DKC (Review Administration)

[2015] TASGAB 10

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
Hobart

DKC - Review of administration order

DKC (Review Administration) [2015] TASGAB 10

REASONS FOR DECISION

Wendy Hudson (Chair)
Date of hearing: 10 July 2015

Review administration - chronic mental illness – no change in capacity
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 s.6, 51, 67, 68

1. On 10 July 2015 the Guardianship and Administration Board (the Board) reviewed an administration order for DKC. The Public Trustee was initially appointed as DKC’s administrator by the Board on 12 October 2006 to manage a lump sum payment only. In July 2009 when the Board reviewed the order, DKC was having difficulty managing his finances and was stressed as a result of increasing debts. Consequently, the Board made an order that The Public Trustee manage DKC’s estate in full. The Board reviewed the order on 12 July 2012 and determined that the administration order should continue. The current order was to remain in effect until 11 July 2015.

2. DKC, Jessica Watson and Rosie Aiken from The Public Trustee, together with Liz Love, Investigator from the Board, attended the hearing to review the administration order.

3. In reviewing an administration order the Board considers the requirements of section 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act (the Act) and the principles set out in section 6 of the Act, before deciding whether to vary or continue an order under section 68 of the Act or to allow the order to lapse. The questions for the Board to consider are - whether DKC has a disability, and as a result is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate and whether there is an ongoing need for an administrator. The Board must also consider the least restrictive option, what is in the best interests of DKC and DKC’ wishes.

Does DKC have a disability?

1. Dr Roger Cox advised the Board on 17 June 2015 that he has known DKC since 19 April 2010, DKC has schizophrenia, and that there has been no significant change in DKC’ condition since he was last assessed for the Board in 2012. DKC advised the Board that he did not want The Public Trustee managing his estate; however, he did not dispute Dr Cox’s evidence. The Board advised DKC that he was able to provide the Board with a contrary medical report at any time however; given the opinion of Dr Cox the Board was satisfied that he is a person with a disability.

Is DKC unable by reason of his disability to make reasonable judgements about his estate?

1. According to the Health care professional report (HCPR) provided in 2009, DKC’ disability results in an impairment of his planning and reasoning skills, impulse control, and he is susceptible to influence. The HCPR provided in 2010 confirmed that DKC’ disability impacts on those same three areas as well as his capacity for new learning.

2. Dr Cox has provided two letters to the Board dated 11 July 2012 and 17 June 2015, which confirm that DKC’s condition has not changed significantly, his condition is stable and there is not likely to be any change in the foreseeable future. Although Dr Cox did not specifically address whether DKC is able to make reasonable decisions about his estate, the Board inferred from the fact that DKC’s disability remains stable that there has been no change in DKC’s ability to make reasonable decisions about his estate.

3. The annual report provided by The Public Trustee in 2015 stated that DKC was in contact with them regularly seeking extra funds and noted that ‘he does not appear to understand the importance of trying not to spend all of his money at once’.

4. The Board was therefore satisfied that DKC is unable by reason of his disability to make reasonable decisions regarding his finances.

Does DKC need an administrator?

1. DKC stated that the order was not working well because he never had enough money for shopping or cigarettes; he did not receive the same fortnightly amount as his partner; and he needed more money. DKC’ main concern at the hearing was the amount he was receiving from The Public Trustee, rather than whether he needed an administrator. It was agreed at the hearing that he would contact The Public Trustee at a later time to discuss his budget.

2. The annual report provided by The Public Trustee in 2014 stated that although there had been a number of meetings with DKC to discuss the management of his budget, unfortunately he did not show any insight into managing his own finances; he struggled to manage his allowance; and therefore there had been no opportunity for The Public Trustee to give DKC more control of his finances.

3. The Board was satisfied that DKC continues to need an administrator to manage his day-to-day finances and ensure his essential needs are met, as well as to protect his accumulated funds so they are used for his benefit and not at risk of financial exploitation.

DKC’ wishes, what is in his best interests and the least restrictive alternative

1. The Board recognises DKC wish to manage his own finances; however the Board did not consider that his best interests would in fact be met by the revocation of the order.  The Board considered that there was no less restrictive alternative available to DKC and that his best interests would be met with the continuation of the administration order. 

Conclusion

After hearing a review of an administration order made on 12 July 2012 in respect of DKC (hereinafter called the ‘represented person’)

The Board was satisfied that the represented person:

• is a person with a disability, and

• is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of his estate, and

• is in need of an administrator;

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That The Public Trustee continue as the represented person’s administrator.

2. That the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995.

3. That the administration order remains in effect until 9 July 2020.

Wendy Hudson
Chair