LAG v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)

[2010] QCAT 18

CITATION: LAG v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2010] QCAT 18

PARTIES:   LAG

v

Department of Communities (Child Safety Services)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            CSR238-09

MATTER TYPE:   Children’s matters

HEARING DATE:   6 January 2010

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF:   C Endicott, senior member

DELIVERED ON:   6 January 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:   Review application dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Early end to proceedings – section 47 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 – application lacking substance

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

1. An application was made to the Children Services Tribunal on 30 October 2009 by LAG (the applicant) seeking a review of a decision made by the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) (the respondent) on 28 October 2009 to restrict telephone contact that the applicant could have with his daughter, RA, to once a week.   

ISSUES AND THE LEGISLATION

1. From 1 December 2009 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has replaced the Children Services Tribunal. 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.

EVIDENCE

3. At the time when the review application was made, RA was subject to a Court Assessment Order which placed her in the custody of the Chief Executive, Department of Communities. 
4. Subsequently, an application was made by the respondent for a Child Protection Order in a Children’s Court.   
5. On 14 December 2009 interim orders were made in the Family Court of Australia which provided that RA was to live with her mother, RR.
6. RA was returned by the respondent to RR’s care and RA now resides with her mother in another State.
7. On 21 December 2009 the respondent withdrew the application for a Child Protection Order in the Children’s Court finalising that matter.

CONCLUSION

8. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Chief Executive of the Department of Communities no longer has custody of RA and that there are no current grounds on which decisions can be made by the respondent about contact between the applicant and RA. 
9. The Tribunal finds that the decision under review made by the respondent on 28 October 2009 no longer has any effect.  
10. In view of those findings, the Tribunal considers that the review application is now lacking in substance and under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 the review application should be dismissed.