HBR (Guardianship)

[2017] TASGAB 16

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISRATION BOARD
HOBART

HBR– Application for appointment of a guardian

HBR (Guardianship) [2017] TASGAB 16

REASONS FOR DECISION

Rowena Holder (Chair)
Lindy Wall (Member)
Carolyn Wallace (Member)

Date of hearing: 14 September 2017

1. On 14^th September 2017 the Guardianship and Administration Board (the Board) heard an application for guardianship for HBR (‘the proposed represented person’).  The Application was filed by Ms Louella Tria, Social worker at the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH). The Board received an emergency application for guardianship on 2^nd August 2017.

2. The following persons attended the hearing:

   ·Ms Jayne Kline, on behalf of the Applicant and social worker at the RHH

   ·CU, partner

   ·EU, step-son

   ·Ms Kim Barker from the Public Guardian (OPG)

   ·Maddy Russell from the OPG, observing.

3. The Board had the following documents before it:

   ·Application for Guardianship dated 23/08/2017

   ·Health Care Professional Report dated 02/08/2017

   ·Copy of the Emergency Guardianship Order dated 31/08/2017

   ·Myagedcare report dated 06/09/2017

   ·Reports from the OPG dated 23/08/2017

4. As a result of the hearing the Board was satisfied that the proposed represented person is a person with a disability and is unable because of his disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of his accommodation and is in need of a guardian.  The full details of the Order appear at the end of this Statement of Reasons.

Requirements of the Guardianship & Administration Act 1995

1. When the Board assesses an application for the appointment of a guardian it needs to be satisfied of the matters in sections 20 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act), that the proposed represented person:

   (a)   is a person with a disability, and

   (b)   is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters relating to his person or circumstances,

   (c)   is in need of a guardian.

2. The Board must also balance the principles in section 6 of the Act, which include the least restrictive of a person's freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances is adopted; the best interests of and the wishes of a person with a disability or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act are, if possible, carried into effect.

Is the proposed represented person a person with a disability?

1. In respect of the proposed represented person Dr Alison Cleary, geriatrician, provided a Health Care Professional Report to the Board dated the 02 August 2017.  Dr Cleary reported that the represented person has a diagnosis of Vascular and Alzheimer’s dementia, which had been evident for 2-3 years. The disability was both deteriorating and fluctuating.

2. Dr Cleary’s evidence was unchallenged at the hearing and no other medical evidence was provided to the Board.  The Board is satisfied that the proposed represented person is a person with a disability within the meaning of the Act.

Is the proposed represented person incapable by reason of his disability of making reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters relating to his person or circumstances and/or matters relating to all or any part of his estate?

1. In the report from Dr Cleary dated 2^nd August 2017 Dr Cleary Dr Cleary reports that the proposed represented person is unable to make decisions concerning his accommodation and has a very simplified and limited capacity to understand the nature and effect of medical treatment.

10.  Dr Cleary’s evidence was unchallenged at the hearing.  The Applicant indicated that the proposed represented person continues to show lack of insight and awareness of his situation and is impulsive. He continues to be verbally aggressive and physically threatening.  The Board was satisfied that the proposed represented person is incapable of making reasonable judgements about his person and circumstances and his financial situation. 

Is the proposed represented person in need of a guardian and an administrator?

11.  The Board received evidence that the proposed represented person was admitted as a patient to the Royal Hobart Hospital on the 9^th June 2017 due to a fall which resulted in a fractured pubic rami.  Given his highly volatile behaviours in the acute care setting he was transferred to the Roy Fagan Centre (RFC) on the 19^th June 2017 for rehabilitation and ongoing discharge planning.

12.  The Applicant reported that the proposed represented person has voiced his wish to return home and tries to locate exit doors at the RFC.  At the hearing, it was indicated that the proposed represented person was not ready for discharge given his challenging behaviours.  The Applicant indicated that the proposed represented person’s challenging behaviours would not be able to be managed in an aged care setting and consequently an aged care assessment had not occurred. The treating medical team did not consider the proposed represented person was safe to return home.   He is a high falls risk and his care needs are very high. The Applicant indicated that once the proposed represented person’s behaviours became more settled he could be ACAT assessed for aged care.  The Applicant indicated that the proposed represented person is opposed to residential aged care.

13.  The Board determined that the proposed represented person is in need of a guardian to make accommodation decisions.  It was deemed the appointment of a guardian was in the best interests of the proposed represented person and that there was no less restrictive course to take.

Eligibility of potential guardian

14.  The applicant nominated the proposed represented person’s eldest son, Mr Rowlands as guardian.  This was not opposed by anyone at hearing.  The Board carefully considered the evidence and the criteria set out in Section 21 of the Act and was satisfied that Mr Rowlands would act in the best interests of the represented person and is a suitable person to appoint as guardian.

Conclusion

After hearing an application for a guardianship order in respect of Leslie Charles Rowlands (hereinafter called the ‘represented person’)

The Board was satisfied that the represented person

•             is a person with a disability, and
•             is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in respect      of his person and circumstances; and
•             is in need of a limited guardian;

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That Adrian Rowlands be appointed as the represented person’s guardian.

2. That the powers and duties of the guardian are limited to decisions concerning:

   (i) where the represented person is to live whether permanently or temporarily

3. That the order remains in effect to the 13 September 2018.

Rowena Holder   Lindy Wall  Carolyn Wallace

PRESIDENT   MEMBER    MEMBER