OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation (No. 2)
[2022] QCHC 30
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation (No. 2)[2022] QCHC 30
- Add to List
OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation (No. 2)[2022] QCHC 30
OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation (No. 2)[2022] QCHC 30
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation & Anor (No. 2) [2022] QChC 30 |
PARTIES: | OWM (appellant) v DIRECTOR OF CHILD PROTECTION LITIGATION (first respondent) and DKM (second respondent) and HAZRABEE MUSTAFFA |
FILE NO: | 230/22 |
DIVISION: | Appellate |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal pursuant to s 117 of the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Childrens Court Queensland |
DELIVERED ON: | 13 October 2022 (ex tempore) |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 13 October 2022 |
JUDGE: | Dearden DCJ |
ORDER: | The appeal is struck out |
CATCHWORDS: | MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where the appeal was in relation to an interim child protection order made against the appellant – where a final child protection order was made on 15 September 2022 |
LEGISLATION: | Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) s 67 |
CASES: | OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation [2022] QCHC 19 |
COUNSEL: | OWM (self-represented) for the appellant P Wijesoma for the first respondent No appearance for the second respondent H Mustaffa for the separate representative |
SOLICITORS: | OWM (self-represented) for the appellant Office of the Director of Child Protection Litigation for the first respondent No appearance for the second respondent H M Lawyers for the separate representative |
Introduction
- [1]In respect of the substantive interim order that was made by the magistrate of the Childrens Court on 20 January 2022, which was an interim child protection order, made pursuant for section 67(1)(b)(ii) of the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) and referred to in paragraph 2 of OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation [2022] QCHC 19,[1] that interim decision was the subject of a notice of appeal filed on 28 January 2022, and the decision that I’ve just handed down and referred to related to an application for this court to allow the introduction of new or fresh evidence on that appeal.
- [2]As a consequence of that application for new/fresh evidence, this court then was unable to proceed in dealing with what was the substantive appeal from the interim order of 20 January 2022. And, consequently, given the delays, which I clearly indicate were matters that concerned me in respect of these proceedings, the proceedings have continued before a magistrate in the Childrens Court, and I’m advised that a final decision is being made by a magistrate on 15 September 2022.
- [3]Pursuant to the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) section 67(5), the interim order of 20 January 2022, has effect for the period of the adjournment, a final order now having been made and, I gather, from OWM, an appeal having been lodged, there is no interim order currently operative on which the substantive appeal in this matter before me currently can operate.
- [4]In those circumstances, the appeal has effectively been subsumed by the subsequent proceedings in the Childrens Court before the magistrate and the making of a final order. That appeal, of course, will come to this court, no doubt, in due course.
- [5]In all of the circumstances, then, the only appropriate order in my view in this court is to make an order that the appeal filed 28 January 2022 be struck out.
- [6]I note for the record that that is not for any reason in respect of the merit of that appeal, and OWM has today, as he has previously, identified clearly and passionately his concern to have an ongoing relationship with his child, and he is concerned about the processes that he has been involved in now for a number of years. I understand that concern, and I respect that concern. But, of course, my obligation is to deal with the law as set out in the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) and the circumstances which have unfolded. And, unfortunately, because of the delays in these proceedings, the matter has proceeded to a stage where a final order has been made by a magistrate in the Children’s Court and the appeal from that, of course, will be on all of the material that was before that magistrate and will, of course, come before a judge of this court in due course, subject to directions about how that appeal is to be conducted.
Order
- [7]As I’ve just identified, in the order that I’ve made, the current appeal is struck out.
Footnotes
[1] OWM v Director of Child Protection Litigation [2022] QCHC 19 [2].