DJ
[2014] QCAT 619
•18 November 2014
| CITATION: | DJ [2014] QCAT 619 |
| PARTIES: | DJ |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA5428-14; GAA7513-14; GAA8664-14; GAA9271-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | 25 August 2014 and 15 October 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Goodman |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 November 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | GUARDIANSHIP 1. The Public Guardian is appointed as guardian for DJ for the following personal matters: (a) With whom DJ has contact and/or visits; (b) Health care. 2. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in three (3) years. ADMINISTRATION 3. The Public Trustee of Queensland is appointed as administrator for DJ for all financial matters. 4. The administrator is to provide a financial management plan to the Tribunal within four (4) months. 5. The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal when requested. 6. This appointment of The Public Trustee of Queensland remains current until further order of the Tribunal. NOTICE OF INTEREST IN LAND 7. That before 15 January 2015 the administrator must: (a) Search the records of the Registrar of Titles to identify any property registered in the adult’s name. (b) Give the registrar of titles a copy of this order and a notice to the registrar advising that any interest in property held by the adult is subject to this order. (c) Give to the Tribunal: (i) a copy of the “Lodgement Summary Form” from the Titles registry confirming the notice has been lodged for each property held by the adult; and (ii) a copy of the current title searches. 8. If the ownership of any property of the adult changes in any way or the adult acquires an interest in another property the administrator must, within fourteen (14) days of such changes: (a) give a copy of this order to the Registrar of Titles and (b) give a notice to the Registrar about the changes or the adult’s interest in another property. AUTHORISATION OF A CONFLICT TRANSACTION 9. The application for the authorisation of a conflict transaction by W is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Guardianship and Administration for adults –whether need for appointment – whether applicant appropriate for appointment Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
DJ was represented by Mr Field of Aylward Game Solicitors
REASONS FOR DECISION
DJ is a 75 year old lady who has had dementia since about 2010. I am determining whether a guardian should be appointed to make personal decisions for DJ, and whether an administrator should be appointed to make financial decisions for her.
DJ has three daughters – N, S and W (sometimes known as B). S does not have full capacity to manage her own affairs.
This hearing was conducted over two days. On 25 August 2014 DJ attended the hearing and was represented by her solicitor. DJ’s daughter W attended and proposed that she should be appointed as guardian and as administrator. DJ’s other family members were present: C (nephew); S (daughter); D (niece), O (son-in-law), and G (sister). Social worker CD attended via teleconference and Dr E, who previously treated DJ, was present for most of the hearing by telephone. At the conclusion of the first day W was appointed administrator for a short term pending further consideration of the applications.
On 15 October 2014 DJ attended the hearing with her solicitor. W attended with O. Dr E attended for most of the hearing by telephone. TB from the Public Guardian and AA from the Public Trustee attended via telephone.
Guardians and administrators can only be appointed in limited circumstances.[1] I may only appoint a substituted decision maker for a matter if I am satisfied that:
a) DJ has impaired capacity in relation to the particular matter;
b) There is a need for a decision about the matter, or DJ is likely to do something that involves, or is likely to involve, unreasonable risk to her health, welfare or property, and
c) Without an appointment her needs will not be adequately met or her interests will not be adequately protected.
[1]Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 12.
If I am satisfied that it is necessary to appoint a substituted decision maker, I must consider whether the proposed appointees are “appropriate” for appointment.[2]
[2]Ibid s 15.
DJ is presumed to have capacity to make all of her own decisions and that presumption must be rebutted before I can find that her capacity is impaired.[3] A person with capacity is able to understand the nature and effect of decisions, make decisions freely and voluntarily, and communicate their decisions.[4]
[3]Ibid s 7, Schedule 1.
[4]Ibid Schedule 4.
DJ is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Dementia. On 5, 6, and 10 June 2014 Dr B, neuropsychologist, conducted an assessment and concluded that:
The type and severity of cognitive impairments observed during this assessment are likely impact on [DJ’s] ability to understand, attend to, retain, process, retrieve and communicate (complex) information regarding her finances. I believe [DJ] is not currently capable of making complex financial decisions independently. Functional assessment on financial management also suggests considerable impairment in every day financial abilities, financial judgement, cognitive functioning related to financial tasks and support resources, with specific implication for her reasoning and appreciation of her financial needs…. these cognitive vulnerabilities are likely to create potential for external parties to have undue influence on her finances, esp. as [DJ] appeared to be a generous person by nature and has been willing to support family and friends financially in the past...
With regard to health and support needs, [DJ’s] current report on her needs was somewhat vague and/or incomplete and there were some indications [DJ] underestimated or did not fully appreciate the complexity and/or changes in her support needs. She was at times unable to retain or retrieve sufficient relevant information on her health and support needs and the possible safety risks, although she was often able to recognize relevant information on these matters when told… current cognitive impairments are likely to affect [DJ’s] ability to make complex decisions on these issues…
Dr E, consultant physician, provided a report dated 10 June 2014 (which appears to be incorrectly dated 6 October 2014). Dr E confirms that DJ has been diagnosed with vascular dementia and a range of physical health conditions. Dr E states that DJ does not have the capacity to make complex financial or personal decisions.
DJ’s family were of the view that DJ does not have capacity to make complex decisions, indicating that she makes decisions rashly and has a poor memory.
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that DJ does not have the capacity to manage her finances or to make complex personal decisions.
I must determine whether it is necessary to appoint a guardian and, if so, who should be appointed. A formal appointment will be necessary only if personal decisions cannot be made informally by DJ working with her support network.
Dr E states that:
a) Treating doctors will require an identified decision maker and she would prefer to deal with an independent decision maker for health care decisions (the Public Guardian). W’s behaviour makes sensible decision making very difficult, particularly if, as decision maker, she were presented with a couple of options. It would not be in DJ’s best interests to require doctors to negotiate with the family.
b) DJ’s family are unable to make health care decisions that are workable for staff caring for her. The family won’t be able to negotiate complex care arrangements. W ignored her advice to defer making significant financial decisions pending the assessment of DJ’s capacity, and numerous unhappy interactions between the family and nursing staff and other patients took up a lot of resources.
c) She is not convinced that DJ’s family will accept medical advice that is in the best interests of DJ. Her interactions with the family were “confrontational” and she was unable to work in partnership with the family. For example, after a number of incidents with nursing staff and family members raising anxiety in other patients, the hospital imposed limited visiting arrangements, which is not the usual way hospitals interact with families and patients.
CD, hospital social worker, agreed with the evidence provided by Dr E. She described W as ‘hostile’ and described a lot of conflict with her, particularly around the lodging of the application at QCAT. CD said that she hoped W would accept medical advice but noted that W removed DJ from the ward against medical advice. CD stated that interactions between W and hospital staff were confrontational and were upsetting for DJ. CD noted that DJ had been indecisive about who she wanted appointed to manage her affairs and had in the past indicated that she didn’t want W involved due to a history of conflict.
W states that she ‘stood up to the doctor and social workers’ because they didn’t have her mother’s best interests at heart and were only interested in her EPA, not her health. W denied having any interactions with other patients and denies being told that she shouldn’t take her mother from the ward. W indicated that she has had numerous contacts with the media and the minister. She states that she was very angry that DJ’s mail was opened by CD at the hospital. She was still angry about the issue at the hearing, some time later. CD explained that she had inadvertently opened some mail from QCAT addressed to DJ, as she herself had been waiting to hear from QCAT in relation to another matter. She acknowledges that she should not have opened the mail and has apologised. This is an unfortunate error but not one which should have caused such a disproportionate response from W.
Informal arrangements have been characterised by hostility and confusion (see below). A formal appointment is necessary.
DJ is well settled in a nursing home where her accommodation and care needs are met. Given her age and her medical history, I am satisfied that it is likely that ongoing decisions will need to be made about her health care, and that some of those decisions will be made in the context of an acute medical episode. I am satisfied that a guardian is needed to make health care decisions.
Family members are concerned that DJ’s is vulnerable to the influence of her former carers and that S may not be able to properly understand DJ’s needs. Hospital staff have raised concerns about the behaviour of family members earlier this year. I am satisfied that a guardian is required to make decisions about the contact DJ has with the people in her life.
I am satisfied that it is necessary to appoint a decision maker for decisions regarding health care and contact. An informal arrangement is not sufficient to ensure that DJ needs are met or that her interests are protected. I must determine whether the Public Guardian and/or W are appropriate for appointment as DJ’s guardian. A guardian must act according to apply the principles set out in the legislation.[5]
[5]Ibid s 11, Schedule 1.
On 19 May 2014 an ambulance was called to W’s home. DJ had been living there following her discharge from hospital on 6 May 2014. There is some dispute as to whether DJ was discharged to W’s home against medical advice. The hospital discharge summary records that DJ had been ‘assessed by ACAT and recommended for placement’ but that DJ had organised for her daughter to be her carer in preference to a nursing home placement.
The Ambulance Report Form indicates that:
QAS greeted by daughter who stated she can no longer cope with looking after mother. Pt recently dx with vascular dementia and parkinsons, discharged from LGH 2/52/ ACAT assessment team stated to family, that pt required high level care and was informed she needed to be placed into a NH. Family against medical advice took pt home to Murrumba downs to look after mother. Daughter informed QAS that there has been significant emotional distress on family, cause grandson to ? attempt suicide. Daughter stated that she can longer cope and doesn’t wish mother to return to residence at any point. Daughter informed QAS that she needs to be placed in a NH by the hospital. The daughter stated she cannot return back to residence, that daughter will not open the door and answer calls…
Hospital records indicate that DJ was locked out of W’s house when the ambulance arrived. That is hotly denied by W. The QAS report notes ‘Location Type: Private Residence – Indoors’. On that basis I accept that DJ was indoors when the ambulance arrived.
W states that her mother had been previously discharged to her home with the agreement of hospital staff and not, as suggested, ‘against medical advice’.
DJ was transferred to hospital on 19 May 2014 and remained until discharge on 2 July 2014. Dr E claimed that she and hospital staff experienced considerable difficulty in dealing with W and other family members. W denied any such difficulties. Given the conflict in the evidence, the hearing was adjourned so that hospital records could be made available to the Tribunal. I have now had the advantage of accessing those records.
It is useful to summarise the hospital records to capture the concerns of the hospital staff:
a) Hospital notes 19/5/14: ‘Patient states family have done this before due to discussion re money and family wanting inheritance before patient dies…Called daughter [W] no answer’. W denies that allegation and states that she was unaware that the hospital had tried to call her.
b) Progress notes from hospital 20/5/14: ‘Consent gained to contact sister [ZC]…but was adamant not to phone [W]’.
c) Nursing notes 20/5/14: ‘It was reported to me today … that whilst walking patient became teary and stated “I hope my daughter doesn’t hit me again”’.
d) Nursing notes 24/5/14: ‘Approached by patients daughter [W] who requested that patient not be permitted to leave ward with [MC] or [ZC] or “carers” [B], [C] and [A]. W states that she is happy for these people to visit patient but she does not want patient to leave the ward with them. [W] is concerned that patient will abscond as she says has happened on previous admissions’. W agrees this happened.
e) Nursing notes 26/5/14: ‘Daughter approached nurse station demanding to talk to person in charge/social worker/doctor… daughter has stated how come at 11am [DJ] had capacity but now doesn’t’. Concerns were raised regarding DJ being left in a wet pad and a social worker was called to attend.
f) Nursing notes 29/5/14:
I was approached by my nursing staff who wanted to report some behaviours and incidents to me. The patients daughter came to take patient out of ward. Nursing staff asked daughter [W] to please wait so they could confirm this was allowed. [W] stated she was taking the patient to the coffee shop. A different nurse then went into the room and [W] stated to her “I don’t know who he thinks he is, he’s nothing but a C**T”. [W] then stated to this second nurse that she was taking the patient outside the hospital. The nurse reiterated that it was okay but they just needed to check this had been cleared first. [W] then stated to this nurse “I’ve been to see my politician and media this morning and I know my rights”. She then threatened the nurse stating “You need to be careful what you say”. The nurse asked again for the daughter and patient to wait as the consultant was just outside the door and coming to see her. [W] refused to wait and left the ward taking [DJ] with her… leave was based on the patient being haemodynamically stable, which usually she isn’t so the medical team were not happy for [W] to take her....
W states that she recalls the conversation about knowing her rights but denies swearing and can’t remember nursing staff asking her to wait as the consultant was just outside the door.
g) Nursing notes 28/5/14 written in retrospect:
I spoke to daughter [W] yesterday afternoon once she returned with patient to the ward. I explained to [W] her behaviour towards the nursing staff was unacceptable. She is not to swear at the staff or threaten the nursing staff and if she continues to do so she will be asked to leave the hospital. [W] did apologise for her behaviour although I still found her to be passive aggressive stating “I’ve spoken to my member of parliament and my solicitor and there’s nothing you can do to stop me from coming and taking my mum. You can’t do a thing about it. You can’t stop me”.
h) Nursing notes 29/5/14: ‘When showering patient this am patient states she gave her daughters $20,000 yesterday. She states she does it regularly’. W denies this.
i) Notes taken at a meeting with Dr E, DJ, W, the social worker CD and two hospital doctors 3/8/14:
[Dr E] explained her role in making assessments and assessing decision making capacity…daughter says it is none of our business to comment on [DJ]’s financial capacity and financial issues as her mum has been managing her financial affairs well…[Dr E] is trying to explain the situation but daughter is being intruding and obstructive to the process…Daughter – very aggressive when the financial issues have been discussed and her mum’s capacity to make these decisions.
j) Notes 3/6/14: ‘Daughter notified that [DJ]’s financial matters will be assessed and bank will be notified about financial issues and possibility her account will be freezed’. W states that she was aggressive on this day as the family hadn’t received an update on DJ’s health since being treated for an acute episode. She felt that Dr E should have addressed health issues rather than financial issues.
k) Notes later on 3/6/14: ‘Police here about credit/ debit card issues’. W states that police were notified that money was missing from DJ’s account. It appears that there were a number of unexplained withdrawals during April 2014. W denies any family involvement in the missing money, indicating her belief that other parties may have taken advantage of her. W states that police investigations are ongoing.
l) Nursing notes 8/6/14: ‘Patient’s daughter and partner visited, other patient in same room came and informed staff that patient’s family verbally abused her. When talking with patient’s family, they state that roommate interrupted their visit and they asked her to leave and roommate was verbally rude to them’. The daughter is not named and it is not clear whether the person referred to was W or her sister S. I note that DJ later told nursing staff ‘She’s got a disability it’s not her fault’.
m) Social work notes 10/6/14:
Daughter … ventilated her concerns regarding patient’s concerns about assessments. Daughter indicated that she has contacted solicitor and they have said – patient doesn’t have to answer any future questions or questionnaires. [W] states that the assessments were distressing her mother and so she obtained legal advice as to whether she needed to participate. Daughter also complained about incident between patient and her mother on weekend…also making complaints to politicians media.
n) Nursing notes 16/6/14:
Duty nurse Managers x 2 attended ward with security officer and one of the nurse managers spoke with patient’s daughter over an alleged incident yesterday…patient’s daughter informed of policy and procedure regarding visitors conduct…duty nurse managers also asked staff … to inform security when patient’s relatives visit the ward in view of recent incidents.
W states that she recalls this meeting and that she had been falsely accused of abusing someone.
o) Notes of meeting 17/6/14 involving Dr E, a nurse, W, DJ and one other person to discuss outcome of assessment of capacity: ‘discussed behaviour of [W] towards staff and other patients… is unacceptable. [W] denies talking to other patients’.
In her report of 12 June 2014 Dr B, clinical neuropsychologist, states:
[W] interrupted the assessment on June 5th and 10th 2014 to collect her mother, and requested that I should discontinue my assessment on June 10th 2014.
W advised that she interrupted the assessment as she did not see that it was necessary. Dr B says
[W] insisted on providing information on her mother’s background… [W] indicated that [DJ] had always been very “generous” to her family and her friends, [DJ] recently paid her for a new washing machine…[W] reported they were currently in the process of selling her mother’s business.
Dr B notes that DJ denied that family or friends had asked for money or influenced her to spend her money in a certain way. Dr B says:
this is inconsistent with responses she gave at other times during the assessment. For example she told me earlier her daughter [S] frequently asked for financial assistance...[DJ] had also told me she bought her daughter [W] a washing machine recently and at one point indicated [W] could be manipulative and feel entitled to her ([DJ’s]) money.
W submits that she should be appointed as guardian. She says that she was frustrated and aggressive with hospital staff because she wasn’t able to get advice or have discussions regarding her mother’s medical issues. She states that she is dealing with her mother’s health care needs now and everything is calm and stable. She says that she communicates and works well with DJ’s current GP and specialists.
The Public Guardian is an independent decision maker with a great deal of experience as a guardian. The Public Guardian will be required, as would any guardian, to consult with DJ’s support network before making any decision and to make decisions in DJ’s best interests. I am satisfied that the Public Guardian is appropriate to be appointed as guardian. I may only appoint the Public Guardian if there is no other appropriate person available for appointment for the matter.
I have determined that W is not appropriate for appointment. I am not satisfied that W would exercise her decision making power in a way that is consistent with DJ’s proper care and protection. I accept that the hospital records give a good indication of W’s behaviour and communications while her mother was hospitalised. Her behaviour was hostile and demanding and not in her mother’s best interests. Much of her focus has been on defending her own personal rights by speaking to politicians and the media, or on her preoccupation with the opening of DJ’s mail by the hospital social worker and her perceived need to prevent interference in her mother’s affairs by resisting and disrupting assessments of DJ’s cognitive functioning. W’s behaviour and confrontational style impact negatively on the capacity of doctors and medical staff to work with DJ and her family. W has not demonstrated that she is able to act appropriately by accepting advice, consulting widely and rationally evaluating the situation in making decisions for her mother.
I appreciate that W was concerned as to her mother’s health while in hospital and that she wished to discuss this issue with staff. She says that she was therefore difficult to deal with when hospital staff attempted to discuss other matters. It is Dr E’s view that DJ’s health was quite stable while in hospital and the hospital records support that view.
A number of hospital staff members record difficulties dealing with W. While W’s stated concern was lack of attention to DJ’s medical needs, her actions caused the direction of resources away from medical care and onto managing interactions between herself, doctors, nursing staff and other patients. She took her mother from the ward without medical approval. She interrupted Dr B’s assessment process and her behaviour was, as described by staff, hostile, aggressive, confrontational and demanding.
The Public Guardian will be appointed as guardian to make decisions in relation to health care and contact. As DJ’s health needs are likely to become more complex as she ages and her dementia worsens, I am satisfied that an appointment for 3 years is necessary. The appointment will be reviewed by this tribunal at the end of that time.
I must determine whether it is necessary to appoint an administrator, and, if necessary, who that administrator should be.
DJ previously owned a fish and chip shop. On 1 April 2014 she sold the shop to purchasers who were to pay the price by instalments. The agreed payments are not being paid, although a lower amount is being paid regularly.
DJ has approximately $135,000 in the bank. Her car and unit are listed for sale and are expected to reach approximately $180,000. Those funds must be invested properly. Nursing home fees and other expenses must be paid.
I am satisfied that ongoing financial decisions need to be made and that without a formal appointment DJ needs will not be adequately protected. I am satisfied that it is necessary to appoint an administrator.
W seeks appointment as administrator. She was appointed as an administrator at the hearing on 25 August 2014, pending this final decision. Now that I have all the evidence before me, I must determine whether W is appropriate for appointment as her mother’s administrator.[6] Alternatively, the Public Trustee is available for appointment.[7] As W is currently appointed, I will appoint the Public Trustee only if I am satisfied that the Public Trustee is more appropriate for appointment.[8] The functions and powers of administrators are set out in the legislation.[9]
[6]Ibid s 15.
[7]Ibid s 14.
[8]Ibid s 31(4).
[9]Ibid s 11, Schedule 1, Chapter 4.
W has an ongoing relationship with her mother and is well placed to be aware of her needs and wishes. DJ has recently expressed a consistent view to her solicitor that she wishes to have W manage her finances.
W’s behaviour has been discussed above. An administrator must be able to accept and understand advice and to make sensible and sound decisions weighing up various relevant factors and sometimes against the wishes of the adult concerned, and of other family members. Those decisions will sometimes be made under time and emotional pressure.
There are additional concerns in relation to W’s management of DJ’s financial affairs.
When DJ was in hospital the family formed the view that the doctors were not properly addressing her health issues. It was decided that $20,000 would be withdrawn from DJ’s bank account by way of a bank cheque made out to W. The cheque was not cashed or deposited in a bank account until after the date of the first hearing when I indicated that the funds should be immediately returned to DJ’s account. The withdrawal of the funds has not been explained to my satisfaction. The family insist that DJ asked them to make the arrangements because she was concerned about interference by third parties. The decision to make the withdrawal and to hold the money for some months was not a good decision and was not in DJ’s best interests.
DJ has paid car registration and house insurance for W and S each year. S is said to have an intellectual disability and a low income. W says that she herself works and is able to meet her own costs of living. When DJ had capacity to manage her own finances she was able to spend her money as she chose. She no longer has that capacity and an administrator must manage her money in her best interests and not in the interests of others.
The sale of DJ’s business is somewhat problematic. The purchasers are not making repayments as agreed. W, as administrator, has made enquiries with DJ’s solicitor who has advised that it would be very difficult to enforce the sale agreement as it may not met the legal requirements of a contract of sale. The legal advice is to continue to monitor the situation and liaise with the purchasers to ensure that DJ obtains the best outcome possible. A tactful and careful approach will be needed. Depending on the sale outcome there will be tax implications, and the administrator will need to ensure that DJ’s taxation affairs are attended to promptly.
There has been some discussion of DJ gifting funds to family members. W states that the accountant advised that some gifting was allowable and that she called the Tribunal to check. W states that she now understands that an administrator cannot gift DJ’s money or property to anyone else (including themselves) without obtaining the Tribunal’s prior consent. An exception is made for token amounts for traditional gifts. The amount should be recorded in DJ’s budget.
W prepared a budget which was received by the Tribunal on 30 September 2014. She has taken steps to reduce the rate her mother was spending. The budget discloses income of $1,999 per fortnight ($749 pension and $1,250 other income). Expenses are $1,943 per fortnight, including nursing home fees of $1,250. Transport costs are calculated at $150 per fortnight, including $100 petrol. DJ does not drive and it is difficult to see how her transport costs could amount to $150 per fortnight. I note also that $115 per fortnight is budgeted to pay for her daughters’ rates and house insurance, and $60 per fortnight is budgeted for gifts.
W has drafted a budget proposing to spend $2,990 of her mother’s money annually on paying rates and house insurance for herself and her sister. A further $1,560 is budgeted for ‘gifts/birthdays and donations’. DJ’s budget is very tight and the income from the sale of her business is far from certain. W has not sought the Tribunal’s consent for a conflict transaction although she has been advised of the need to do so if she anticipates that she or others she is close to will benefit under the administration.
On 30 September 2014 W lodged an application for authorisation of a conflict transaction. Despite previous contact with QCAT staff, the application was incomplete and W advised at the hearing that she thought she was to fill it out to indicate that she wished to be appointed as administrator and guardian. I will formally dismiss the application.
DJ’s solicitor advises that it is DJ’s wish that W is appointed as her administrator and guardian. He states that DJ has had some dealings with the Public Trustee as they manage her daughter’s affairs and that she does not want the Public Trustee managing her finances. I accept that DJ’s instructions to her solicitor are supportive of W’s appointment. I must take into account, however, that she expressed a different view when hospitalised earlier in the year.
On balance, I am satisfied that the Public Trustee is more appropriate as administrator than W. I have taken into account W’s difficulty in dealing appropriately with others and accepting advice (as evidenced by her actions in the hospital). I have also taken into account W’s resistance to the assessment of her mother’s cognitive functioning, her involvement in the withdrawal of the $20,000 bank cheque, and her budgeting for ongoing spending on herself which her mother cannot afford. It seems likely that complex decisions will need to be made in relation to the sale of assets and investment of funds, and to monitor and manage the arrangement with the sale of the fish and chip business. I am satisfied that the Public Trustee is more appropriate to manage these decisions.
W will no doubt wish to remain involved in ensuring that her mother’s particular needs are met. She is able to do that by forming a good working relationship with the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee and assisting them where she is able.
0
0
0