GB
[2017] WASAT 86
•16 JUNE 2017
GB [2017] WASAT 86
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2017] WASAT 86 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:766/2017 | 15 MAY 2017 | |
| Coram: | MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) | 16/06/17 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Public Advocate appointed as limited guardian | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GB |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and administration Capacity Parental authority Paid carer Serious incident reports Parenting style Funded services National Disability Insurance Scheme Planning for future accommodation Link between effectiveness of current services and options for future independent accommodation Guardian appointed Person responsible for medical treatment |
Legislation: | Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 84, s 110ZD(3)(c)(ii), Pt 9C |
Case References: | Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection and DJC [2011] WASAT 190 |
Summary | GB was a young man of 22 years of age. He had Down Syndrome, a genetic condition which is attended by a level of intellectual disability.,GB was taken into care and protection at ten years of age. His longterm paid carer was JW. He had no current contact with his birth family, however it was reported that recently a sister had said she would like to see him.,In 2012, the Public Advocate was appointed GB's limited guardian with the authority to make decisions about where and with whom he should live. Also, in 2012, the Public Trustee was appointed the plenary administrator of GB's estate. These orders were made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). In September 2014 the guardianship order was revoked.,Recently the Disability Services Commission made an application for the appointment of a guardian for GB. GB was in receipt of funding for his accommodation support and for alternatives to employment. It was contended by the Disability Services Commission that GB was very isolated, spending almost all of his time at home with JW who could appear at times to be very controlling.,The Disability Services Commission noted that a number of serious incidents had been reported in 2015 and 2016 when GB had been under the care of JW and where GB had been observed with cuts and abrasions to his head, bruising/black eyes, swollen jaw, bruises on his face and scratches to his chin and chest. JW held that GB's bruises had arisen out of the normal physical activity of a young man. Allegations made by a neighbour in respect to the serious incidents stemmed, in JW's view, from a neighbourhood dispute on unrelated matters. ,The agency employing JW supported her version of events and said that the concern of the Disability Services Commission about JW's parenting style could be ameliorated by further support.,Another agency was funded to provide GB with alternatives to employment support. This particular agency and JW were in dispute about what type of support was best for GB. GB himself said that he wanted more community activities and wanted to live with young people. He also wanted to travel.,The Tribunal found that the breakdown in the relationship with JW and the agency providing alternatives to employment support was unfortunate and meant that the systematic provision of training and support (including of course, recreation), that should have been directed to GB's improving self-reliance was not taking place.,The Tribunal further found that the degree to which GB could learn independent living skills was critical to what accommodation options may be open to him in the future. In that way GB's accommodation as an ongoing issue and the type and level of support to which GB has access were linked.,The Tribunal decided that there was no less restrictive alternative to the making of a guardianship order concerning GB's accommodation and support needs. The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as GB's limited guardian to make decisions concerning his accommodation, services, training and education, work, travel and contact with others.,The Tribunal decided that JW should, at present, continue to make medical treatment decisions for GB. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : GB [2017] WASAT 86 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 15 MAY 2017 DELIVERED : 16 JUNE 2017 FILE NO/S : GAA 766 of 2017 MATTER : GB
- Represented Person
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration - Capacity - Parental authority - Paid carer - Serious incident reports - Parenting style - Funded services - National Disability Insurance Scheme - Planning for future accommodation - Link between effectiveness of current services and options for future independent accommodation - Guardian appointed - Person responsible for medical treatment
Legislation:
Disability Services Act 1993 (WA)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 84, s 110ZD(3)(c)(ii), Pt 9C
Result:
Public Advocate appointed as limited guardian
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
GB was a young man of 22 years of age. He had Down Syndrome, a genetic condition which is attended by a level of intellectual disability.
GB was taken into care and protection at ten years of age. His longterm paid carer was JW. He had no current contact with his birth family, however it was reported that recently a sister had said she would like to see him.
In 2012, the Public Advocate was appointed GB's limited guardian with the authority to make decisions about where and with whom he should live. Also, in 2012, the Public Trustee was appointed the plenary administrator of GB's estate. These orders were made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). In September 2014 the guardianship order was revoked.
Recently the Disability Services Commission made an application for the appointment of a guardian for GB. GB was in receipt of funding for his accommodation support and for alternatives to employment. It was contended by the Disability Services Commission that GB was very isolated, spending almost all of his time at home with JW who could appear at times to be very controlling.
The Disability Services Commission noted that a number of serious incidents had been reported in 2015 and 2016 when GB had been under the care of JW and where GB had been observed with cuts and abrasions to his head, bruising/black eyes, swollen jaw, bruises on his face and scratches to his chin and chest. JW held that GB's bruises had arisen out of the normal physical activity of a young man. Allegations made by a neighbour in respect to the serious incidents stemmed, in JW's view, from a neighbourhood dispute on unrelated matters.
The agency employing JW supported her version of events and said that the concern of the Disability Services Commission about JW's parenting style could be ameliorated by further support.
Another agency was funded to provide GB with alternatives to employment support. This particular agency and JW were in dispute about what type of support was best for GB. GB himself said that he wanted more community activities and wanted to live with young people. He also wanted to travel.
The Tribunal found that the breakdown in the relationship with JW and the agency providing alternatives to employment support was unfortunate and meant that the systematic provision of training and support (including of course, recreation), that should have been directed to GB's improving self-reliance was not taking place.
The Tribunal further found that the degree to which GB could learn independent living skills was critical to what accommodation options may be open to him in the future. In that way GB's accommodation as an ongoing issue and the type and level of support to which GB has access were linked.
The Tribunal decided that there was no less restrictive alternative to the making of a guardianship order concerning GB's accommodation and support needs. The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as GB's limited guardian to make decisions concerning his accommodation, services, training and education, work, travel and contact with others.
The Tribunal decided that JW should, at present, continue to make medical treatment decisions for GB.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented Person : N/A
Solicitors:
Represented Person : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection and DJC [2011] WASAT 190
Introduction
1 GB is a young man of 22 years of age. He has Down Syndrome, a genetic condition which is attended by a level of intellectual disability.
2 GB was taken into care and protection at ten years of age. His longterm paid carer is JW. He has no current contact with his birth family, however it is reported that recently a sister has said she would like to see him.
3 On 4 September 2012, the Public Advocate was appointed GB's limited guardian with the authority to make decisions about where and with whom he should live. Also on 4 September 2012 the Public Trustee was appointed the plenary administrator of GB's estate. These orders were made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
4 On 2 September 2014 the guardianship order was revoked.
5 Recently the Disability Services Commission (DSC) has made an application for the appointment of a guardian for GB. The DSC is a state government agency established under the Disability Services Act 1993 (WA). It directly provides services and supports and also funds nongovernment agencies to provide services to people with a disability, their families and carers (DSC webpage).
6 The guardianship application and a review of the administration order pursuant to s 84 of the GA Act were heard by the Tribunal on 15 May 2017.
7 The principal attendees were:
• GB;
• JW, carer;
• PP, former carer;
• representatives of DSC;
• representatives of the agency funded to provide GB with accommodation support and which employs JW as his carer (Agency A);
• representatives of the agency funded to provide GB with alternatives to employment support (Agency B);
• CB, sister of GB; and
• an Investigator from the Office of the Public Advocate, (Public Advocate).
Review of administration order
8 The Public Trustee was reappointed the plenary administrator of the estate of GB with a gifting authority of $500 per annum. Review of the administration order was set at five years: s 84 of the GA Act.
9 There was no objection to the reappointment of the Public Trustee and oral reasons for the decision were given at the hearing on 15 May 2017.
10 The decision on the application for the making of a guardianship order was reserved.
Decision
11 I have decided to appoint the Public Advocate as GB's limited guardian to make decisions concerning his accommodation, services, training and education, work, travel and his contact with others. My reasons follow.
Relevant legislation
12 The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of GB: s 4(2) of the GA Act.
13 In considering the applications the Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of GB as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from GB's previous actions: s 4(7) of the GA Act.
14 GB is presumed to be capable of looking after his own health and safety; making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; and managing his own affairs until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal: s 4(3) of the GA Act.
15 Under s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act, the Tribunal cannot consider appointing a guardian for GB unless it is satisfied, on the evidence, that he is incapable of looking after his own health and safety; is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety, or for the protection of others.
16 If a finding of incapacity is made in respect to GB, the Tribunal must further determine whether he is in need of a guardianship order. If the needs of GB can be met in a manner less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action, then orders should not be made: s 4(4) and s 43(1)(c) of the GA Act.
17 If the Tribunal decides that GB is in need of a guardianship order, it must then decide what authority should be given to the guardian, who the guardian should be and what review date should be set, given the requirement that orders must be reviewed at least once every five years: s 43(1)(d), s 43(1)(e), s 44, s 45 and s 84 of the GA Act.
18 As to the authority given to a guardian, if a limited order is sufficient to meet the needs of GB, then a plenary order should not be made. If a limited guardianship order is made, the order must place the least restriction necessary on GB: s 4(5) and s 4(6) of the GA Act.
GB's capacity
19 It is common ground that GB is a person for whom a guardianship order can be made.
20 There is no medical or other evidence before the Tribunal suggestive of GB having established the capacity to manage his personal affairs since guardianship and administration orders were first made in 2012.
21 GB has an intellectual disability which has been found to constrain him from making decisions about important personal matters.
22 I therefore find and declare that GB remains incapable of looking after his own health and safety, is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person and that he is in need of oversight and care in the interests of his health and safety.
The need for a guardian
The applicant (DSC)
23 The applicant states that GB currently receives $129,913 in funding under the banner 'Accommodation Support Funding' (ASF) managed by Agency A which employs JW as GB's carer and $33,405 in funding under the banner 'Alternatives to Employment' (ATE) managed by Agency B.
24 The applicant says that under the ATE funding, GB currently receives 24 hours of support each fortnight and participates in mostly work experience at JW's request. GB's only community participation is said to be in the work placements, volunteer work, or occasional camps.
25 The applicant states that GB was previously supported with community activities but these have ceased at the request of JW.
26 The applicant contends that GB is very isolated spending almost all of his time at home with JW who can appear at times to be very controlling, as reported by service providers.
27 The applicant notes that a number of serious incidents (serious incidents) have been reported in 2015 and 2016 when GB has been under the care of JW and where GB has been observed with cuts and abrasions to his head, bruising/black eyes, swollen jaw, bruises on his face and scratches to his chin and chest.
28 The applicant states that Agency A submitted a 'Serious Incident Report' (SIR) on 20 July 2016 which referred to an allegation by a neighbour stating they had observed JW hitting GB on the back of his head and also reported regular screaming and shouting at the home and that GB was 'showered' outside of the house.
29 The applicant states that Agency A conducted an internal investigation into the incident, after which it concluded that no abuse or neglect had occurred. Agency A was satisfied that GB was safe and is provided with a good home by JW and that he is happy in her care. The SIR stated that, 'adjustments need to be made to [JW]'s old school parenting methods, which have been highlighted and work has commenced on this'.
30 The applicant states it was informed of another incident on 5 August 2016 in which GB alleged to Agency A that he had been hit on the backside with a hose by JW. The police were asked to become involved but did not proceed to a formal investigation.
31 Following this incident the applicant states that in November 2016, it asked Agency A for an update on GB. Agency A is said to have informed the applicant that GB was attending TAFE on a Wednesday and was supported to volunteer at 'Bikes for Humanities' six hours a week. Agency A also indicated that they had identified a couple who might be interested in providing regular respite breaks for JW, however this had yet to be confirmed.
32 The applicant states that it continues to have concerns about issues of safeguarding in respect to GB. The applicant's standard process has been undertaken with Agency A in respect to the reported serious incidents, however this remains to be finalised.
33 The applicant submits that the reports from service providers suggest that JW could be limiting the development of GB's independent living skills and connection to the community, therefore increasing his dependence on her as his paid carer.
34 The applicant further submits that the serious incidents have, at the very least, raised a question about the style of parenting by JW. The applicant has concerns about GB's apparent lack of choice and control and his limited access to the community. JW's parenting style is said to be controlling with the use of physical punishment which is considered inappropriate for GB's development.
35 The applicant submits that the application for the appointment of a guardian is part of its response to settle the question of what risk GB might be under if he continues to live with JW.
36 In addition, GB is now under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) which requires the development of a new care plan. It is not yet clear how GB's funding will be arranged and what will be the relationship between the applicant (which currently provides the ASF and ATE funding) and the NDIS.
37 The applicant proposes the appointment of the Public Advocate as GB's guardian.
Agency A
38 Agency A states that the serious incidents have been investigated and found not to have substance.
39 Agency A states that it continues to support JW in her role as GB's carer. JW has been GB's carer for many years; his accommodation is stable and should not be changed at this time.
40 Agency A submits that the question of JW's parenting style can be addressed by different (and increased) approaches to the provision of support.
41 Agency A states that it has found JW to be open about GB's future accommodation and discussions have already taken place about this matter. The ultimate goal for GB is for him to be in more independent living but this is unlikely to occur for the next year or two. Agency A finds JW to be realistic in her assessment of GB's current and future needs.
42 Agency A is aware of difficulties in the relationship between JW and Agency B in how best to utilise the ATE funding and submits that it might have been more productive if Agency B had discussed its concerns with Agency A.
43 Agency A understands that a guardian may need to be appointed for GB in respect of his accommodation and service needs, but submits that JW should be permitted to continue to make GB's treatment decisions.
Agency B
44 Agency B states that ATE funding is available for 12 hours a week which occurs over two days.
45 Agency B says that it is largely working in the dark because it has not received a signed plan from JW. This has been the case for the last 18 months.
46 Agency B states that ATE funding only pays for the hours of a support person and not additional expenditure such as entry fees to community activities. However, JW is reported as not giving GB sufficient money for this purpose which has therefore restricted his community access.
47 Agency B states that JW has expressed the view that the ATE funding should be sufficient to pay for community activities. Agency B says that JW is quite adamant the ATE funding should be used mainly for work related activities, rather than social excursions, however, GB voices the desire to participate in things other than work.
48 Agency B submits that GB does as he is told by JW with no choice and no explanation given. Agency B states that JW advised that GB is a diabetic which has subsequently been found not to be true. There is a concern about GB's alleged low weight.
49 Agency B submits that JW refuses GB contact with his family and in recent times his sister, CB, has questioned why contact cannot happen.
JW (carer)
50 JW states that GB's bruises which have become the subject of the SIRs have arisen out of the normal physical activity of GB as a young man. The allegations made by a neighbour stemmed, in JW's view, from a neighbourhood dispute on unrelated matters.
51 JW says that she is angry with the applicant and Agency B and disputes Agency B's version of events regarding the ATE program.
52 JW states that the Local Coordinator of the DSC prepared a plan for GB's ATE funding, but it has not been given to her. She says she has only had limited contact with the applicant and that it is not her responsibility to present a plan for the ATE funding. She says that she has not seen any review of the ATE funding from Agency B.
53 JW states that neither GB nor Agency B has asked for money for social activities. In any case, JW says that she favours workrelated activities because it gives GB a sense of achievement. JW states that Agency B gives GB menial tasks.
54 JW admits that GB is not a diabetic and says she only misinformed Agency B out of a frustration at GB being given sugary products.
55 JW states that the relationship with Agency B is damaged. She says that she has never been happy with Agency B, however, not a lot of choice is available in the local area.
56 JW states that she has had discussions with Agency A regarding GB's longer term accommodation. The ultimate aim is for GB to live in shared accommodation which will likely occur in the next two years.
57 JW says that she has looked after GB for 13 years and even though she cannot see the need for a guardian, she would not oppose an appointment. As for her criticised parental style, JW says she is strict and careful.
PP (former carer)
58 PP states that he can tell from GB's demeanour that he enjoys doing physical things that are work related. This is different to the things which Agency B gets GB to do, including washing cars or playing games at Agency B's premises, which GB does not like or enjoy.
59 PP supports the position of JW that the relevant serious incident came about because of malicious complaints from neighbours.
60 PP submits that there is no need for a guardian to be appointed because there has been no change in GB's circumstances since the revocation of the previous guardianship order in 2014.
The Public Advocate
61 The Public Advocate interviewed GB on 5 May 2017. GB said that he would like to be involved in more activities in the community and to go on holiday to Sydney to see 'Movie World'. He said that he does not like going for respite with PP and would like to live with other young people. GB told the Public Advocate that he does not want JW to make decisions for him.
62 The Public Advocate states that Agency B has reported (purportedly confirmed by JW) that GB has not been permitted to attend social outings or community activities due to alleged financial constraints. However, the administrator has reported that GB has sufficient funds to attend community excursions, some travel and participate in further education. The administrator further reports to the Public Advocate that JW has not approached her for approval of the release of funds for these matters.
63 The Public Advocate confirms the position of Agency A that the agency is very supportive of JW and does not have any concerns about her care of GB.
64 The Public Advocate states that all of the parties interviewed, including GB and JW, have agreed that there is a need for an independent guardian (the Public Advocate) and JW is reported to have said that she could not be appointed guardian because she is GB's paid carer and, if appointed, would be in a position of a conflict of interest.
65 The Public Advocate submits that the guardian should be given the authority to make decisions concerning GB's accommodation, services, medical treatment, travel and perhaps contact with others, the latter given the wish of CB (GB's sister) to visit him (JW states that she does not and has never had concerns about contact).
Discussion
66 GB is 22 years of age and it is not unreasonable to assume that, like other young people still under parental control, he wants to assert some independence. For example, he has told the Public Advocate that he wants to live with other young people and wants to increase his access to the community.
67 It is typical in our society for young people to challenge parental authority. The difference for GB as compared to most other young people is that his intellectual disability inhibits him from assuming a level of independence that others might take for granted. GB remains dependent in respect to his health, safety and general wellbeing and that is unlikely to change significantly in the future. In this way, GB has to rely on others to determine what is in his best interests.
68 The view of Agency A is that JW, as GB's primary carer for many years, is effective in her role and provides appropriate accommodation for him. Agency A also says that JW is giving consideration to GB's future accommodation.
69 Agency A seems to acknowledge a concern about JW's parenting 'style' but says that can be dealt with in the way Agency A provides its support.
70 The applicant, on the other hand, places a greater emphasis on JW's parenting 'style' and refers to the serious incidents as an indicator of risk and more generally that it restricts the development of GB's wish for independence (or to put it in terms more realistic for GB, to reduce his dependence on JW).
71 A number of things can be said about this. GB has a right to live as independently as his disability allows. This is not a static matter. With suitable training, support and an increasing maturity, GB should be able to improve his social functioning.
72 This presupposes that the best use is being made of all the supports that are available to GB to give him the best chance to improve. In my view, this is not currently the case. The breakdown in the relationship with JW and Agency B is unfortunate and, in my view, means that currently the systematic provision of training and support (including of course, recreation) that should be directed to GB's improving self-reliance is not taking place.
73 Whether this is because of JW's parenting 'style' or for other reasons is not the point, unless of course it is considered that GB is at risk in his present accommodation. I am unable to determine, on the evidence, whether or not there is unacceptable risk to GB and that ambivalence is, of itself, a factor in the decision of whether a guardian should be appointed.
74 The current situation is not, in my view, a base from which to properly approach the introduction of the NDIS which will likely be the future funding regime under which GB will be provided services and accommodation options.
75 The degree to which GB can learn independent living skills will be critical to what accommodation options may be open to him in the future. In that way GB's accommodation as an ongoing issue and the type and level of support to which GB has access are linked.
76 The question for the Tribunal is whether GB is in need of a guardian to make these decisions. Section 4(4) of the GA Act states that a guardianship order shall not be made if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, GB's needs can be met by other means less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action.
77 It seems that JW and PP say I should apply that principle and not make a guardianship order. However, for the reasons I have already given, I do not agree with that position. Although JW and Agency A seem to be 'on the same page', there is disconnect between them, the applicant and Agency B.
78 There are, in addition, the views and wishes of GB and how they can be guided through the current differences between the important people and agencies in his life.
79 In my view, there is no less restrictive alternative to the making of a guardianship order concerning GB's accommodation and support (service) needs. The supports to which GB may need to access will include any further education and training and work placements. For these matters, JW is in a difficult position despite the fact she has looked after GB for many years. She is his paid carer and even with the best of intentions, it is arguable she has a potential conflict of interest in the formal decisionmaking about GB's future accommodation. This potential conflict and its impact on guardianship is recognised in s 44(1)(b) of the GA Act.
80 I must therefore appoint the Public Advocate as GB's guardian (s 44(5) of the GA Act).
81 As for decisions concerning GB's medical treatment, Pt 9C of the GA Act provides for a 'person responsible' to be in a position to make treatment decisions for another person without the need for a guardianship appointment. JW, as the current primary provider of care and support, is the prospective 'person responsible' for GB (s 110ZD(3)(c)(ii) of the GA Act).
82 The decision by the Tribunal in Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection and DJC [2011] WASAT 190 (DJC) supports the idea that, despite being GB's paid carer, JW is not precluded from being the nominated 'person responsible' (DJC at [32] [61]). I adopt the reasoning in DJC.
83 Despite the concerns raised by the applicant, I am not convinced that I should remove JW from the role of decisionmaker for GB's medical treatment at this time. JW knows GB very well, she is 'on the ground' and there is no evidence to suggest that she has not appropriately attended to GB's medical needs, even though she chose to state that GB is a diabetic when that is not the case (it would appear guided by laudable intentions).
84 On balance, I will not include treatment in the functions given to the guardian although I accept this situation might change if and when GB's accommodation changes.
85 The other guardianship matters that have been raised in the course of the hearing are those of contact and travel. Contact was raised in the context of CB wanting to see GB, but allegedly this was found to be difficult. It is not clear what has been attempted and what, if any, contact has been declined. JW has stated to the Public Advocate that she does not oppose contact, whilst Agency B states she does not permit contact. The only way to resolve this important matter is to have a guardian consider the contact needs of GB, particularly as they relate to his family. I will therefore include contact in the functions given to the guardian.
86 As regards travel, GB has voiced a wish to visit Sydney. He would appear to have funds to enable consideration to be given for him to travel for recreational purposes. I will therefore include travel in the functions to be given to the guardian.
87 I will set the review of the guardianship order in five years (s 84 of the GA Act).
Orders
The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [GB];
(a) is incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(b) is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(c) is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and
(d) is in need of a guardian,
and the Tribunal orders that:
1. The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia be appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a) To decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b) To decide with whom the represented person is to live;
(c) To determine the services to which the represented person should have access;
(d) To decide what education and training the represented person is to receive;
(e) To decide whether the represented person should work and, if so, the nature or type of work, for whom the represented person is to work and related matters;
(f) To decide whether the represented person should travel outside Western Australia and the conditions under which the travel is to take place; and
(g) To determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact.
2. The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
3. The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 15 May 2022.
I certify that this and the preceding [87] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER
0
1
2