support and had only recently been released from hospital, further evidence was needed that his mental health was stable and his conduct would be safe towards the children, their carer and the staff of the various support services.
The applicant did not file any material in support of his application and did not seek to challenge the position of the Department. At the start of the hearing he indicated to the Tribunal that his aim was to ask questions of a number of the witnesses identified by the Department.
The Department’s evidence was contained primarily in four Statements of Reasons dated 21 August 2014, 19 November 2014 15 December 2014 and 29 May 2015.
The evidence consisted of details of the applicant’s domestic violence history, case plans for the children, various guidance reports and health summaries, details of the applicant’s criminal history, contact details and observations, pathology reports and feedback from the Queensland Health in respect of the applicant.
At the hearing the Department called 4 witnesses who were primarily responsible for casework with respect to the children and supervising the contact with the applicant. A number of themes emerged from their evidence.
In particular, Ms. B gave uncontested evidence indicating that on 19 February 2015 the applicant was in psychiatric intensive care. At the time he was presenting as quite psychotic. On 20 February 2015 he was restricted and admitted to the mental health ward at Mackay Hospital with concerns around his mental health and the potential risk he posed to himself and staff supervising contact visits.
At that time the applicant was subject to an Intensive Treatment order. His contact with the Mackay mental health service was ongoing until at least 1- 2 July 2015. Towards the end of this time the evidence was that he had decided that he did not wish to have his medication anymore and planned to avoid having his depot medication. On 28 May 2015 he was advised that Authority to Return paperwork would be completed.
At the hearing the applicant sought to ask each of the witnesses clarifying questions in relation to his own engagement with the children. However, he did not at any time seek to challenge any of the material provided by them or address the serious issues of concern that had been raised.
Concerns were raised about the applicant’s ongoing drug use including his use of ice. There was no evidence that any recent contact had occurred while the applicant while under the influence of drugs, but it was equally clear that he was engaging in ongoing drug use which he was prepared to admit.
The applicant is subject to an ITO and has missed some contact visits to the detriment of the children. There has been a pattern of aggression demonstrated by the applicant particularly towards his mother who is the children’s carer and the various support services’ staff.
There was also evidence of a special bond between the applicant and DA. There was evidence that contact when it is positive can be in both children’s best interests. However, when the applicant is displaying symptoms of mental illness DA, in particular, becomes anxious worried and on one occasion preoccupied with death.
To some extent the evidence demonstrated that the children love the applicant but that this becomes compromised as he struggles to comply with the requirements of the Department and the provisions of the legislation.
There are ongoing concerns about the mental health of the applicant and DA’s role and her relationship with DL.
The Department outlined that the contact arrangements at present, provide that DA has weekly contact with her father and that DL has fortnightly contact with her stepfather.
The decision under review dated 24 April 2015 provided that the contact between the applicant and the children would be restricted. The applicant was to have less contact with the children but that the frequency of the contact was to continue to be reviewed and assessed over time.
In summary, the reasons for the decision were:
·Child Safety staff received information that in February 2015 the applicant had made threats to kill people, made threats to Mental Health staff, called Mental Health staff derogatory names and threatened to kill his own children and their carer;
·Child Safety staff received information that in February 2015 the applicant was experiencing psychosis including hearing voices.
·Information received from the Mackay Base hospital indicated that on 30 March 2015, the applicant attended and received his mental health medication but expressed reluctance to continue;
·The applicant continued to use drugs and have poor insight into his mental health needs;
·In conversation with the decision-maker on 7 April 2015 the applicant advised that he was continuing to follow his treatment but was unhappy taking the medication.
The Department determined that given the applicant was recently very unwell with his mental health, was threatening to hurt people, was still subject to an Involuntary Treatment Order, was reluctant to engage in mental health support and had only recently been released from hospital, further evidence was needed that his mental health was stable and his conduct would be safe towards his children, their carer and Child Safety and Mackay Children’s Contact Centre staff.

Decision

The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the decision of the Department to restrict his contact to his daughter and stepdaughter should be overturned. He has not provided any independent evidence of any changes in his behaviour or steps he has taken to address the issues that have been raised. He has not challenged any of the serious allegations made by the Department
Therefore the Tribunal orders that: The decision of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services dated 24 April 2015 is affirmed.