BJW v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2010] QCAT 672

CITATION: BJW v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2010] QCAT 672 PARTIES: BJW v Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) APPLICATION NUMBER: CML153-10 MATTER TYPE: Children’s matters HEARING DATE: 20 December 2010 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: C Endicott, senior member DELIVERED ON: 20 December 2010 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Application for review is dismissed CATCHWORDS : CHILD PROTECTION – application to review decision about contact - child not in the care of the respondent – no jurisdiction to review decision made by Children’s Court – application has no substance – early end to the proceedings- section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties. -- 1 of 3 -- REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 22 September 2010 BJW lodged an application with the tribunal to review a decision made by the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) about his contact with his daughter. 2. On 1 October 2010 the tribunal registry was informed by the Department that no decision had been made by the Department about contact between BJW and his daughter. The tribunal registry was informed that child protection proceedings about BJW’s daughter were then currently in the Children’s Court and that an interim order had been made by the Children’s Court on 30 September 2010 directing BJW not to have contact with the child other than when supervised by an authorised officer. 3. The tribunal registry was informed that the child was not in the custody of the Department and that the Department had no authority to make any contact decisions about the child. The Department submitted that there had been no reviewable decision made by the Department and that the application for review should be dismissed. 4. On 2 December 2010 an officer in the tribunal registry wrote to BJW and asked for submissions as to why the review application should proceed in the tribunal. On 3 December 2010 BJW telephoned the tribunal registry and was told that the contact restrictions had been imposed by the Children’s Court and the tribunal could not review the decisions of the Court. 5. On 6 December 2010 the tribunal registry wrote to BJW informing him that the child was not in the care of the Department and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed with the review. BJW was informed that the tribunal would consider the application on the papers after 17 December 2010. There was no response from BJW to that letter. 6. Under section 247 of the Child Protection Act 1999 the tribunal is given jurisdiction to review decisions which are described as reviewable decisions. Schedule 2 of that Act sets out the category of decisions that are reviewable decisions. Included in the category of reviewable decisions are decisions made under section 87 of the Child Protection Act 1999 by which the chief executive of the Department of Communities has restricted or imposed conditions on contact between a parent and a child. 7. Section 87 is found in Division 4 of Part 6 of that Act. Section 81 states that the sections in Division 4 apply if the chief executive of the Department has custody or guardianship of a child under the Act. If a child is not in the custody of the chief executive of the Department then there is no power by which the Department can make contact decisions about that child. 8. BJW’s daughter was not in the custody of the Department as of 22 September 2010. There had been no reviewable decision made by the Department under section 87 of the Child Protection Act 1999 about her as of 22 September 2010. The Children’s Court subsequently made an order restricting contact between BJW’s daughter and BJW on 30 September 2010 but the tribunal has no jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Children’s Court. -- 2 of 3 -- 9. 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. 10. The tribunal has an obligation to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. For the reasons set out in paragraph 8, this review application is lacking in substance as there is no reviewable decision made by the Department about BJW’s daughter. To continue with the review would be an abuse of process. It is appropriate to bring an early end to the review application under section 47. 11. The review application must be dismissed in accordance with section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. -- 3 of 3 --