CG v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services [2013] QCAT 275

CITATION: CG v Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services [2013] QCAT 275 APPLICANT: CG v RESPONDENT: Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services ADDED PARTY CE APPLICATION NUMBER: CML183-12 MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Clare Endicott, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 1 May 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave is not granted to CG to withdraw the application for a review of the decision of the respondent dated 19 October 2012 CATCHWORDS: CHILD PROTECTION – where father commenced review of a decision restricting his contact with his children – where one of the children elected to join the application for review – where father subsequently sought leave to withdraw the application for review – where leave refused APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] CG is the father of three children who are under child protection orders placing them in the custody of the Chief Executive, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services. On 19 October 2012 a decision was made restricting CG’s contact with the children. CG has commenced a review of that decision in QCAT. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [2] One of the children, CE, elected to be joined as a party in the review. She has direct representation in the review from the Legal Aid Office. [3] CG subsequently notified QCAT that he would like to withdraw his application for review. The registry staff at QCAT notified the representatives of CE asking for her response to her father’s request for leave to withdraw his application for review. Her representatives informed QCAT that CE opposed leave being granted. The representatives stated that CE had an interest in the outcome of the review. She had not filed her own application to review the decision about contact as she had only become aware of her right to do so when notified that her father had filed his application. She wanted to participate actively in the review of the decision and she was concerned that granting leave to CG to withdraw the application would extinguish her rights to have the decision reviewed. [4] CE, as a party to the review of the contact decision, must be permitted to exercise fully her right to participate in the process to review a decision made about her interests as well as about her father’s interests. She wanted the review to continue. Even though it might be possible for the review to continue with CE being taken as the applicant, the participation of her father in the review about the level of contact between him and his children would be desirable, perhaps even essential, in achieving an outcome satisfactory to CE, at least to the end of the compulsory conference stage of the review. [5] If the application were to proceed to a hearing after the attempts at alternative dispute resolution were exhausted and if CG did not want to participate in a hearing, then the question of granting CG leave to withdraw from the review of the contact decision could be considered afresh. [6] I have refused to grant leave to CG to withdraw the application for review in view of the opposition from CE and as his participation as a party is likely to enhance the prospects of the parties communicating effectively at the compulsory conference stage towards reaching contact arrangements that are both practical and appropriate. -- 2 of 2 --