En (No 2) (Guardianship and Administration)

[2005] TASGAB 3

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
DEVONPORT

MR E.N., on the Order of the Board appointing The Public Trustee as administrator

Neutral Citation: EN (No 2) (Guardianship and Administration) [2005] TASGAB 3

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ruth Hanson   (Chair)

Mary Davies  (Board Member)
Tony O’Neil   (Board Member)

17 June 2005

Review of administration – order required 12 month review – improvement in represented person’s financial situation – suitability of administrator – objections by family
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995, ss 51, 54, 67

1. This is a review under section 67a of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 of the order made on 6 May 2004 under section 51 appointing The Public Trustee as administrator for Mr E.N.. Order 5 directs “That the administration be reviewed in 12 months”, to enable a formal review of the progress of the administration with all parties involved.

1. Mr E.N. is a 57 year old single man who has an intellectual disability and cerebral palsy.  For the past 7 years he has resided at a group home which he shares with a small number of other residents.  He is assisted and supported by a Group Home.  Prior to his move to the group home, Mr E.N. lived with his family.  Mr E.N. has been diagnosed with a rare blood condition, which is controlled with diet and exercise.

1. Notices of hearing were sent on 31 May 05 to the represented person, his advocate, the administrator, family members of the represented person, the Group Home Manager, the guardian, and Disability Services.  Attending the hearing were the represented person’s administrator, his guardian, the Group Home manager and a service co-ordinator.  None of Mr E.N.’s family members attended the hearing.

1. The Board considered the following documents:

   ·     Statement of Reasons from hearing of  6 May 2004

   ·     Written submission from Ms S.N. dated 14 June 2005 seeking appointment to replace The Public Trustee as administrator of Mr E.N.’s affairs

   ·     Guardian’s Report update of 14 June 2005

   ·     Administrator’s Statement of Account - 13 May 04 – 31 March 05

   ·     Guardian’s Report for year ending 5 May 2005

   ·     Administrator’s Report dated 20 April 2005

   ·     Correspondence from the Queensland Registry of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal advising recognition of the Tasmanian Order for the purpose of investigating possible property ownership in Queensland by the represented person

   ·     Administrator’s Report dated 13 December 2004, as required by Clause 4 of Order.

2. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Board was satisfied that Mr E.N. is a person with disability and by reason of that disability he is incapable of managing his finances and is in need of an administrator.  The issue before the Board in this review was the progress and appropriateness of the current administration.

1. The Administrator outlined the current status of Mr E.N.’s financial affairs, including arrangements for regular payment to accommodation and day care service providers.  He reported that the Registry of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal in Queensland had notified that their search, initiated following advice to the administrator by Centrelink, had resulted in no record being found of land in Queensland held in Mr E.N.’s name.  It was stated that the only unresolved issue for the administrator is tracing previous expenditure of Mr E.N.’s funds, with requested verifying documentation not yet made available by Mr E.N.’s family.

1. E.N.’s accommodation and support provider stated the current financial situation was working well, there was a positive relationship between the service and the administrator, and that the service staff were involving Mr E.N. in decisions regarding spending his money and outings.

1. The service co-ordinator stated that general communication and co-operation between the Group Home and Mr E.N.’s family has not improved since the previous hearing.  The service stated that it believed it had exhausted diplomacy in attempts to establish mutual co-operation, as the family appears opposed to communication.  An example was given of failure by the family to communicate with the service provider regarding Mr E.N.’s whereabouts.  This resulted in the service provider contacting his guardian to achieve a resolution.

1. Mr E.N.’s guardian stated that the balance of Mr E.N.’s account was an indication that his administrator was doing a commendable job in managing his affairs.

1. The Board considered the written submission from Ms S.N. for her appointment as an alternative to The Public Trustee as administrator.  Whilst providing further detail regarding her financial qualifications, this submission did not provide any new information beyond that presented at the hearing of 6 May 2004 regarding her appropriateness to act as administrator for her brother.

1. The written submission expressed concern that “current arrangements do not distinguish sufficiently between “Mr E.N.’s day-to-day expenses” and any “occasional larger needs”.  The administrator indicated that there were no extraordinary large payments.  The submission also stated that “Mr E.N.’s carers have virtually unrestricted access to his one account”.  This is not so.

1. At the hearing of 6 May 2004, Mr E.N.’s advocate advised the Board that she had had numerous conversations with his mother and with his sister, Ms S.N. and his brother, Mr M.N., about the desirability of keeping Mr E.N.’s money separate. The family acknowledged at that hearing that there was a legal need to keep his funds separate (Statement of Reasons paras 31 and 35).

1. In her current written submission, Ms S.N. outlined changes she would make to the management of Mr E.N.’s finances if she were appointed as his administrator.  Both changes involved the establishment of “joint” bank accounts in the names of Mr E.N. and herself.    

1. The Board believes that these proposed changes indicated a lack of understanding of the role and responsibilities of an administrator.  The Board was unable to seek clarification of her understanding of the role and responsibilities as she was not present at the hearing.

Conclusion

1. Since the appointment of an independent administrator, there has been a significant improvement in the represented person’s finances.

1. Whilst the Board is still unable to ascertain Mr E.N.’s wishes, it is satisfied that the appointment of the Public Trustee is both the least restrictive alternative and in Mr E.N.’s best interests.

1. No verbal or written information presented at the hearing persuaded the Board that the represented person would benefit by any change to the current order, or that any change is warranted.

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That the Public Trustee continue as the represented person’s administrator to 5 May 2007

Ruth Hanson              

CHAIR