HG (Guardianship)

[2010] TASGAB 7

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
HOBART

HG on the application of Dr Ravi Soin, Mental Health Services

Neutral citation: HG (Guardianship) [2010] TASGAB 7

REASONS FOR DECISION

Kereth West (Chair)
Wendy Beveridge (Member)
Elizabeth Dalgleish (Member)

Hearing 6 May 2010

Guardianship – capacity to make accommodation decisions

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 s 20, 21, 28

1. HG, the proposed represented person is a 39 year old man who is at the time of the hearing living in at the Facility A, an approved hospital managed by Mental Health Services. HG was on a current Continuing Care Order under the Mental Health Act 1996.

2. The Dr Soin, made application for the appointment of Guardian for HG on 26 March 2010.  In the application Dr Soin stated that HG was ready for discharge from the Facility A to a less restrictive environment but was unable to make reasonable decisions with respect to future accommodation or medication needs. 

3. In assessing an application for the appointment of a guardian, the Board must be satisfied that the proposed represented person has a disability, is by reason of that disability incapable of making reasonable decisions and is in need of a guardian.  The Board, consisting of Kereth West, Chair, Wendy Beveridge, Member and Elizabeth Dalgleish, Member, convened a hearing at the Guardianship & Administration Board Offices, 54 Victoria Street, Hobart on 6 May 2010. The following persons attended, with their relationship to the proposed represented person noted below:

   §HG - the proposed represented person

   §Peter Baker - Nurse Unit Manger, Facility A

   §Dr Ravinda Soin, - Medical Officer, Facility A

   §Michael Condon – Office of the Public Guardian via phone

   §Valerie Hannon - Investigation Officer, Guardianship and Administration Board

4. Dr Soin’s gave evidence through his written application and in the hearing that the proposed represented person has chronic schizophrenia with a history of multiple admissions to mental health facilities.  As HG did not dispute the evidence of disability, the Board was satisfied that the proposed represented person is a person with a disability.

5. Dr Soin advised that one of the effects of this disability was that HG over-estimated his ability to manage independently and historically does not comply with recommended treatments.

6. Dr Soin and Mr Baker stated that HG has been an inpatient at Facility A for a number of months but was now well enough to be discharged to a less restrictive, more rehabilitation focussed facility but that the proposed represented person wants to move into an isolated independent unit. Dr Soin gave evidence that this intent was indicative of  HG’s lack of capacity, not in his best interests and would likely result in a relapse of his schizophrenia.  Dr Soin and Mr Baker recommended transfer to Facility B but HG did not want to go there saying he would prefer Facility A but still wanted to live alone.  It was apparent in the hearing that HG was not able to consider the pros and cons of potential accommodation options and make decisions that were in his long term best interests.  The Board was thus satisfied that HG is unable to make reasoned decisions with respect to his accommodation needs.

7. Dr Soin and Mr Baker both gave evidence that HG now has capacity to consent to medication.

8. Dr Soin’s application stated that continued containment of HG in Facility A was not in his best interests and that a less restrictive alternative accommodation option needed to be determined.   The Board was satisfied that there is a need for a Guardian to make that decision.

9. The Public Guardian was the only person nominated for appointment.  HG is estranged from his family following violent behaviour in 2009. The Board was satisfied that the appointment of the Public Guardian will be in the proposed represented person’s best interests. 

10. The Board considered the provisions of Section 28 to give the Public Guardian power to return the represented person to chosen accommodation. Dr Soin advised that HG was generally compliant with legal restrictions and that, while often initially resistant to change, settles once it is effected. The Board was of the opinion that providing the guardian with the authority to restrict or permit leave from the accommodation or have HG returned to the facility should he leave was not less restrictive than his current accommodation and could not reasonably be implemented in a non-secure facility.

11. The Board considered the appropriate time required to make and effect the decisions around future accommodation for the represented person and determined that two months would be sufficient.

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 accommodation; and is in need of a limited guardian;

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That the Public Guardian be appointed as the represented person’s guardian.

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

1. where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily

1. That the order remains in effect to 5 July 2010.

Kereth West
Member

Statement of reasons requested 6 May 2010 and delivered 14^th May 2010.