CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION and DJC

The case involved an application by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Child Protection for the appointment of a guardian for a person with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical issues. The court had to determine whether the person required a guardian and, if so, who should be appointed to that role. The legal issues centred on the criteria for appointing a guardian under the Guardianship and Administration Act, the availability of less restrictive alternatives, and the meaning of the phrase 'primary provider of care and support but is not remunerated for providing that care and support' in the context of appointing a person responsible for the person with disability.

The court examined the statutory framework and concluded that the person did require a guardian due to their severe cognitive impairment and medical needs. The court also found that while a less restrictive alternative, such as a person responsible, could be considered, it was not appropriate in this case as the person's medical conditions required a higher level of care and support than could be provided by a person responsible. The court determined that the phrase 'primary provider of care and support but is not remunerated for providing that care and support' referred to someone who provides significant care and support to the person with disability but is not compensated for that role. The court found that no such person was available in this case, and therefore, a guardian was necessary. The court appointed the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Child Protection as the guardian for the represented person.