GMM

CITATION:	GMM [2017] QCAT 257
PARTIES:	GMM
APPLICATION NUMBER:	GAA3735-17
MATTER TYPE:	Guardianship and administration matters for adults
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Endicott
DELIVERED ON:	13 April 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	GUARDIANSHIP 1. WK is appointed guardian for GMM for the following personal matters only: (a) accommodation decisions; (b) health care of GMM; (c) provision of services for GMM. 2. The Tribunal directs the guardian to provide a written account of their actions as guardian to the Tribunal no later than three (3) working days prior to the hearing. 3. This guardianship appointment remains current for three (3) months or, if the Tribunal makes a further order in this matter, until the date of the further order, whichever is the sooner. ADMINISTRATION 4. WK is appointed administrator for GMM for all financial matters. 5. The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide a written account of their actions as administrator to the Tribunal no later than three (3) working days prior to the hearing. 6. This administration appointment remains current for three (3) months or, if the Tribunal makes a further order in this matter, until the date of the further order, whichever is the sooner. NOTICE OF INTEREST IN LAND 7. Before 11 May 2017 the administrator must: (a) Record the appointment as administrator on any property registered in the adults name with the Registrar of Titles by lodging the appropriate notice with a copy of the Tribunal’s appointment decision. (b) Provide confirmation to the Tribunal that this has been completed by providing: i) A copy of the title search conducted identifying the adult’s property; and ii) A copy of the Titles registry “Lodgement Summary Form” confirming the notice has been lodged for each property held by the adult. (c) If no property is held, a Record of a search of the Land Registry, from the Registrar of Titles confirming no property is held. 8. If the ownership of any property of the adult changes in any way or the adult acquires an interest in another property the administrator must, within fourteen (14) days of such changes: (a) Give a copy of this order to the Registrar of Titles and (b) Give a notice to the Registrar about the changes or the adult’s interest in another property. ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY 9. Any purported enduring power of attorney for GMM is overtaken by the making of these appointment and, in accordance with section 22(2) of the Act can no longer be acted upon to the extent that these appointment have been made.
CATCHWORDS:	GUARDIANS, COMMITTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS – APPOINTMENT – where an adult had appointed her daughter as attorney and enduring guardian in another State – where there was a concern that the adult would revoke the daughter’s authority and appoint another attorney without considering the adverse implications of such a choice – where evidence that the adult had poor short term memory and was at times confused – where appointment of a guardian and administrator sought INTERIM APPOINTMENT – whether the adult is at an immediate risk of harm – whether an interim appointment of a decision-maker is required Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 129(1)
APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

GMM sold her home in New South Wales and moved to Queensland in about October 2016. Her only child, WK, lives in Queensland. WK assisted GMM to find accommodation in Queensland.
GMM had appointed WK as her financial attorney and her enduring guardian under New South Wales legislation. WK applied to the Tribunal seeking to be appointed as a guardian and administrator for GMM. WK also sought an interim order appointing her as guardian and administrator until such time as the substantive applications came on for hearing.
The Tribunal can make an appointment of a decision maker on an interim basis for up to three months under s 129(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (GAA) without holding a hearing. Before an interim order can be made, the Tribunal must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that there is an immediate risk of harm to the welfare or property of the adult concerned because of the risk of abuse, exploitation or neglect of the adult.
WK stated that GMM was demonstrating memory loss and an inability to understand. WK stated that GMM forgets 80% of things she initiates and that there are no personal, legal or medical matters that the memory loss does not affect. WK stated that GMM neglects personal hygiene and suffers from anxiety, anger and depression all at the same time. WK stated that GMM is a falls risk in her unit and that GMM has declined to install safety rails in her unit, as she believes she has no money.
WK stated that GMM forgets to take medication and was on a few occasions hospitalised suffering from dehydration. WK stated that GMM does not cook meals for herself and cancelled Meals on Wheels due to concerns about the cost of that service. WK stated that GMM has a history of constantly doing wills and Powers of Attorney, some of which are identical and which are done and re-done by different lawyers. WK stated that GMM has been appointing her real estate agent as her attorney and enduring guardian and that GMM fails to understand the implications of such an action even when it has been explained to her by a solicitor as well as by a bank manager.
WK stated that she is currently her mother’s attorney and enduring guardian. According to the documents filed in the Tribunal, the powers of the attorney cannot be exercised until a medical practitioner provides a document that GMM is unable to manage her own affairs. WK stated that she does not have a doctor who can issue a certificate, as GMM’s doctor is new and is unfamiliar with her.
WK submitted that she is worried that GMM will fall victim to a scammer as she does not understand how much money she has after the sale of her property in New South Wales and the purchase of a unit in Queensland. She stated that GMM had given WK authority to deal with Centrelink and with her business affairs but then rescinded that authority which had resulted in confusion and bills being unpaid. WK expressed a concern that GMM was at risk of being taken advantage of if WK did not have decision-making powers for GMM. At present, WK is unable to exercise decision-making power as an attorney due to the lack of medical certification that GMM is currently unable to manage her affairs.
WK stated that GMM had engaged some professional persons to restore contact with her real estate agent. WK expressed a concern about what GMM is trying to do.
The Tribunal is not required to make findings about a person’s decision-making capacity when considering an interim order application. However, there should be some evidence that could give rise to a reasonable inference that the person in question has some relevant impaired decision-making capacity. WK had provided to the Tribunal a copy of an occupational therapist’s assessment of GMM in her unit. GMM had scored 24 out of 30 on a cognitive screening test, with a low score on delayed recall. The assessment revealed some evidence that GMM required constant encouragement to complete some domestic tasks and would change the subject when she experienced difficulty with a task.
The Tribunal drew an inference that the cognitive assessment had identified some areas of functioning where GMM was not performing at a level where she could fully understand and react to the risks in her environment. The Tribunal drew an inference from the occupational assessment that GMM would tend to prevaricate when faced with functional difficulties and would thereby mask her difficulties when dealing with other people. The evidence from WK of GMM demonstrating short-term memory issues and confusion added to those inferences.
There was evidence from WK that GMM had revoked WK’s authority to make some financial decisions with an outcome of unpaid bills and confusion. There was an immediate risk on the evidence of WK that GMM would attempt to change her decision-makers at a time when she would need formal decision-making support in order for her welfare to be maintained. GMM’s past actions in changing decision-makers and not appreciating the implications of her choice of attorney and enduring guardian gave rise to a risk that she would seek to appoint a person to decision-making roles who would not be able to be independent or appropriate in providing the support required for GMM.
The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence that GMM was at an immediate risk of harm to her welfare and that formal decision-making support by a guardian and administrator was needed until a hearing of the substantive applications could be held. GMM’s decision-making needs were not able to be met by her appointed attorney and enduring guardian as the trigger for exercise of support by WK could not be readily provided. WK is her current attorney and enduring guardian and had been chosen for those roles by GMM at times when she had capacity. It would be appropriate for WK to continue in providing decision-making support for GMM in the formal role as guardian and administrator until such time as a hearing of the substantive applications could be held.

[2017] QCAT 257

13 April 2017