FYB v Public Guardian

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	FYB v Public Guardian [2024] NSWCATAD 267
Hearing dates:	7, 14 February 2024
Date of orders:	05 September 2024
Decision date:	05 September 2024
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Leal, Senior Member
Decision:	The decision of the Public Guardian on 21 July 2023, to refuse the applicant’s request to have his daughter stay overnight at his residence, is affirmed.
Catchwords:	GUARDIANSHIP - Review of decision as to accommodation – suitability of accommodation - welfare and interests of the person subject to guardianship – decision affirmed
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Guardianship Act 1987 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Cases Cited:	Drake v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 P v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 579
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	FYB (Applicant) Public Guardian (First Respondent) FZN (Second Respondent) GBB (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self-Represented) Crown Solicitor (First Respondent) Second Respondent (Self-Represented) Third Respondent (Self-Represented)
File Number(s):	2023/00251911
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, a person must not, without the consent of the Tribunal, publish, or broadcast the name of any person who appears as a witness in these proceedings, to whom these proceedings relate, or is mentioned or otherwise involved in the proceedings. The name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant is the father of a twenty-nine-year-old woman who has Rett Syndrome, a rare genetic condition with associated severe physical and intellectual disability. She also has epilepsy, is non-verbal, requires a feeding tube for nutrition and is legally blind. She requires twenty-four-hour supervision and has lived in supported living accommodation since September 2022. Following a guardianship order made in 2023, the Public Guardian has the authority to determine the daughter’s accommodation, which includes any overnight or holiday stays, while her mother, who is the second respondent in these proceedings, exercises functions in relation to access, health care, services and travel. The mother and father live separately and the father is seeking a review of the Public Guardian’s refusal to allow the daughter to stay overnight at his place. Her mother and her stepfather have been joined as parties to these proceedings and, together with the daughter’s care co-ordinator, support the Public Guardian’s decision. 

2. In conducting the review, it is my role to determine whether the Public Guardian’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request that his daughter stay at his residence overnight is the correct and preferable decision, having regard to the material and any applicable written or unwritten law: s63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)). I may take into account material which was not before the primary decision maker: Drake v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 at 77.

3. In exercising my…