CJE - [2014] QCAT 355

CITATION:

CJE [2014] QCAT 355

PARTIES:

CJE

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAA4465-14

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Endicott

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The application for an interim order is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP – where adult with delusional ideation refusing treatment – where adult under a forensic order – where adult in hospital and too unwell to discharge

INTERIM ORDER – where interim appointment of guardian and administrator sought – where Adult Guardian was already statutory health attorney – where no personal decisions other than health care associated with mental illness needed to be currently made – where bills to be paid and some financial liabilities outstanding – where no evidence that adult’s financial position at risk through recovery action or from forfeiture of property

IMMEDIATE RISK OF HARM – where no evidence of immediate risk of harm – where no basis for making interim appointments

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 129

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

CJE is 75 years of age and is an inpatient in an older persons ward at a regional hospital. According to evidence presented to the tribunal, he was diagnosed with a delusional disorder and demonstrated grandiose ideation about his ability to engage in high level business transactions. He demonstrated fixed and inaccurate beliefs regarding his mental state and treatment.
Evidence was presented to the tribunal that CJE had a history of stalking behaviour and potential paraphilic sexual interests and he had been charged with a number of child pornography and child abuse offences together with charges of stalking and breaches of a domestic violence order. He did not identify his mental health difficulties and he did not see a need for clinical intervention.
The evidence provided to the tribunal indicated that there was a basis for a finding that CJE had impaired decision making capacity and that he was likely to act on his delusional ideation, he had poor insight and he would tend to act impulsively without consideration of the consequences.
A social worker from the hospital applied to the tribunal for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for CJE. The tribunal has the power to appoint guardians and administrators to make decisions for adults with impaired decision making capacity. Appointments are made if the tribunal is satisfied that the presumption of capacity has been rebutted by satisfactory evidence and the tribunal is satisfied by the evidence produced at a hearing that there is a need for a decision maker.
The tribunal can make an appointment of a decision maker on an interim basis for up to three months under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 without holding a hearing. The social worker had also applied for an interim appointment. Before an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CJE

Details

AGLC: CJE [2014] QCAT 355
Case: [2014] QCAT 355
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CJE [2014] QCAT 355, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to decide on an application for an interim order regarding the guardianship and administration of CJE, a 75-year-old male inpatient in a regional hospital with a history of delusional disorder, grandiose ideation, and impaired decision-making capacity. The hospital social worker applied for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for CJE, citing his refusal of treatment, his delusions, and his history of inappropriate spending. The tribunal had to determine whether there was an immediate risk of harm to CJE that would justify the interim appointment of a guardian and administrator.

The tribunal examined the evidence presented and considered whether the requirements for an interim order under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 were satisfied. The tribunal found that CJE was currently safe in hospital and subject to a forensic order that allowed for involuntary treatment, making an immediate risk of harm unlikely. Furthermore, the tribunal noted that the Adult Guardian, who was already a statutory health attorney for CJE, was adequately positioned to make any necessary health care decisions outside the scope of the forensic order. As for financial decisions, the tribunal found that while CJE had unpaid bills and was in a history of bankruptcy, there was no evidence of immediate action being taken against him or that his property was at risk of forfeiture.

Based on the evidence, the tribunal concluded that there was no immediate risk of harm to CJE that would warrant the interim appointment of a guardian and administrator. Consequently, the application for an interim order was dismissed.

The tribunal dismissed the application for an interim order in this case, recognising that CJE's current circumstances, while concerning, did not meet the threshold for immediate risk of harm. The tribunal emphasised the importance of ensuring that any decision to appoint a guardian or administrator is based on solid evidence of immediate risk, rather than on the mere existence of financial liabilities or unpaid bills. The tribunal's decision highlights the need for a balanced approach to the protection of vulnerable adults, taking into account their current situation and the support mechanisms already in place.

Orders