AM

[2015] WASAT 87

AM [2015] WASAT 87

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2015] WASAT 87
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:72/2015	Heard:	1 MAY 2015
Coram:	MS F CHILD (MEMBER)	Delivered:	17/08/15
No of pages:	44	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Guardian appointed Administrator appointed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AM JM TM
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration ­ Represented person young adult with intellectual disability ­ Allegations of neglect and financial abuse not substantiated ­ Conflict between parents ­ Need for clear authority in decision­making ­ Public Advocate appointed to determine contact ­ Mother appointed for all other guardianship functions
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43(1)(b), s 44, s 44(1), s 44(2), s 64(1), s 68, s 68(1), s 68(3), s 97, s 112(4), s 110ZD(b) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32, s 77
Case References:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336 Edna May Collins by her next friend Glenys Lesley Larraine Poletti v May [2000] WASC 29 KWD [2011] WASAT 4 S v State Administrative Tribunal [2012] WASC 306
Summary	Applications filed by JM sought his appointment as guardian and as administrator of the estate of AM, his 27-year-old son who has an intellectual disability.  JM made allegations that AM's mother, JM's estranged wife, had neglected AM's hygiene and health since their separation a year before.  JM also said that the mother had misappropriated or intended to misappropriate AM's funds. ,The Tribunal found that due to his intellectual disability, AM was reliant on others for decision-making in all aspects of his life and was a person for whom both guardianship and administration orders could be made.,Although the Tribunal did not accept the allegations made by the father, because of the ongoing conflict between AM's parents and their inability to agree about decisions for him, the Tribunal determined that guardianship and administration orders were needed to provide clear authority and certainty for personal decision-making for AM, and formal authority and transparency in the decisions made about his estate. ,Regarding the allegations of neglect, the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the Public Advocate's investigator that the investigation had revealed that those involved in contact with AM, including service providers and his doctor, had reported that the mother provided appropriate personal care for AM.  ,The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as guardian to make decisions about the contact AM had with JM in the course of the proceedings due to the continuing conflict between the parents about this issue. ,Despite the finding that AM's personal care needs were met and that informal decision-making had been operating all his life, the Tribunal determined that the level of conflict between the parents meant that informal decision­making could not continue and that decisions about AM's personal care should be formalised, and guardianship orders with functions to decide where AM should live, to determine the services to which he should have access, and to make treatment decisions on his behalf should be made. ,The Tribunal found…