GKC (No 2)

[2024] NSWCATGD 7

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

GKC (No 2) [2024] NSWCATGD 7

Hearing dates:

10 November 2023
23 February 2024

Date of orders:

10 November 2023
23 February 2024

Decision date:

23 February 2024

Jurisdiction:

Guardianship Division

Before:

10 November 2023

J Moir, Senior Member (Legal)
M Bain, Senior Member (Professional)

23 February 2024

J Moir, Senior Member (Legal)
M Bain, Senior Member (Professional)
P Davidson, General Member (Community)

Decision:

10 November 2023

The guardianship order concerning GKC made on 20 July 2022 which took effect from [The date that GKC turned 18], is lapsed from 10 November 2023. Today’s hearing of the review of the financial management order is adjourned for up to three months to a day to be confirmed by the registry.

The financial management order made on 20 July 2022, to take effect from [The date that GKC turned 18], is revoked from 23 February 2024. The NSW Trustee and Guardian is to pay over or hand over the estate to GKC.

23 February 2024

The financial management order made on 20 July 2022, to take effect from [The date that GKC turned 18], is revoked from 23 February 2024. The NSW Trustee and Guardian is to pay over or hand over the estate to GKC.

Catchwords:

GUARDIANSHIP – end-of-term and requested reviews of guardianship order – whether a further guardianship order should be made – 19-year-old man with autism spectrum disorder – finding that the subject person is able to make own important life decisions with informal support – subject person is no longer a person for whom the Tribunal could make a guardianship order – order allowed to lapse

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – requested review of financial management order – whether it is in the best interests of the subject person that the financial management order be revoked – substantial improvement in management of own financial affairs – order revoked

Legislation Cited:

Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), ss 3(1)-(2), 14

Cases Cited:

P v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 579

Texts Cited:

None cited.

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

005: Review of Guardianship Order

GKC (the person)
Public Guardian (appointed guardian)
SZH (joined party)

006: Review of Reviewable Financial Management Order

GKC (the person)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (appointed financial manager)
SZH (joined party)

007: Requested Review of Guardianship Order

GKC (the person)
SZH (applicant)
Public Guardian (appointed guardian)

008: Review or Revoke Financial Management Order

GKC (the person)
SZH (applicant)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (appointed financial manager)

011: Review or Revoke Financial Management Order

GKC (the person)
CYD (applicant)
NSW Trustee and Guardian (appointed financial manager)

012: Requested Review of Guardianship Order

GKC (the person)
CYD (applicant)
Public Guardian (appointed guardian)

Representation:

Solicitors: P Mathers, Separate Representative for GKC

File Number(s):

NCAT 2022/00106202

Publication restriction:

Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal’s proceedings: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 65.

REASONS FOR DECISION

STATUTORY REVIEW OF GUARDIANSHIP ORDER

REQUESTED REVIEW OF GUARDIANSHIP ORDER

REVIEW OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER

Background

1. GKC is a 19-year-old man, who, at the time of the hearing on 10 November 2023, was living in supported independent living (SIL) accommodation in north-west Sydney, managed by a disability service provider. At the time of the hearing on 23 February 2024, GKC was living in Queensland with his father, CYD. GKC’s mother, SZH lives in regional NSW and is very involved.

2. GKC lives with autism spectrum disorder, and has a history of anxiety disorder and very significant eating disorder (avoidant restrictive food intake disorder) and selective mutism. He has also been diagnosed with a form of rheumatoid arthritis. He is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

3. GKC was first assumed into the care of the Minister for Communities and Justice in June 2018. Further interim orders were made in February 2019, and final orders were made in April 2020. These remained in place until he turned 18. From mid-2020, GKC lived in a residential placement managed by the disability service provider, and received case management by Metro ISS, an out of home care team within the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) which provides a specialist service to children and young people who have complex and challenging needs. Prior to this he had a lengthy period of hospitalisation, between February 2019 and May/June 2020, related to his eating disorder.

4. On 20 July 2022 the Tribunal made a guardianship order and financial management order for GKC, appointing the Public Guardian, and the NSW Trustee and Guardian (NSW TAG) respectively. The guardianship order gave the Public Guardian authority to make decisions for GKC regarding his accommodation, the access he has with other people, his services, health care and to consent to his medical and dental treatment.

5. These orders were to take effect from GKC’s 18th birthday, on [Date removed for publication.], when he left the care of the Minister. Both orders were to be reviewed after 12 months.

6. SZH made applications to review both orders in December 2022. SZH also had multiple other proceedings on foot in relation to her son in a number of jurisdictions, including appeals in relation to an interlocutory decision made to not join her as a party. SZH’s other proceedings are not addressed further in these Reasons for Decision.

7. In November 2023 the Tribunal also received applications to review the guardianship order and financial management order from CYD.

8. The Tribunal listed SZH’s and CYD’s applications for review to be heard with the end of term review of the guardianship order, and the scheduled review of the financial management order. A number of interlocutory hearings were conducted in preparing these matters for hearing, and in addition to setting a schedule for submission of evidence, the Tribunal appointed a separate representative for GKC and joined SZH to the scheduled reviews.

9. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 10 November 2023, and made orders in relation to the review of the guardianship order. The review of the financial management order was adjourned, due to insufficient time, and was heard on 23 February 2024. These Reasons for Decision arise from the hearing of both of these matters. The requested reviews and the scheduled reviews are dealt with together.

The hearings

10. Both hearings were conducted in Sydney. The participants in person on 10 November 2023 were GKC, SZH, CYD, Professor Z, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Ms Y, assistant to Professor Z and Ms X, support worker. Mr Paul Mathers, Separate Representative and Dr W, Guardian ad Litem for GKC in other proceedings also attended in person. Participants by video and telephone were Ms ZZ from the Public Guardian, Ms V and Ms U both from an equine-assisted therapy service provider, which is one of GKC’s NDIS service providers, Ms S, support coordinator, Ms YY, from NSW TAG and Mr T, great uncle. Mr R, solicitor, participated as McKenzie Friend for the Public Guardian.

11. The participants in person on 23 February 2024 were GKC, and Mr Mathers. Participants by video and telephone were Ms XX, from NSW TAG, SZH, CYD, and Dr W.

12. The Tribunal received a great deal of written material in relation to these matters, much of it from SZH. Meaning no disrespect, much of this was not relevant to these proceedings, either because it related to other proceedings, or it related to matters which did not need to be considered for these reviews. Whilst the Tribunal had regard to all of the material submitted, these Reasons for Decision will only refer to material which was directly relevant to the Tribunal's decision.

What did the Tribunal have to decide? Review of guardianship order

13. On reviewing the current guardianship order the Tribunal may renew, renew and vary the order or determine that the order is to lapse.

14. The questions to be considered by the Tribunal are:

• Is GKC someone for whom the Tribunal could make an order because he continues to have a disability which prevents him from being able to make important life decisions?

• Should the Tribunal make a further guardianship order and if so, what order should be made?

• Who should be the guardian?

• How long should the order last?

Is GKC someone for whom the Tribunal could make a further order because he continues to have a disability which prevents him from being able to make important life decisions?

15. Section 14 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) provides that the Tribunal may make a guardianship order for a person if it is satisfied that he is “a person in need of a guardian”. A person in need of a guardian is “a person who because of a disability is totally or partially incapable of managing his or her person”: Guardianship Act, s 3(1). A person with a disability is a person who is:

1. intellectually, physically, psychologically or sensorily disabled;

2. of advanced age;

3. a mentally ill person within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW); or

4. otherwise disabled;

and by virtue of that fact is restricted in one or more major life activities to such an extent that he or she requires supervision or social habilitation: Guardianship Act, s 3(2).

16. Based on the Reasons for Decision produced when the order was made, the Tribunal noted GKC’s and SZH’s view that he was able to make decisions on his own behalf, but gave greater weight to the evidence and conclusions in a number of professional reports. These referred to the impact of GKC’s diagnosed ASD (level 2/3) and anxiety disorder on his behaviour, need for support, and capacity to understand his situation and make decisions on his own behalf. There were various other diagnosed psychological conditions. At the time of that hearing, GKC preferred to communicate in written form, and his views were relayed to the Tribunal by the appointed Separate Representative. The Tribunal was satisfied from the evidence that GKC “…has severe autism spectrum disorder, which causes him to have impaired decision making capacity for important personal, health and lifestyle decisions. His disability restricts him in informed and rational decision making. While he can make simple choices, he lacks understanding or appreciation of the consequences of his decisions and his rigidity impedes him in considering alternatives. As a result of his disability, he is also restricted in his ability to manage in the home and in the community to such an extent that he requires supervision and support services. He is partially incapable of managing his person and needs supervision or assistance to function in society. He is a person for whom the Tribunal could make a guardianship order.”

17. For this review, the Tribunal considered a number of reports, which did not present a consistent account of the impact of GKC’s ASD and anxiety on his day to day need for support and decision-making. On the one hand, an Occupational Therapy Letter of Support dated 20 July 2023 by Ms Q, Occupational Therapy Functional assessment by Ms P, dated 31 October 2023 and the current Behaviour Intervention Support Plan (BISP) dated 1 September 2023, all report that although he has shown some increase in functional skills, GKC continues to have significant difficulties across most domains and requires a high level of day-to-day support. The BISP reports no restrictive practices.

18. In contrast, the Tribunal considered evidence from others, including GKC, which asserts that an overreliance on earlier assessments, and clear factual errors (e.g., reference to DCJ still being the designated decision maker) raises serious questions about the accuracy of these reports. In particular, GKC provided the Tribunal with a very detailed written submission explaining his response to information included in the BISP and Ms Q's report. He also incorporates views from Ms V and Ms U, who reject many of the conclusions in these reports and attest to GKC’s developing functional skills including planning, problem solving, communication and interpersonal skills. In summary, GKC submits that the OT and BISP assessments fail to take into account the very significant gains he has made over the past 12 to 18 months in independent living, communication skills, emotional regulation and decision-making.

19. GKC told the Tribunal he relied on his written submissions. He does not think that he needs a guardian, as he is able to make decisions for himself, with the informal supports he trusts. GKC’s presentation at the hearing was impressive - articulate, insightful, measured and logical. He does not dispute that he has ASD, but he is motivated to build a life, with the supports he considers necessary. He plans to move to Queensland to be closer to this father, whom he trusts to support him. There is a high level of conflict between GKC’s parents and this is relevant to the context in which GKC would be making decisions if there was no guardianship order in place. GKC confirmed, when asked, that he is able to seek and take advice from those he trusts. He is able to keep himself safe, avoiding undue pressure and is not upset by other people being pushy or emotional.

20. The Tribunal also considered a letter from Ms V which states that GKC has been a client and participant at the equine-assisted therapy service provider since December 2021. He initially engaged in counselling and psychotherapy and experiential learning between November 2021 and August 2022 when his funding for therapy ceased. On his request he continued with a weekly work experience placement until late 2022. In 2023 this changed to a supervised work placement associated with his TAFE studies in Equine Studies, and he successfully completed Certificate 2 in Horse Management. Ms V details the many life skills he has developed over this time, concluding “[GKC]’s growth and development whilst at [the equine-assisted therapy service provider] has been exponential. From a young person who struggled to stay present and engaged, who had few if any workplace skills, very few practical skills and little impulse control, [GKC] has grown into a young man who interacts very well- politely and appropriately - with my employees, students and clients. He behaves thoughtfully, safely and ethically around the horses, follows workplace procedures and carries out workplace tasks with responsibility and attention to detail.” The person described by Ms V is very different to the person described in the OT reports and BISP. Ms V confirmed her evidence at the hearing.

21. The Tribunal also had regard to two detailed letters from Professor Z, dated 19 October 2023 and 8 November 2023, in which he provides his assessment of GKC, with reference to the BISP and OT reports. Professor Z states that he is giving his opinion in the current proceedings on a pro bono basis, is not acting under instructions from either of his parents, and is motivated by the hope that GKC’s views are properly considered. The Tribunal was also greatly assisted by Professor Z’s evidence at the hearing.

22. Professor Z states that he previously gave expert evidence regarding GKC’s care to the Children’s Court and to the Supreme Court. He has interviewed GKC on four previous occasions, in April 2019, in hospital, and in October/November 2020 and March 2021 in his previous SIL accommodation. Given this, he is familiar with GKC’s history and situation. Professor Z met with GKC on 11 October 2023 and had some email exchanges with him to clarify some matters, and also spoke with Ms X and House Manager, Ms O.

23. In the October 2023 letter, Professor Z expresses a number of significant concerns about the BISP, including multiple references to out-of-date information, many conclusions which are not supported by evidence and the absence of GKC’s consent to the BISP. On the basis of these issues, he essentially rejects the validity or usefulness of the BISP. By his own assessment of GKC, Professor Z confirms his agreement that GKC is appropriately diagnosed with ASD, but observed no other mental disorder. He considers that repeated references to GKC experiencing an anxiety disorder are unsupported, though he concedes that symptoms of anxiety might be reduced by the medication (Fluoxetine) GKC is taking. He states that GKC presented as appropriately frustrated, given his expressed experience of unnecessary restrictions on his life by his forced dependence on carers, and restrictions on his movements. Professor Z noted that some aspects of GKC’s presentation are consistent with his diagnosis for ASD (minimal eye contact), but states that GKC’s “…thought form was logical. He showed good capacity for abstract thought, communicated with clear intelligence. There was no evidence of concrete thinking….” He observes that other young people subjected to the same restrictions as GKC would likely respond with significant protest behaviour, and observes that it is a credit to GKC’s maturity, self-control and resilience, that he has “… not acted out in a more disruptive way”.

24. Professor Z expresses that, consistent with other 19-year-olds, GKC requires further training and guidance in some independence skills, such as in independent housing skills and financial management. He states that whilst these skills may take GKC some time to master, in his view this can be achieved with a “properly programmed independence skills training plan…” developed with GKC’s input. Professor Z “…does not see any limit on what he can learn”. In terms of the need for a guardian, Professor Z states that GKC is “…capable of giving informed consent for medical, psychological, other health-related interventions and employment experiences”. However, he considers that GKC continues to need a guardian to arrange housing (and for financial management), but that this need may diminish rapidly - possibly within six months, and that any order should be reviewed within this period.

25. In the November 2023 letter, Professor Z raises numerous concerns about Ms P’s OT assessment, again noting that it relies on outdated and inaccurate information, does not take into account current evidence (such as his recent assessment or Ms V's report), draws conclusions out of context, and that as a consequence, presents an inaccurate account of the impact of GKC’s ASD. Professor Z rejects Ms P’s conclusions that GKC has problems with his memory, insight and communication, observing that GKC’s memory is excellent. He is also highly critical of the scoring and results on the CANS and WHODAS 2.0 assessments, as they are based on second hand information, overstate his disability and underestimate his ability.

26. At the hearing, Professor Z confirmed the views expressed in his letters, that GKC is largely independent in his ability to make decisions for himself regarding his own health, medical treatment, and supports. He clarified that although GKC may need “help” with decisions about his accommodation and financial affairs, he saw this as fairly typical for a 19-year-old. It was not his view that this “help” necessarily should be a guardian (or financial manager) and that it was a matter for the Tribunal to decide what was appropriate.

27. Mr Mathers provided a written submission and spoke to the Tribunal. He states that he has been very involved with GKC for some time, appointed to represent his interests in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court matters. Mr Mathers noted that Dr W, who was the guardian ad litem in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court matters agrees with his submissions.

28. Mr Mathers notes that GKC’s circumstances are very difficult, as he is subjected to considerable restriction on his autonomy based on the outdated BISP. GKC is not given opportunities to make decisions for himself. The SIL accommodation is locked, and he is unable to access the community without being accompanied by carers. His requests to access the community are often rejected because of unavailability of carers and he is missing out on opportunities as a result. However these restrictions have not been acknowledged as a restrictive practice, and are being implemented without consent. Mr Mathers observes that there is a clear need for GKC to move and that he has repeatedly expressed the desire to move to Queensland, to be closer to his father. GKC has also consistently expressed that he wants his father to be his primary support.

16. Mr Mathers stated that during the time that he has been involved with GKC he has shown very substantial improvement in his communication and self- awareness. Mr Mathers said this is demonstrated by GKC’s written submission referred to earlier. GKC acknowledges that he is not always able to make decisions alone but is willing to seek and take advice from trusted supports.

17. Mr Mathers submits that whilst GKC has ASD, the evidence from Professor Z, GKC himself and Ms V is that this does not affect him to the extent that he is unable to make decisions on his own behalf. In Mr Mathers’ view, GKC is able to make necessary decisions for himself, or with informal support from his father. In Mr Mathers’ view, the Tribunal should not make a further guardianship order.

18. SZH told the Tribunal that she agreed with Mr Mathers’ submission that the guardianship order should be lapsed, and no new order made. However she did not support the idea that GKC would move to Queensland and be primarily supported by his father. She believed that he should return to live with her and be supported by her. Needless to say, if there was no guardianship order in place it would be a matter for GKC to decide for himself where he lived and who he turned to for support.

19. CYD also agreed with Mr Mathers’ submission, noting that he had recently spent two days with GKC and observed what he is capable of achieving for himself. He maintained that if a guardianship order was required that he should be appointed but that he did not believe an order should be made.

20. Ms ZZ submitted that GKC’s SIL provider had given notice of termination and that new accommodation would be required very shortly. Given the timeframe and challenges in decisions about suitable accommodation and service provision, she believed that he would benefit from a guardian to make these kinds of decisions on his behalf. She agreed with the evidence that he is able to make other decisions for himself, and is growing in independence.

21. Ms X said that she has worked with GKC for two years as a support worker and that she has observed that he has made a “massive improvement”. He previously needed a lot of support and encouragement even to get out of bed, and to eat but he is now much more motivated. However she believes he still needs support day to day (not necessarily a guardian) to assist with some independent living skills.

22. Ms S said that she has been GKC’s support coordinator for some time, and that he has consistently expressed the wish to move to Queensland. Three options for accommodation in Queensland have been put to the Public Guardian, but there has been no response to these proposals. In her view GKC is quite capable of making the decision for himself about where he should live. She met with him as recently as the day prior to the hearing with options and believes that he is well able to understand what is suitable and available to him.

23. There is no dispute, including from GKC himself that he lives with ASD, which impacts in some respects on his approach to the world. There is no dispute that GKC is a highly intelligent young man with many impressive skills. There is ample evidence over a number of years that in the context of complex family dynamics GKC has, at times, in the past experienced some very serious psychological and medical conditions which put his health at critical risk.

24. Some of the written evidence before the Tribunal (the OT assessments and BISP) relies too heavily on how GKC used to be, and includes insufficient attention to reliable evidence about how he is now. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are numerous reasons to doubt the reliability of this evidence, as articulated by Professor Z, Ms V, Ms U and GKC. On balance the Tribunal gave greater weight to the well-reasoned and current assessments from Professor Z, and Ms V, the views of Ms S and the submissions from Mr Mathers, all of whom have developed a sound understanding of GKC over a period of time. This evidence is consistent with GKC’s very articulate written views, and his presentation at the hearing. He demonstrated insight into his needs and wishes, clearly understood and demonstrated the process of weighing up information to make decisions and indicated his willingness to consult and accept support from people he trusts. This ability to form trusting relationships and seek support was very evident from the relationships he has developed with Ms V, Ms U, as well as Mr Mathers and Professor Z.

25. The Tribunal is satisfied that whilst GKC lives with ASD, and requires some supports to live independently, this does not prevent him making important life decisions. He is not a person for whom the Tribunal could make a further guardianship order.

26. Having decided the order should be lapsed on the basis that GKC is no longer a person for whom the Tribunal could make a guardianship order, there was no need to address the other questions set out above.

Review Financial Management order

40. On reviewing the financial management order the Tribunal must confirm, confirm and vary or revoke the financial management order.

41. The Tribunal may revoke the financial management order only if:

• it is satisfied that GKC is capable of managing his affairs; or

• it considers that it is in the best interests of GKC that the order be revoked.

42. The Tribunal may also review the appointment of the manager if it considers it appropriate to do so.

43. In this matter the issue for the Tribunal was whether GKC is capable of managing his affairs.

Background

44. Mr Mathers told the Tribunal that since the guardianship order was revoked, GKC had moved to Queensland and was living with his father, with some NDIS supports in place. Plans for him to move to SIL accommodation in Queensland were explored, but ultimately GKC and CYD preferred that they live together. The current arrangement was reportedly going well and GKC confirmed that he is happy with his current living situation.

Should the order be revoked because the person has regained the capability to manage his affairs?

45. The test for determining a person's capability to manage his or her affairs has been described as being whether a person is “reasonably able to manage his or her own affairs in a reasonably competent fashion, without the intervention of a [financial manager] charged with a duty to protect his or her welfare and interests”. This involves the person being able to deal with their own financial affairs in a reasonable, rational and orderly way with regard to their current and future wants and needs, “without undue risk of neglect, abuse or exploitation”. (P v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 579, [307]-[308])

46. In considering whether the person is “able” in this sense, it is relevant to consider their history, the supports they have in place and their vulnerability to exploitation or abuse.

47. The reports from Professor Z referred to earlier are relevant to this question. He expressed at that time that GKC required some assistance with financial management but that it was expected that he would develop skills in this area within a relatively short period of time.

48. At this hearing Mr Mathers submitted that the financial management order should be revoked. He said that CYD had written to him about his observations of GKC’s effective skills in managing his own shopping and budgeting. He noted that GKC’s maternal grandmother died recently and that he may need to seek legal assistance in relation to his entitlement to a share of her estate. However Mr Mathers considered that GKC would be able to give instructions.

49. GKC told the Tribunal that given his age, he believes he is quite capable of managing his own financial affairs and that the order should be revoked.

50. GKC said that he’s aware that he receives about $1,000 a fortnight from his disability pension which is managed by NSW TAG who use this to cover some of his expenses. He receives an allowance of $165 a week which is to cover his groceries and medications and personal expenses and $200 a week is paid to his father for rent and bills.

51. GKC told the Tribunal about a number of financial transactions and decisions that he has made over the past few months and was able to very clearly explain his reasoning in relation to these matters. Since moving to Queensland, he’s progressed through his learner driver licence and now has his provisional drivers licence. He has purchased a car, negotiating the price, reviewing the contract of sale and paying for it outright with money held in investments, outside the financial management order. He made this purchase outside the authority of the NSW TAG. GKC maturely explained his understanding of the depreciation of the value of the car and the importance of maintaining it and insuring it.

52. As another example of his financial competence, GKC explained that he had made his own arrangements to travel to Sydney for the hearing. This involved booking his own flights and hotel, choosing the most economical and efficient options and paying for this by bank transfer. He elected to stay in a nearby area so he could see Ms V and Ms U and still be on a train line so he could easily access the city.

53. GKC explained that he has plans to resume study and wants to get a job. He has NDIS funding for further equine therapy and also has some NDIS support for activities around the house. He said that in relation to the possible inheritance, he believes is able to find himself a lawyer, take advice and give instructions. He will talk with his father and other supportive people if needed about what to do. He is confident that he will be able to deal with this matter himself.

54. CYD observed that his son is highly intelligent, and has a good understanding of finances, including digital investments he made a number of years ago which are doing very well. CYD has supported GKC to understand bill payments and day to day activities such as shopping, which he had not had much opportunity to do previously.

55. CYD said that GKC is very good at identifying value for money and stays within his budgets. He has only needed some help once with an additional $20. GKC manages his own bank accounts, including his digital investment account.

56. He considers that GKC made good decisions regarding the purchase of his car. He was very impressed by his decision to obtain comprehensive insurance, as this is something that not all young men understand. In addition to making the arrangements for his trip to Sydney, CYD said that GKC had also arranged an earlier trip to Canberra.

57. CYD said that GKC has found a group in Brisbane with whom he practises his Japanese language which he taught himself some time ago. He is planning a holiday to Japan in the future. GKC has positive plans for the future. In the long term he hopes to return to live in an area in north-west Sydney, buy a property and to be a “horse whisperer”. Whilst CYD agrees that his son does continue to need some support but that he is willing to continue to provide this informally.

58. SZH confirmed her view that GKC is definitely capable of managing his own financial affairs. They are in touch by text message and have seen each other a few times.

59. Ms XX from NSW TAG said that she spoke with GKC and his father about the living arrangements and decided against a formal lease arrangement. She has recently applied for rent assistance for GKC from Centrelink and his current pension is $1088 a fortnight. In her view GKC has done “pretty well managing his own affairs and has not made numerous requests for additional funds”. She said NSW TAG is not involved in any legal proceedings but notes that the Supreme Court appeal is still on foot. She expressed no concern about the proposal that the financial management order be revoked.

60. Dr W supported Mr Mathers’ recommendation that the financial management order should be revoked as GKC can manage his own affairs. She was very impressed by how GKC has developed.

61. The Tribunal was again very impressed with GKC’s presentation, sophisticated understanding and explanation of his financial situation and decisions. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that GKC is capable of managing his own financial affairs, and revoked the financial management order on this basis.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 02 August 2024