BO (No2) (Guardianship)

[2003] TASGAB 2

Guardianship and Administration Board
Launceston (by telephone from Hobart)

BO, on the application of ANNA PERCIVAL.

BO (No2) (Guardianship) [2003] TASGAB 2

REASONS FOR DECISION

Anita Smith (President)

8 February 2003

Emergency guardianship order – circumstances of urgency -  proposed represented person in respite care and proposed to be returned to residence with a person suspected of physically abusing her

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 s.65

This is an application under part 8 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 for an emergency guardian to be appointed for BO.

BO is a 23 year old woman who has an intellectual disability as a result of having Downs Syndrome.  The applicant, Anna Percival, is Coordinator of Adult Respite at Hobart in Tasmania (the “Respite Service”).

The Board first was contacted indirectly on Saturday evening when Margaret Colville left a telephone message and had a discussion with the Senior Investigation Liaison Officer. I was contacted directly at noon on Saturday 8 February 2003 by Margaret Colville, Deputy Public Guardian.  Ms Colville indicated that an order was likely to be necessary as the result of alleged physical abuse of BO and she the referred the Board to Ms Percival for further information.

Ms Percival gave evidence in a telephone interview to the following effect:

• BO is a long term client of the Respite Service.  She has usual and planned stays at the Respite Service, however, it is also usual for her mother and primary carer to extend such stays by failing to collect her from respite.

• The applicant has known the proposed represented person since September 2002, but is aware that she is a long term client of the Respite Services and Disability Services.

• BO’s disability presents her with a cognitive disability that impairs her ability to gather, process and contextualise information.  For instance, in recent days, she has been teary due to being scared that she will get in trouble with her mother if she goes home.  On the other hand she has been wanting to go home because she misses her mother.  She has difficulty with social relationships.  She is not experienced at making any significant life decisions and does not have the capacity to do so.  BO is capable of taking care of all her own physical needs, sometimes with prompting, but generally independently.

• BO lives in a complex and unpredictable home life.  Her mother has significant social stresses and since Christmas has also been coping with the poor recovery from an operation.

• Over Christmas 2002, BO’s mother, SP, had unplanned surgery for a hernia and her recovery was complicated by an infection.  As a result of that, BO was taken to the Respite Service between 15 and 17 January 2003.

• On 20 January 2003, BO was again admitted to the Respite Service for emergency accommodation.  It was agreed with her mother that she would be collected on 22 January 2003.   A letter was hand delivered to the Respite Service from SP.  It stated that SP had received bad news about her son DP in Sydney that had been a shock.  As a result, the letter stated, SP was unwell.  She asked the Respite Service to return BO home on 27 January 2003 and at that stage BO’s brother, NP, would take over primary care of her.  The letter stated a need for Michael to have support for BO’s care, due to his own delicate medical state. 

• NP is highly involved in BO’s care and this letter is not an unusual occurrence in the relationship between the Respite Service and SP.  The Respite Service has been unable to contact either person’s responsible since delivery of the letter despite leaving numerous answering machine messages.  BO’s stays are never well planned and this causes trauma for BO.

• On Wednesday 22 January 2003, the applicant spoke to BO and she mentioned having sore arms.  On Thursday 23 January 2003, BO showed staff at the Respite Service that some marks on her arm and stated that her mother had burnt her with a cigarette.  Staff contacted the applicant.  BO repeated the same statement to the applicant.

• The applicant then took BO to see Dr Mudge, a GP at the Hopkins Street Clinic and Sgt Pat Allen at the Glenorchy Police Station, to whom she repeated the same statement.

• On Friday 25 January 2003, BO attended the Police Station in Liverpool Street, Hobart for the purpose of photographing the marks on her arm.  She was accompanied by Rebecca Thompson, advocate and the applicant. 

• It was not until Friday, 7 February 2003, that Police were able to conduct a video interview with BO.  She spoke with Officer Lee Adams and another Police Officer, whose name was Michael, in a video interview.  Her account of the origin of the marks on her arm was clear and consistent with all previous statements. As a result of that interview, Police have indicated that they intend to interview SP on Tuesday or Wednesday the 11/12th February 2003.

• BO was pre-booked by her mother to attend the Respite Service between 11 February 2003 and 16 February 2003.

• The urgency arises because BO is, already, overdue for collection to return home with SP and has been so since 27 January 2003.  Should SP or any member of her family arrive for collection of BO, the Respite Service has no option but to send her home if that is BO’s wish.  To do so would be to return her to a place where she is alleging violence has been perpetrated upon her and where Police investigations are continuing into that allegation.

• The applicant stated she had no personal knowledge of a history of violence in the P home.   However, she did believe that BO would experience great distress.  This was on the basis that BO has already been making grossly inconsistent statements about her desire to return home, on one hand, and her need to stay in the Respite Service for her own safety, on the other.

• Additionally, there is a possibility, although it appeared remote, that SP has abandoned her home, perhaps temporarily.  Some staff tending to SP in her home reported that they have not been able to make contact.  The Respite Service has also been unable to contact any family member.  The staff assisting SP reported that she may have moved to Sydney. 

• There is possible danger of retribution against BO following Police intervention.  There may also be a need to consider urgently the accommodation issues for BO if the contents of SP’s letter are correct. 

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is proper by reason of urgency to make an order for to appoint the Public Guardian as a limited guardian in this matter for the purposes of accommodation.  The order will expire on 7 March 2003.

The applicant was informed by telephone that an order would be granted.  Margaret Colville, Deputy Public Guardian undertook to inform BO of the decision personally within one hour (by approx 2.00 pm) and the reasons for it.