GCR

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: GCR [2011] WASAT 44

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER)
MS C HILL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
MS R CARROLL (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 7 OCTOBER 2010

DELIVERED : EDITED REASONS DELIVERED ORALLY ON
28 JANUARY 2011

FILE NO/S: GAA 2369 of 2010
GAA 2561 of 2010

BETWEEN: LMR
Applicant
AND
GCR
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship - Need for a guardian - Mother of represented person proposed as guardian - Proposal that represented person return to live with his mother - Represented person has lived away from home for 15 years - Tribunal accepts that the represented person's current accommodation is suitable for him - Public Advocate reappointed as the represented person's guardian

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 43(1)(b), s 44, Pt 5 Div 3, s 86, s 86(1), s 87, s 87(1), s 90

Result:

The Public Advocate is reappointed as guardian

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: N/A
Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Represented Person : N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

GCR, a 39yearold man with a number of disabilities, was placed under a limited guardianship order in April 2009. The application for guardianship had been made by his mother who supported the appointment of the Public Advocate as guardian.
In August 2010, the mother applied for review of the guardianship order. She was not satisfied with the care GCR was receiving in his supported accommodation. She proposed that he return to live with her despite the fact that he had lived away from his parents for about 15 years.
The guardian and the care provider both opposed the mother's application. The mother was said to be antagonistic towards the carers and unrealistic about GCR's care needs.
The Tribunal agreed with the guardian and care provider, and found that what GCR's mother was proposing was not in his best interests. The mother had not clearly planned or considered what would be involved in her proposal that GRC return to live with her. GRC was currently living in secure and stable accommodation, and he was actively involved in work and recreation commensurate with his physical and intellectual limitations. It was not good for his mental state to again change his accommodation.
The Tribunal decided to confirm the order appointing the Public Advocate as the limited guardian for GCR to decide his accommodation, care and other services, and to consent to his treatment and health care.
The Tribunal delivered its decision on the day of the hearing and its reasons orally on 28 January 2011. The oral reasons, with minor editing, follow (including anonymising the names of the parties as required by the confidentiality provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA)).

Background

On 9 April 2009, the Public Advocate was appointed the limited guardian of GCR. The application for guardianship had been made by his mother, LMR. She had supported the appointment of the Public Advocate.
The Public Trustee had previously been appointed the administrator of the estate of GCR and remains in that position.
In August 2010, LMR applied for review of the guardianship order of 9 April 2009. She sought revocation of the order and her appointment as GCR's guardian.
LMR was granted leave under s 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). The review, under s 86 of the GA Act, was heard on 7 October 2010 and a decision was made by the Tribunal on that day confirming the order made on 9 April 2009. The Public Advocate remains GCR's guardian to make decisions about his accommodation and services, and to consent to his medical treatment and health care. The order was set for review at the same time as the review of the administration order, that being by 18 March 2015.
The following are the reasons for that decision.

Relevant legislation

Upon a review of a guardianship order, the Tribunal can do the following pursuant to s 90 of the GA Act: it can confirm the order, revoke the order, amend the order, or revoke the order and make another order in its place.
In review proceedings, the Tribunal must make fresh findings about capacity and need. The decision about what order is required (if any) is determined on the information available to the Tribunal at the time the decision is made.
The GA Act requires the Tribunal to proceed through a number of steps in coming to a decision about whether to appoint a guardian. Simply put, the steps are as follows.
A finding must be made on the capacity of GCR. The starting point is that GCR is presumed to be able to look after his own health and safety or make reasonable judgments about his person.
The Tribunal must be satisfied there is a need for a guardian. The GA Act states that a guardianship order should not be made if GCR's needs can be met by other means less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action.
If a guardianship order is to be made, the Tribunal must decide what should be the scope of the order. The GA Act states that if GCR's needs can be met by the making of a limited order (an order which sets out the particular functions of a guardian) then a plenary order (one that gives the guardian full authority over GCR) should not be made.
If a guardianship order is made, then the Tribunal must decide who the guardian is to be. Section 44 of the GA Act provides guidance to the Tribunal in answer to that question. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed guardian will act in GCR's best interests; not be in a position where the proposed guardian's interests conflict or may conflict with GCR; and that the person otherwise be suitable to act as guardian. Suitability takes into account the desirability of preserving existing family relationships; the compatibility of the proposed guardian with GCR and GCR's administrator; GCR's wishes; and whether the proposed guardian will be able to perform the role that he or she is given.
The Public Advocate is able to be appointed GCR's guardian if it is determined by the Tribunal that there is noone else suitable or willing to undertake that role.
When going through all the steps just mentioned, the Tribunal must, as far as possible, seek GCR's views and wishes but ultimately must make a decision in what the Tribunal judges to be in GCR's best interests.

GCR's capacity

Before the Tribunal can consider the question of whether GCR remains in need of a guardian, it must first be satisfied of one of three things that are set out in s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act. The Tribunal must be satisfied either that GCR is incapable of looking after his own health and safety; 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.
When the guardianship order was first made in 2009, the Tribunal had before it the reports of Dr CA, GP; Dr SP, psychiatrist; and Dr RW, the specialist who attends to GCR's rheumatoid arthritis. All were of the view that GCR is unable to make reasonable judgments about personal matters because of his intellectual disability, anxiety disorder and a mental illness described as a schizophreniform illness characterised by persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations.
For the review hearing, the Tribunal had further reports from Dr CA and Dr SP whose assessments of GCR's capacity were unchanged. GCR's intellectual disability is a permanent condition, and his anxiety condition and mental illness are longstanding.
GCR lives in supported accommodation and needs supervision or oversight on a 24 hour basis.
On all the evidence, it is clear that GCR remains a person for whom a guardian can be appointed. It is common ground, and the Tribunal is satisfied, that GCR meets all the criteria in s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act; he is unable to look after his own health and safety, he cannot make reasonable judgments about his person (although the Tribunal accepts he is able to express a wish about what should happen in his life), and he is in need of oversight and care.

The need for a guardian

To properly answer the question whether GCR is in need of a guardian, the Tribunal needs to consider the application made by LMR and the other parties' responses to the concerns raised by her. The main parties to the proceedings are GCR (represented person), LMR (applicant/mother), FVR (father), PT (sister), SH (from the care provider) and JCM, the delegated guardian from the Office of the Public Advocate.

Background to GCR's current accommodation

GCR is 39 years of age. He lived with his parents for the first part of his life and has been living away from his parents for about 15 years (except for a brief period of four months when his mental health was poor). LMR says that the decision for GCR to leave the family home was not an easy one, but she and GCR's father are older parents and it was considered an appropriate thing to do. GCR was under the care of ACTIV Foundation for a time. LMR speaks highly of that agency. The current care agency became involved in 2004 when GCR was living on his own. SH says that when GCR was on his own, he did have a lot of time without supervision, which he struggled with. He had severe behavioural issues (some destructive behaviour) and did not participate in regular activities. He lived near to his parents and would often go there. SH says that it was always the plan from when her care agency became involved with GCR that he would move to the cluster home arrangement where he currently lives with 24 hour supervision. He has his own home. He does not need to share his physical living space.

The application by LMR and her evidence

The application by LMR is premised on a number of concerns. LMR is of the view that the current accommodation is not appropriate for GCR. She maintains that he does not receive the required care and supervision (for example, he has had his special 'call bell' removed); his current job placement is too taxing for his physical disabilities (rheumatoid arthritis); the carers are not sufficiently aware of his physical and mental conditions, and consequent limitations; he spends too many days on activities (he should rest more); he was, in January 2010, unnecessarily prevented from going on a trip to Adelaide with her; and, it is difficult for GCR to serve at the family church because the administrator will not pay for his transport.
LMR states that she found GCR in bed one morning soaked with urine. The carer had not checked on him and seemed indifferent to his needs. She says he wanders in the dark and is at risk; he is allowed to eat too much junk food; and it is difficult to have contact with him. LMR says that she has never been happy with the present accommodation. She feels that she is not adequately consulted and in any case her views are not properly considered.
LMR has submitted letters to the Tribunal from Dr SP (psychiatrist) and Dr RW (rheumatologist). They say, in part:

Dr SP

There is a public guardian for [GCR] but [LMR] has been cut out of the decision[-]making by the care takers at the facility where [GCR] resides by the current GP linked with that facility and she also feels by the public guardian. There is no psychiatric or medical reason why [LMR] cannot become the guardian of her own son. She informs me that she is taking steps to relocate [GCR] and find a new supportive medical and mental health network for her son that will allow him to develop trust, confidence and hence relax.

Dr RW

This [rheumatoid arthritis] is currently reasonably well controlled with Methotrexate and Etanercept. He [GCR] also requires Prednisolone. He has limitations with respect to his daily activates and physical capabilities as a result of this condition. He[,] however, continues to walk regularly undertaking short daily walks. He can undertake all personal care activities. His mother, [LMR], who I also see as a patient[,] is concerned about some aspects of [GCR]'s care and supervision at the [current accommodation] and with [the care agency]. This relates to lack of duty of care with respect to his lack of supervision both in the house and on excursions.

LMR accepts that the statements of Dr SP and Dr RW were made in response to the concerns she raised with them and that the doctors had not spoken with the care provider specifically on those concerns. Consequently, the Tribunal is not able to place much weight on those parts of the statements which make reference to the care arrangements and processes.
LMR says that she has been under great stress in recent times due to her husband's poor health (GCR's father is in residential aged care), and her own health and financial problems (GCR's father agrees that LMR has been under a lot of stress for those reasons and also because of GCR's needs). LMR says that the family home was sold because of financial pressures and that she is currently renting a property. A new house is being built and will be available in about 12 months.
It is the view of LMR that GCR should not continue to live in the current accommodation.
At one point in the hearing, LMR said that she would not want GCR to live with her and said that she would approach care agencies to assist in finding group home accommodation for him. She then went on to say that GCR could live in the new home due to be completed in 12 months because the house will have 'two distinct sides to it' so that he can live in one side supported by a carer and she will live in the other part of the house. LMR finally clarified her position saying that she was not against GCR living with her, just that she would not want to look after him.
LMR accepts that if she had the relevant authority and removed GCR from the current accommodation she might not be able to employ an appropriate carer immediately and in that situation she would have to care for GCR. She says:
I could look after him but it means once more that I am going to have my life taken over as a carer. (T:37, 7.10.10)
LMR says that she would stop GCR's current employment because he spends 'far too much time on his feet'. She would get him a job more in keeping with what she considers to be his physical capabilities. She would reduce GCR's other day placement from three days to one, accepting that he would spend two days at home but that 'she can be home all the time'. GCR could help her around the house as they enjoy each other's company. She says she would make sure he was never left alone in the home and that either she or someone else would be available.
Later in her evidence, LMR modified her view about GCR's care needs. She said that although she could not leave him alone at this time, she hoped that by returning home he would improve so that he would no longer require 24 hour supervision. She is of the view that 'he needs company more than anything'.
When pressed, LMR said finally that her preference is that GCR return home to live with a carer and she considers that to be in his best interests.
LMR said that if she took over GCR's care, the funding currently used for the care agency could be used to pay for private carers.

The evidence of SH (the care agency)

In her evidence, SH says that GCR does at times get up early in the morning and wander around the units, however, he does not wander away. She agrees that she would rather he not do so but that it is difficult to stop. She does not consider he is at unreasonable risk. SH says that GCR does not leave the complex without a carer (there was an occasion when he did so because he was in a distressed state), including having a carer take him to a public phone box to call his mother (this is done because GCR will at times abuse members of the public as a consequence of his delusional thinking).
SH says that GCR was given a 'call bell' to contact overnight staff when he first moved to his current accommodation but that he tended to abuse the use of it. GCR is physically stable and it was decided that the 'call bell' was not needed. Some months have now passed and issues have not arisen.
SH says that all the things that GCR does are set within the limits of his physical capacity (this includes his work which SH has confirmed with his employer). Dr RW is reported to be very pleased with the exercise that GCR is getting, including walking to the phone box and to Hungry Jacks. GCR was seen by Dr RW the day before the hearing and he reported that the arthritis is currently well managed.
GCR sees his podiatrist every six weeks and the shoes that GCR himself chose (and which were objected to by LMR) were approved for wear (although not for everyday use).
GCR has incontinence problems and a review by Silver Chain recommended pads at night. SH says that GCR still 'wets the bed' a couple of times a week and it would appear that, on occasion, he removes the pad during the night. SH says that the incident to which LMR refers (she seeing GCR wet in bed one morning) was, in her understanding, a situation where GCR had slept in, and was not in a good mood (which happens from time to time). In such a circumstance, staff would have left GCR for a while and come back later. Staff will always go into his unit prior to him leaving for the day (the time of which varies depending on the activity) to check the bed linen.
SH says that GCR gets paid a fortnightly allowance by his administrator, the Public Trustee, which covers his food and spending money. GCR is allowed take-away food on Sundays and although staff encourage him to have healthy food he gravitates to Hungry Jacks which the staff accept is his choice.
SH says that, unfortunately, GCR's concerns that his neighbours hassle him is part of his delusional illness. When she first met GCR prior to him moving to the current accommodation, he was saying the same things about his neighbours and will even believe that people walking on the street are talking about him. This happened, for example, on the way to the hearing. Another example relates to GCR's assertion that his neighbour (another resident) bangs on his door all night. SH said this does not happen and that the neighbour goes to bed early, usually 7 pm or 8 pm.
SH says that the funding GCR receives from the Disability Services Commission (Commission) is pooled with the other residents. This system is approved by the Commission and it ensures there is an equitable distribution of care and supervision. SH said that the Commission does not fund an individual in GCR's circumstances for 24 hours a day (when living on his own, GCR's funding paid for three hours care in the morning and three hours in the afternoon). By being in the cluster accommodation, he is able to receive 24 hour support which SH considers he requires.
SH submits that the Public Advocate should remain as GCR's guardian and that she be given the additional function of regulating the contact GCR has with his mother. SH says that over the last two years it has been difficult working with LMR because of her regular verbal abuse and intimidating behaviour towards her and care staff. This sometimes happens in front of GCR which he has found difficult to handle. LMR has threatened to call the police which she once did and which was unrelated to any crime or any other police matter.
SH submits that LMR is not suitable to be GCR's guardian. She says that LMR tries to be very controlling of GCR's life, appears to have a poor understanding of GCR's abilities and has attempted to give medical instruction contrary to professional advice (an example given was of the alleged overuse of Largactil medication to manage GCR's behaviour). SH says that she keeps LMR regularly informed of relevant matters to do with GCR's care.

The evidence of the guardian

In her evidence, JCM, as the delegated guardian, says that in the last 12 months, 250 events have been recorded in her case notes representing queries, concerns and responses about GCR (both written and verbal) many made by LMR. JCM believes this is in part a consequence of LMR's severe anxiety which distorts and escalates situations that can otherwise be explained and resolved. JCM supports the proposal of SH that contact be included in the guardianship order. She says that there are documented reports of unannounced visits by LMR when she has been in an agitated and distressed state, and which has impacted on GCR's mental health.
JCM says that she too has experienced abusive telephone calls from LMR. (LMR says that if she has been rude it has been for good reason; she was ensuring that GCR's carers were doing their job.)
JCM said that, in her view, the care agency and SH have worked very hard and have been committed to dealing with matters she has raised in respect to GCR's care.
JCM confirms that the care agency arranges activities and work for GCR within the physical limitations that have been set by Dr RW.
She says that GCR requires consistency and a stable environment to manage his anxiety disorder. If the anxiety is not properly managed, GCR can and does descend into psychosis. It is JCM's view that routine is critical to GCR's mental health. That is why a consistent regime has been arranged for GCR's contact with and visits to his mother. GCR does not always understand when LMR makes changes to those arrangements.
In responding to the concern raised by LMR that GCR was stopped from travelling with her to Adelaide, JCM says that the request was refused because LMR was proposing that GCR return to Perth on his own. This was opposed by Dr SP (psychiatrist), Dr Q (psychologist) and the GP, given GCR's delicate mental state.
JCM submits that given the level of conflict that exists between the care agency and LMR, the Public Advocate should remain as guardian.

The evidence of PT, the sister of GCR

In her evidence, PT submits that LMR is not well enough to care for GCR. PT says she has witnessed a decline in her mother's health due, in her view, to the stress and worry about her father and his illness. PT says that she does not see GCR often but she had visited him recently and found the carer at the time to be 'on the ball'. PT says she asked GCR if he wants to move from the current accommodation and he is reported to have answered 'no' because of the extra stress that would result. PT submits that it would not be in GCR's best interests for him to return to live with his elderly, unwell mother.

GCR's evidence and wishes

GCR was interviewed on his own so as to ensure, as best as possible, that he could speak freely. There was no objection to this from the other parties. At his request, GCR left the hearing after he had spoken with the Tribunal. A summary of GCR's evidence is given [at T: 20-T:21, 7.10.10] which states:
[Mr Mansveld]: ... [GCR] has said that he doesn't like [the current accommodation] much.
...
He didn't like [the previous accommodation] either, that's where he was previously. There's some problems with his neighbours, for example they ask him to turn the TV down, he's concerned that they might take his TV. When we asked [GCR] how they could do that he said he was worried that they've got a spare key for example. So, there's general concerns about some of his neighbours, that they hassle him a bit.
He told us that he goes to work … I think a couple of days a week and to [other day placement] some more days so he's pretty busy during the week and he enjoys that because when I asked him ... what else he did[,] he said on Sunday he's at home and he gets bored. So, clearly we can gather from that he likes doing things. He would like to move in with mum but when he was asked ... why, for what reasons would you want to move in with mum he mentioned a number of things. He said things such as he would probably get more Diet Coke …
...
But he misses the cat, there's an old cat there that he remembers. He also expressed concerns about his mum and that part of his response to where he wants to live would be to look after mum, given that she hasn't been that well of late. So that was the sort of the context of [GCR] saying why he wants to move in with mum. He understands of course that dad is not at home anymore.
He says he wants his mum to be his guardian and when I asked him what does a guardian do[,] [GCR] spoke more about managing financial affairs, that's how [GCR] interpreted or saw a guardian, saw a guardian's role or sees a guardian's role. I didn't say this to [GCR] at the time[,] but of course people are aware that a guardian doesn't deal with a person's financial affairs, an administrator does. It's quite understandable why [GCR] might get a bit mixed up with that, lots of people do. At the moment of course the Public Trustee is … [GCR]'s administrator … under an order that was made by this [T]ribunal not that long ago.
So, that was generally speaking what [GCR]'s concerns were. He also said that he doesn't see - he feels he doesn't see enough of his mother and that from time to time he feels as if he's prevented from seeing his mother. So, that was again another point he raised … Now I also put to [GCR] as I said to everybody at the beginning of the hearing as to whether he would want to stay to hear the other people's talk about this. I did say to him and because it's a fact, that is[,] that there are disagreements about all of this and he expressed a wish not to have to be a part of that and that he would like to go. The important thing is that he was very able to tell us what he thought the situation is and what he wants out of all of that. ...

The Tribunal's decision

The Tribunal is satisfied that GCR is in need of a guardian. He is a vulnerable individual with a number of significant disabilities, both mental and physical. His mental disabilities are particularly limiting and affect his participation in the community. His intellectual disability, anxiety disorder and paranoid delusions have a profound impact on the way that he himself feels safe and secure and on the way he relates to other people.
The Tribunal agrees that GCR needs stable and consistent accommodation and care. Routine is critical to his sense of wellbeing.
LMR, GCR's mother, presents herself as a powerful advocate for him. There is no dispute that when she sees something that she considers to be a detriment to GCR she very forcefully states her view. LMR clearly loves her son and wants the best for him. Unfortunately, it appears to the Tribunal that she does not accept that anyone but herself can properly look after GCR.
The Tribunal does not agree with LMR in this regard, and accepts the evidence of SH and JCM that her interventions over the last 12 months or more have largely been counterproductive.
LMR has approached her advocacy for GCR with the care agency in an oppositional and at times antagonistic way. She has admitted so herself. This approach has alienated her from the care staff and at times has upset GCR. LMR characterises her approach as one which is necessary to ensure GCR receives the standard of care that she expects. It is consistent with her stated view that the current accommodation has never been good for GCR.
It is the view of the Tribunal that the facts speak otherwise. The Tribunal has had the benefit of the evidence of JCM, who, as the delegated guardian from the Office of the Public Advocate, has provided an independent view of GCR's care and the relationship between the care agency and LMR.
The Tribunal accepts JCM's evidence in this regard. That evidence substantiates to the satisfaction of the Tribunal four important matters; firstly, that there is a good working relationship between the guardian and the care agency staff; secondly, that the care agency staff have worked very hard to deal with matters of concern raised by the guardian and by reason of that, appear open to changing the way things are done when that is necessary; thirdly, that the activities GCR undertakes, which involve work and recreation that he enjoys, are structured according to his physical limitations; and finally, that LMR has, at times, almost overwhelmed the guardian and the care agency staff with her demands.
The Tribunal is troubled by several aspects of LMR's submissions.
She has not, in the Tribunal's view, adequately articulated or developed her plan to have GCR return to her home to a point where it could be considered a viable alternative. She says she cannot deal with his care needs alone (which the Tribunal accepts) but states that if she took him to her home to live, she would likely have to care for him for a time whilst carers were arranged. She has not properly considered the cost of private carers, simply assuming that the funds GCR receives from the Disability Services Commission will be sufficient to meet that cost. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of SH that GCR's funding paid for six hours daily care when he lived on his own but in pooling the funds with other residents in the current accommodation he has access to direct care and the additional benefit of 24 hour supervision.
In any case, LMR states in her evidence that her new home, which is currently being built and in which she says GCR can live somewhat independently, will not be ready for 12 months. It is of concern to the Tribunal that LMR's proposal would likely involve two moves, the first to her current residence and then to the new home when it is accepted that stability and routine are critical to manage GCR's anxiety.
The Tribunal finds, on the evidence, that LMR both underestimates and overestimates different aspects of GCR's abilities. She takes the view that he currently participates in too many activities with his rheumatoid arthritis and would reduce his work and formal recreation. This is not consistent with the evidence of both the guardian and SH, which shows that GCR likes to be active and that his arthritis is regularly assessed by Dr RW who, a day before the hearing, advised the care agency that it is currently well managed. This is not to suggest that GCR does not suffer pain and discomfort from the arthritis, but the Tribunal is satisfied that his current activities, on balance, contribute positively to his overall wellbeing.
The Tribunal finds LMR's view of GCR's care and supervisory needs inconsistent. She is severely critical of the care agency for not providing sufficient care and supervision, but states in her evidence that if GCR returned to her home to live, he would improve so that he would no longer require 24 hour supervision. LMR accepts that GCR currently needs 24 hour supervision but against that, planned to allow GCR to travel by plane alone from Adelaide back to Perth (it would appear against medical advice) only 12 months ago.
The Tribunal is satisfied, on all the evidence, that GCR receives the consistent care and supervision he needs from his accommodation, in his current accommodation and under the care of the care agency. In the Tribunal's view, it is also the place where, with all the recreational and work activities he undertakes, he has the chance to lead the most independent life available to him.
The Tribunal accepts that caring for GCR is not without its difficulties to which the evidence attests. He has his own view of what is best for him which, because of his disabilities, varies, and is not consistently stated and which unfortunately is at times mediated through his delusional thinking. His wishes are based on momentary things such as the availability of Diet Coke but also more profound notions of caring for his mother (which he clearly could not do as he cannot care for himself).
With the best will in the world, the care agency faces a demanding task in dealing with these difficulties on a day to day basis. The care agency needs to do so whilst supporting the other residents for whom it cares. In this context, it is essential that GCR have a guardian to ensure that his best interests are at the forefront of any decision that is made for him or at the forefront of other decisions that impact on his interests.
For all the above reasons, the Tribunal cannot appoint LMR as GCR's guardian and is satisfied that it is in his best interests that the Public Advocate remains in that role. The Tribunal accepts this might be contrary to what GCR expressed as his wish during the hearing.
The Tribunal does not accept that it would be in GCR's best interests that he be moved from his current accommodation and LMR has clearly stated that is what she would do had she the relevant authority.
In saying this, the Tribunal accepts that LMR loves her son and has strong opinions about what is best for him. It is the view of the Tribunal, however, that on the evidence, what LMR seeks for her son is not in his current best interests.
The Tribunal has decided to confirm the order made on 9 April 2009 which means, as earlier stated in these reasons, that the Public Advocate has been given the role to decide GCR's accommodation and services, and to consent to his treatment and health care. The Tribunal has decided not to include the function of contact (to manage GCR's contact with his mother) as proposed by the Public Advocate and SH. The Tribunal accepts that dealing with LMR in recent times has been very difficult and that her confrontational approach does impact on GCR, however, it is considered premature to impose such a significant authority on their relationship. The Tribunal asks that the guardian and the carers continue to be consultative with LMR, and to be patient with her concerns.

Order

On applications for review under s 86(1) and s 87(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) of an order dated 9 April 2009 concerning GCR, heard on 7 October 2010, it is ordered that:
1.The order is confirmed as follows:
The Public Advocate of Level 1, Hyatt Centre, 30 Terrace Road, East 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)Subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, to consent to any treatment or health care of the represented person; and
(d)To determine the services to which the represented person should have access.
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.This order is to be reviewed by 18 March 2015.

I certify that this and the preceding [78] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, MEMBER

[2011] WASAT 44

28 January 2011