CS v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2011] QCAT 214

CITATION: CS v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2011] QCAT 214 PARTIES: CS v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) APPLICATION NUMBER: CML027-11 MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 19 May 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Application for review is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: CHILD PROTECTION – child under long term custody order to Chief Executive – placed in care of carers – former carer sought review – not an aggrieved person under section 86 of the Child Protection Act 1999 – no substance to application – early end to proceedings 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 under section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] CS lodged an application in the tribunal to review a decision made by the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) for AB to remain placed with approved carers CD and EF. The Department has applied to -- 1 of 2 -- 2 the tribunal to dismiss the review application on the grounds that CS does not have standing to seek the review of that decision. [2] Submissions have been received from CS who submits that AB had been removed from her care by the Department and as such she has the right of review. [3] AB had been placed with CS in April 2008. AB became subject to a long term guardianship order to the Chief Executive of the Department in May 2009. [4] CS has submitted that on 9 November 2010 CS contacted the Department with notification that she could not provide care for AB due to the needs of her own son and she sought to have AB cared for by CD for a couple of months. A child safety officer informed CS that there was no option other than breaking AB’s placement with her. From her submissions, CS appears to have understood that this was the consequence of her request. [5] CS submits that several days later, that child safety officer asked CS whether she would be willing to take AB back if things went well with her son in three to four months time. CS readily agreed. [6] CS submits that on 26 November 2010 she became aware that a decision had been made by the Department to place AB permanently with CD and EF. CS subsequently asked the Department to make a decision to place AB in her care. [7] On 4 February 2011 the Department made a decision for AB to remain residing with CD and EF. According to her application lodged in the tribunal on 24 February 2011, this is the decision that CS sought to review. [8] Under section 86 of the Child Protection Act 1999 the child or the child’s parents have the right to seek a review of a decision made about placement of a child into a person’s care. CS is not one of AB’s parents and she has not purported to bring the application on behalf of the child. [9] The Department have submitted that CS lacks standing to bring the application for review to the tribunal. CS has attempted to argue that the decision under review is in fact a decision to remove AB from her care but that argument is not sustainable. CS voluntarily relinquished AB from her care in November 2010 and was aware that a new placement decision would have to be made. She had expected that AB would be returned to her care in early 2011 and she followed up the Department for a decision to return AB to her care. It is clearly that subsequent placement decision that is sought to be reviewed in this application. [10] 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. The application by CS to review the decision that AB is to remain placed in the care of CD and EF is without substance as CS has no standing to seek a review of that particular decision. [11] The tribunal considers that the application for review by CS should be dismissed under section 47 of that Act. -- 2 of 2 --