DJ

[2010] QCAT 119

CITATION: DJ [2010] QCAT 119

PARTIES: DJ

APPLICATION NUMBER:            GAA2714-10            

MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters

HEARING DATE:   16 April 2010

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, senior member

DELIVERED ON:   16 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  Appointment of administrator

CATCHWORDS :  Appointment of administrator – section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties. 

REASONS FOR DECISION

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

1. DJ (the adult) is 27 years old. The Guardianship and Administration Tribunal appointed an administrator for DJ on 26 March 2004 for a period of one year.  This appointment was continued by order of that Tribunal on 21 March 2005 for five years. The appointment has expired without the appointment being reviewed in 2010.
2. From 1 December 2009 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has replaced the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal.  On 9 April 2010 the Tribunal initiated an application for appointment of an administrator for DJ.  

The Issues and the Legislation

3. The issues for the Tribunal are:

Does DJ have capacity to make decisions about her finances?
           If not, is there a need for an Administrator?
           If so, who should be appointed?

4. For adults there is a statutory presumption that they have capacity to make their own decisions as stated in section 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (“the Act”).  Unless there is sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption, it must stand.
5. The Act defines capacity as: “capacity”, for a person for a matter, means the person is capable of-

1. understanding the nature and effect of decisions about the matter; and
2. freely and voluntarily making decisions about the matter; and
3. communicating the decisions in some way.

If the presumption of capacity has been rebutted, the Act provides the means by which a substituted decision maker can be appointed for an adult with impaired decision making capacity.

6. Section 12 of the Act deals with the question of need for an appointment and provides, where relevant, as follows:

(1) The tribunal may, by order, appoint a guardian for a personal matter, or an administrator for a financial matter, for an adult if the tribunal is satisfied—

(a) the adult has impaired capacity for the matter; and

(b) there is a need for a decision in relation to the matter or the adult is likely to do something in relation to the matter that involves, or is likely to involve, unreasonable risk to the adult’s health, welfare or property; and

(c) without an appointment—

(i) the adult’s needs will not be adequately met; or

(ii) the adult’s interests will not be adequately protected…..

DOES DJ LACK CAPACITY FOR THE MATTER?

7. The Tribunal had been provided with a report from Dr Venugopal dated 28 April 2008 in which a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia since 1999 was stated.  Dr Venugopal was of the opinion that DJ had poor insight and judgement, she could not make decisions freely and voluntarily and could not make simple or complex decisions due to a psychiatric disability.  Documents relied on in 2004 and 2005 reported that DJ had a history of substance abuse and non compliance with medical treatment resulting in multiple admissions to hospital.  DJ has been resident in a  regional hospital since 2006.    

CONCLUSION

1. The Tribunal finds that DJ has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia since 1999.  She has been resident in a regional hospital since 2006 and before then she had had admissions to hospitals for her psychiatric condition.  She lacks insight into her medical condition and has impaired judgement. 

   9. The Tribunal is satisfied that DJ cannot understand the nature and effect of decisions about her financial affairs and that she cannot make decisions freely and voluntarily.  The Tribunal finds that the presumption of capacity has been rebutted and that DJ has impaired decision making capacity about financial matters.     

IS THERE A NEED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR?

10. DJ has income from a Centrelink pension and has regular expenditure for her accommodation and for the purchase of personal items. She has accumulated savings which must be secured and managed to meet her present and future needs.   
11. There has been an administrator managing DJ’s finances since 2004.  Before that appointment, there had been concerns by support workers that she was not spending adequate money on food and she was vulnerable to abuse.  Assessments carried out by mental health staff revealed that DJ did not understand social security or income tax matters or how to protect herself from being cheated out of money. 

CONCLUSION

12. DJ has a history of poor management of her finances but since 2004 when an administrator was first appointed she been able to accumulate some savings and her expenses have been paid and managed.  There are decisions about her expenditure and savings that need to be made for the ongoing management of her finances and without an appointment of an administrator her needs will not be adequately met and her interests will not be adequately protected. 

IF SO WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED?

13. The Public Trustee of Queensland has been managing DJ’s finances since 2004.  Annual budgets have been prepared and advice on investment of her savings has been obtained and implemented.  Funds are available to meet the present and future needs of DJ.   
14. No other person has sought to be appointed as DJ’s administrator.  She has no informal support network to assist her to make decisions about her finances. 

CONCLUSION

15. The Tribunal is confident that The Public Trustee of Queensland will apply the general principles and will make financial decisions for DJ in a way consistent with her proper care and protection.  The appointment will be for an indefinite period and will remain until further order as the Tribunal is satisfied that DJ’s need for an administrator is unlikely to change while the effects of her mental health condition remain of a severity resulting in her continued residence in hospital accommodation.