BEKM (Guardianship and Administration) - [2011] TASGAB 23

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
LAUNCESTON

BEKM – Application for the appointment of an administrator on the application of Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees

BEKM (Guardianship and Administration) [2011] TASGAB 23

REASONS FOR DECISION

Anita Smith (President)
Kate Brown (Member)
Rowena Holder (Member)

Dates of hearing: 12 April 2011 and 21 September 2011

Administration – best interests of the represented person – income arising from trusts – role of trustee vs. role of an administrator – requirements of vigorous independence in an administrator – relevance of deceased parents’ wishes
Guardianship – need for a guardian – best interests of the represented person - represented person’s dependence on one private carer – no access to external service providers – carer too focussed on represented person’s challenging behaviours – carer possible conflict of interests regarding accommodation decisions – guardian required to ensure continuing engagement with external services

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 sections 6, 20, 51

BEKM is a 52 year old man with severe autism. He has not developed the capacity to speak. Both his parents are deceased. He is the beneficiary of three trusts established by his late father, KXM, under the terms of his will. Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees were appointed as the trustees of these trusts. On 28 February 2011, the trustee applied to the Board for appointment as his administrator to manage financial matters arising from BEKM’s income from the trusts.
Before appointing an administrator, the Board must be satisfied that BEKM is a person with a disability, that his disability renders him incapable of making reasonable judgments about his estate and that he is in need of an administrator (section 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act)). If satisfied of each of these matters, the Board can appoint an administrator according to the criteria in section 54 of the Act.
When the Board hears an application for the appointment of an administrator for BEKM, it is also empowered by section 20 of the Act to appoint a guardian if it is satisfied that his disability also renders him incapable of making reasonable judgments about his person and circumstances and is in need of a guardian. If satisfied of these criteria, the Board must assess the eligibility of any proposed guardians according to criteria in section 21 of the Act.

Process of the application:

According to the application, BEKM receives income of approximately $30,000.00 per annum from the KXM Estate Trusts. The application noted ES as carer for BEKM and the only ‘interested party’ to the application with both men living at the same address. The application also noted that ES is paid $680.00 per fortnight for board and lodgings. ES is the Disability Services Manager for XXXX., a disability support agency.
The application was accompanied by a completed pro forma Health Care Professional Report from Dr. Felicity Wivell also dated 23 February 2011. Dr. Wivell’s report noted that she had not personally examined BEKM since 2007.
The Board obtained routine financial confirmation from Bendigo Bank regarding the status of BEKM’s account which noted a balance of $59.95 and ES as signatory on the account.
The Board’s Compliance Officer, Lee Perry, conducted the pre-hearing investigation into the application. The applicant confirmed to Mr. Perry that BEKM has no Tax File Number and that his estate is made up as follows:
·$68,332.00 as cash in a beneficiary account
·A life interest in the proceeds of sale of a property at XXXX (capital value $26,476.00)
·Entitlement to a residuary trust (capital value $776,688.99)
By email dated 31 March 2011, the Compliance Officer asked ES for a history of his involvement with BEKM. ES replied on 1 April 2011 that:
·He had been associated with the M family for approximately 40 years.
·He had been caring for BEKM in his private home at XXXX since 10 years before KXM died on 6 October 1990.
·On account of BEKM’s behavioural problems, he had made a promise to his family to care for BEKM.
·An administration order was required to ensure the security of BEKM’s finances into the future.

The first hearing:

The application was listed for hearing on 12 April 2011. Trisha Bryan and Jon Ellings, from Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees, and ES attended the hearing.
Despite the deficits in Dr. Wivell’s report, there was never any dispute that BEKM is a person with a disability and is incapable of making reasonable financial judgments. At the first hearing, discussion centred upon the existing financial and personal arrangements for BEKM.
The applicant confirmed that an administration order was required primarily to obtain a Tax File Number to comply with new taxation requirements on estates coming into effect on 1 July 2011. To date none of BEKM’s income from the KXM estate has been declared to the Australian Taxation Office and it is possible he may have a tax bill. At the first hearing the applicant also noted that their agency did not have authority to manage the funds in the income account, although this was later retracted.
ES’ evidence at the hearing was that BEKM’s father, the late KXM, was a founder of XXXX which commenced operations in 1970 and ES worked closely with him. BEKM was a resident at XXXX until approximately 1979 when he was 20 years old. The late KXM and ES apparently agreed at that time that BEKM’s behaviour was too challenging to be managed at XXXX, so he moved to ES’ home and has remained there ever since. BEKM is now 52 years old. Although other persons stay at ES’ house from time to time, ES and BEKM are the only permanent residents.
At the hearing, the Board discussed the terms of BEKM’s father’s will. The late KXM made a Will on 18 August 1989 and died on 6 October 1990. Clause 3 of the will gifts a property at XXXX to BEKM (since liquidated) for use and occupation during his lifetime as well as a separate $30,000.00 fund for the maintenance of that property. Clause 5 of the will creates a residuary trust fund for the maintenance and benefit of BEKM during his lifetime. All three trusts have slightly different terms and ultimate beneficiaries. The ultimate beneficiary of the real estate trust and the residuary trust after BEKM’s death is “XXXX or such other institution as may be caring for him at the time of his death”. This is puzzling as the will is written as if BEKM was in the care of XXXX at the time of writing but the evidence appears to suggest that he was well aware that BEKM was in ES’ care. ES was separately recognised in the Will with a gift of $20,000.00 (clause 4).
ES confirmed at the first hearing that:
·     BEKM is usually at home alone during the day when ES is at work.
·     BEKM accompanies ES on holidays.
·     There is no present connection between XXXX and BEKM and there has not been for many years.
·     BEKM has not seen his GP for 4 years and has no Disability Services service co-ordinator.
·     BEKM does not attend any day programs and is not connected with any external service providers.
·     Disability services generally have developed significantly in the past 30 years and it is possible that services that were unable to cope with BEKM 30 years ago, may be able to cope with him now.

The Board’s concern at the first hearing was that BEKM’s sole conduit to the external world is ES. None of the information provided about his quality of life, apart from financial information, came to the Board independently of ES’ reports.
At the conclusion of the first hearing date, the Board made an interim order appointing the Public Trustee as administrator with full powers and directions to investigate statements of expenditure in the estate over the last few years to ascertain whether the expenditure appears to have been for BEKM’s benefit. The Board also invited each of the trustee companies to provide opinions on whether or not ES will become eligible upon BEKM’s death (if death occurred while BEKM was in his care) to inherit pursuant to clause 5 of the will of KXM and, if ES did not become eligible, what will most likely happen to the estate?
The Board also made an interim guardianship order appointing the Public Guardian to undertake the following actions:
·     Arrange a full medical examination with a report, preferably by an independent medical practitioner
·     If necessary, refer BEKM to a specialist in behaviour management techniques for assessment and recommendations
·     Assess the adequacy of accommodation for BEKM at XXXX, particularly noting arrangements for periods when ES is at work
·     Investigate what other day services and accommodation services might be suitable for BEKM and whether it remains the case that BEKM’s behaviour is too challenging for a Disability Service Provider
·     Investigate whether BEKM has regular access to any members of his family or persons independent of ES
·     Provide a report to the Board of the result of these investigations prior to the final hearing of the application

The Board gave ES and XXXX an opportunity to respond to the above issues in correspondence sent to all parties on 15 April 2011. That correspondence outline the dilemma that the Board perceived regarding ES’ role as follows:
“The Board is concerned that at the moment ES has a conflict of interests in that he is the informal decision maker for BEKM on all personal matters and provides directions to Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees as to the management of his financial affairs. The conflict of interests arises as follows: ES is aware that whichever institution houses BEKM at the time of his death will be the ultimate beneficiary of the estate. There is a slim, but probably not very likely chance that ES might become that beneficiary. More likely, if as Dr Wivell suggests in her report, there needs to be a decision made in the future about BEKM’s admission to a care facility, ES will have a conflict of interests in making that decision because of his employment and long association with XXXX and the possibility of a significant financial benefit to that organisation.”

Responses to correspondence from the Board following the first hearing:

ES: ES did not provide a written response to the Board’s letter.
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees: Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees responded by letter dated 6 May 2011. They denied having a conflict of interest. The correspondence from the Board did not suggest that Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees had a conflict (only ES), but this misunderstanding was a feature of their response both in this letter and at the second hearing. The Trustees’ letter alerted the Board to clause 11 in KXM’s will requesting consultation by the Trustee with ES and EMN according to the terms of the trust. They provided EMN’s contact details and also alerted the Board to the existence of BEKM’s sister, EC.
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees expressed the view that ES has no entitlement whatsoever to the ultimate distribution of the KXM estate. They expressed the view that XXXX ought to be given primary consideration with regard to a future time when BEKM needs to be admitted to care because of KXM’s close association with that care provider. No file notes were available to inform the issue of why KXM’s will was written as though BEKM was living at XXXX when, on ES’ evidence, KXM had known for 10 years that BEKM had been living with ES.
XXXX.: XXXX. responded to the Board by letter dated 24 May 2011. XXXX accepted an invitation to attend the hearing and noted its confidence in ES as a carer. They stated that there were no archival records relating to BEKM’s residence at XXXX. XXXX stated that they had “responsibilities to BEKM and KXM and his responsibility has been maintained fiducially or at arm’s length between ES (an Employee of XXXX) and BEKM.” The Board can see no legal basis for the relationship so described.
The Public Trustee: The Public Trustee responded to the Board by letter dated 14 June 2011. They had assumed control of $127,590.37 from the Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees fund on BEKM’s behalf. (It is not clear why this sum had increased so much from the advice to the Board noted in paragraph 7 herein.) The Public Trustee had assessed from records supplied by Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees that, with the exception of $60,000.00 in March 2011 for the purchase of a caravan paid from the discretionary trust, all payments appeared to be reasonable and in BEKM’s best interests. They noted that a request for information from ES about the budgeting of the regular allowance had not generated a response. The letter supplied some information about BEKM’s possible eligibility for a Centrelink part-pension. The Public Trustee expressed concern about taxation implications of BEKM’s income from the trust and the fact that tax had not been paid. (By letter dated 24 June 2011, Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees stated that they had identified to ES a need to complete tax returns since 2009, but this had stalled due to various factors until the law changed prompting a review of the situation.)
In respect of the question of ES’ status under the KXM Estate, the Public Trustee expressed an opposite view to Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees; essentially that, depending upon the manner in which ES structures his affairs in the future, there is a remote possibility that he may be further entitled from that estate after BEKM’s death and if BEKM is not in an institution at the time of his death, a partial intestacy may result.
EC: The Board’s Compliance officer made telephone contact, on 31 August 2011, with EC who indicated that she has never had anything to do with BEKM and knows little of his circumstances. She declined to be involved in the proceedings.
The Public Guardian: The Public Guardian provided a report dated 6 June 2011. That report relied mostly upon the information supplied by ES and, contrary to the request of the Board, did not draw any conclusions with regard to the adequacy of the accommodation or the arrangements for BEKM at home alone for the working day. When prompted by email, the Public Guardian’s delegate noted by return email dated 15 June 2011 that BEKM is not at any risk in the house, although she had concerns about the time he spends alone. She also noted that an attempt to obtain the full medical assessment had not been successful and alternative arrangements were being made.
The Public Guardian submitted a pro forma Health Care Professional Report completed by Dr Jan Radford. That report confirmed the diagnosis of autism and that BEKM lacks capacity to make personal or financial decisions. She noted that ES appears to be doing a fine job as his carer.
The Public Guardian did not ultimately achieve a full medical examination of BEKM as Dr Radford considered that BEKM’s behavioural problems would prevent the assessment.
On 21 August 2011, the Public Guardian submitted a report by Dr. Larry Cashion, Specialist Consultant Psychologist. Dr Cashion confirmed the other reports of BEKM having autism and noted a significant level of intellectual disability. He concluded that:
“BEKM’s home environment is appropriate, with reasonable levels of care and safety in place. … However, it has been many years since BEKM has been provided with the opportunity to engage in activities supervised by skilled workers outside the home. It is my opinion that BEKM should be provided with such opportunities to potentially improve his quality of life and enhance his wellbeing. I would acknowledge that there are risks associated with BEKM engaging in activities outside the home under supervision of individuals other than ES, his primary carer. However the potential positive outcomes for BEKM suggest that the risks are reasonable at this time. As such, I have recommended a trial of BEKM engaging with structured programs and with suitable services at this time.”
“As stated above, it is my opinion that BEKM is not so profoundly intellectually disabled to have no capacity to interact in a meaningful way with his environment. Indeed, while I have no doubt that ES’ beliefs in regard to BEKM’s emotional and behavioural capacity are driven by genuine concern, the reality is that BEKM has not been provided with the opportunity for experiences he might benefit from. … It is my experience with service providers that they have sufficient skills to recommend trialling programs and services for BEKM outside the home in any case.”
Dr Cashion recommended the appointment of a disability case manager. He wrote approvingly of ES’ reliability and appropriateness as a carer for BEKM and strongly recommended against a change in residence or accommodation. But he also stated:
“BEKM has supports in terms of people to look after him when ES is not available, but this does not, in my opinion, substitute for genuine engagement with services and programmes outside the home.

The second hearing:

The application was re-listed for hearing on 17 June 2011, but adjourned because the Public Guardian had not furnished all requested information. The matter returned for hearing on 21 September 2011. The following persons attended the hearing:
ES - carer
EMN – person consulted under the terms of KXM’s will
Scott Robson – Speakout, disability advocate
KH – CEO, XXXX Association
Phillip Wheeldon, Susan McLaren, Jon Ellings – Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees (applicant)
Gaylene Cunningham, Tim Levis – The Public Trustee
Patricia Clarke – The Public Guardian
From the Board’s perspective, it was pleasing to see greater external involvement in BEKM’s life, simply with the additional persons attending the hearing and contributing information to the Board.
At the commencement of the hearing the Board confirmed with parties attending that there were 2 issues outstanding from the first hearing: (i) who should be appointed as BEKM’s administrator and (ii) whether BEKM is in need of a guardian? The parties agreed that these were the questions for determination.

Who should be appointed as BEKM’s administrator:

Only the two trustee companies were available for appointment as administrator for BEKM. Both trustee companies are eligible for appointment by the Board without the need for the Board to consider the eligibility criteria in section 54(1)(d) of the Act. Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited indicated that they were open to appointment of either their company or the Public Trustee. Essentially two arguments were put forward as to why Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees ought to be appointed as administrator:
(a) Because it reflects the wishes of the late KXM as set out in his will (the first argument).
(b) Because they have an established relationship with ES and BEKM which has been successful (the second argument).
With regard to the first argument, it can have limited weight only. The late KXM made his assessments as to what was in his son’s best interests some 22 years ago. The company he appointed was Tasmanian Trustees Limited. Both the company and his son have undergone significant changes in the intervening 22 years, meaning the unknown factors that dictated that choice may well have altered. Additionally, the Board is not required to assess the wishes of a long since deceased testator except to the extent that the deceased testator’s wishes align with BEKM’s best interests.
In terms of BEKM’s best interests and the second argument, the Board took into account the following evidence and conclusions available on the evidence:
·Whether BEKM’s income is held by Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited or the Public Trustee, he will be charged commission and fees on that income. The Board assesses that the Public Trustee’s fees are significantly lower than Tasmanian Trustees Limited.
·Staff members of the Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited could not recall any request by ES for expenditure that had ever been denied. Neither could they recall ever having received a request or suggestion for expenditure from any person other than ES. There appeared to the Board to be an easy reliance on ES’ advice without vigorous independence (as described in Holt and Anor. V. Protective Commisioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227 in pages 242-243) in assessing whether arrangements for BEKM are really suitable and in his best interests.
·Taxation arrangements for BEKM had remained unresolved for a significant period of time. This issue demonstrated the confusion about Tasmanian Trustees Limited’s authority to manage BEKM’s income account. If Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited had such authority, then why did they rely upon ES to arrange a tax file number?
·BEKM’s isolation from services and complete reliance upon ES.

The Board considers that, given his past annual expenditure and the amount of savings held by the Public Trustee, there is no currently obvious need for BEKM to have call upon the funds in the KXM Estate Trust other than for the regular distribution of income.
The will of KXM requests but does not oblige that the trustees seek advice from ES and EMN on all matters related to BEKM’s welfare. The trustees stated that they have also historically sought advice from XXXX. From what the Board observed at the hearing, it is highly unlikely that EMN or XXXX has ever or would ever hold a view contrary to ES’. Therefore as trustee, Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited is essentially reliant upon ES’ advice.
As administrator, Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited’s duties and obligations would be different to their current duties as trustee. For instance, Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited as trustees have duties to the eventual beneficiaries of the estate, an administrator does not. Most importantly, an administrator is required to exercise its powers according to the principles in section 6 of the Act. Decisions that may objectively enhance BEKM’s best interests or his freedom of decision and action as required by section 6 of the Act (such as facilitating recommendations by Dr Cashion) may be at variance with advice that ES may give. From the Board’s observation, the current mechanics of the relationship between ES and staff members of Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited are not conducive to easily dealing with that potentiality.
The Board took the view, because of the fee structures, that appointment of the Public Trustee is more economical than appointment of Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited. However its main reason for the preference of the Public Trustee is that their appointment provides a new layer of accountability in the day-to-day arrangements for BEKM. Appointment of the Public Trustee sets up a ‘fresh set of eyes’ with regard to day-to-day arrangements. It will refresh BEKM’s financial independence to have the Public Trustee review his budget and expenditure. The Board encourages new expenditure in assessments or rehabilitation with a view to encouraging BEKM’s development of greater networks and resources for rehabilitation or more independent engagement with the community.
Therefore the Board exercised its discretion to appoint the Public Trustee as administrator for BEKM. The Board recommends that a budget is established by the administrator in relation to the payment of the represented person’s board and appropriate carer’s fees for ES and has sought a report on same within 3 months.

Is BEKM in need of a guardian?

BEKM’s current care regime and structure was set up when the community’s understanding of autism and challenging behaviours was in its infancy. The late Mr and Mrs KXM and were enlightened persons who withdrew their son from an institution in Hobart in the 1970s and assisted in the foundation of XXXX as part of the evolution of modern disability practice. When XXXX was ill-equipped to care for BEKM, he was assigned to ES’ sole care. The evolution of disability services has continued apace but BEKM’s care regime has not received a critical overhaul in 32 years.
It was common amongst all evidence before the Board that BEKM ought to remain resident at ES’ home for as long as is possible. Discussion of the need for a guardian centred upon Dr Cashion’s recommendations for more external supports for BEKM.
At the second hearing, ES informed the Board that he has recently sought a disability advocate for BEKM and had registered BEKM with Baptcare disability service coordination for the purpose of obtaining independent points of view regarding BEKM’s care. He hedged his answers regarding implementing recommendations in Dr. Cashion’s report with examples of BEKM’s ‘explosive behaviour’ and warnings of possible dire consequences of trying to introduce BEKM too quickly to the community.
ES acknowledged that times have changed and that BEKM has changed also. He said that following the first Board hearing he asked himself: “Why didn’t I look at the same type of thing that I would do with any other client that comes into the services?” He admitted that he had left arrangements the same way that BEKM’s parents had left them and that he should have reviewed the arrangements earlier, possibly when BEKM’s parents died. ES told the hearing that he had no objection to the appointment of a guardian for independent oversight of a process to encourage greater participation by BEKM with independent services.
KH and EMN both made submissions about the good character and worthiness of ES as a carer. EMN stated that he had witnessed the property damage allegedly resulting from BEKM’s behavioural issues.
Mr. Robson, as disability advocate, was unable to ascertain any wishes that BEKM may have with regard to the application. He had however observed him in the company of ES and urged that any interventions be undertaken in a progressive manner and taking time to adjust to changes. Mr. Robson indicated that in his view a guardian may only be needed for 3 years to ensure the transition to new supports.
Ms. Clarke on behalf of the Public Guardian submitted that BEKM ought to be given the opportunity to have skilled case managers. However she did not believe there was a need for a guardian now that BEKM has a disability advocate.
It was certainly a positive step, prompted by the Board’s intervention, that ES had engaged a disability advocate for BEKM and that he has listed him with Baptcare for the allocation of a service coordinator. Despite the plaudits from XXXX and EMN about ES’ skills as a disability carer, ES admitted that, by not making these arrangements previously, he had not afforded BEKM the benefits that his other clients at XXXX have enjoyed. The current situation is that BEKM is completely dependent upon ES for nutrition and personal care, communication, socialisation, education, access to medical support and services. With such an extreme level of dependence comes an extreme level of control.

ES has developed entrenched ways of thinking and speaking about BEKM. Each of the independent reports stressed BEKM’s behavioural issues. ES is the source of all such reports. None of the reports indicate any positive behaviour support programs implemented for BEKM. All of ES’ responses at the hearing to possible changes related back to the dangers that BEKM presents to himself or others. EMN gave an independent account related to the physical damage to property he had seen, but not BEKM acting in this way. The Board has no independent description of the behaviours or their level of severity.
It is not unusual for a person with autism, especially one who lacks verbal ability, to have challenging behaviours. It has not been suggested to the Board that BEKM is uniquely destructive or completely uncontrollable. Because he has been privately funded, he has missed out on the developments in the disability services sector towards development of positive behaviour support plans. Also because he has been privately funded, BEKM has not benefited from the opinions of other professionals whether the current care regime is the one that best reduces incidents of challenging behaviours or promotes his quality of life. Even visits to the general practitioner have been rare.
The Board does not deny that BEKM has challenging behaviours. However, like Dr. Cashion, we are not satisfied on the evidence that such behaviours are so severe as to exclude his eligibility for appropriately trained disability day services and other supports. Access to other services will reduce the level of dependence and control between BEKM and ES and be a protective factor towards the eventual day when ES is no longer able to care for BEKM.
Given ES’ focus on BEKM’s behaviour, the Board is concerned that without a guardian all efforts towards genuine engagement with services and programs outside the home might be stymied, stalled or eventually discouraged by ES’ concerns about BEKM’s behaviours. Contrary to the Public Guardian’s submissions, the Board is not satisfied that the current contact with an advocate will sufficiently address its concerns.
Additionally, the Board continues to hold the concerns about ES having a conflict of interests with regard to future accommodation options for BEKM and a possible bias towards future care at XXXX (also expressed by the trustee in its correspondence). The existence of an external guardian, disability services coordinator and advocate, means that if all are engaged at the time this decision is eventually made, there will exist a range of persons to contribute views about possible accommodation providers and BEKM’s best interests. If that decision should promote conflict between care providers, the guardian would be expected to apply to the Board for a review of the terms of the order.
Accordingly, the Board was satisfied that BEKM is in need of a limited guardian. There were no nominations for guardian. The Board is satisfied that the Public Guardian is the most eligible guardian under the terms of section 21 of the Act, being free of any conflicts of interest and compatible with the appointed administrator.
To ensure that the engagement with an advocate and a service coordinator remain, the Board has required that the Public Guardian report every 6 months on BEKM’s progress towards independence and participation in the community.

Conclusion:

After hearing an application for the appointment of an administrator in respect of BEKM (hereinafter called the ‘represented person’)

The Board was satisfied that the represented person

·is a person with a disability, and
·is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of his estate, and his person and circumstances; and
·is in need of an administrator and a guardian;

THE BOARD ORDERS

That The Public Trustee be appointed as the represented person’s administrator.
That the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995.
That the administrator is to report to the Board within 3 months of this order to ensure that a budget has been established in relation to payment of the represented person’s board and appropriate carer’s fees for the represented person’s carer.
That the Public Guardian be appointed as the represented person’s guardian.
That the powers and duties of the guardian are limited to:

Ensuring the ongoing engagement of an independent advocate and case manager for the represented person to encourage his participation in the life of the community.
To facilitate the represented person’s access to services, including day services.
The ability to access personal information about the represented person, to transport the represented person to and from attendance at a day service or appointments with advocates, case managers, medical practitioners, psychologists or behaviour management specialists, to visit the represented person at his home, to disclose personal information about the represented person to relevant practitioners, providers of disability advocacy and support and all other activities necessary to exercise the powers in clauses 5(i) and 5(ii) of this order.

That the guardian is to report to the Board every 6 months on the progress made under clauses 5(i) & 5(ii) above towards the represented person’s independence and participation in the life of the community.
That the order remains in effect to 20 September 2014

Anita Smith Kate Brown Rowena Holder
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER