HGS
[2015] QCAT 418
•22 September 2015
| CITATION: | HGS [2015] QCAT 418 |
| PARTIES: | HGS |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA9167-15 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | 22 September 2015 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Endicott |
| DELIVERED ON: | 22 September 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The application by HD for an interim order is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANSHIP – where appointment in place of an administrator for adult with impaired capacity for decision-making - where family wanted to relocate adult to another State INTERIM ORDER – where interim order sought – where no evidence that adult was at immediate risk of harm – whether application should be dismissed Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s129 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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
An administrator was appointed for HGS on 19 January 2010. The appointment of The Public Trustee of Queensland was until further order of the Tribunal.
On 14 September 2015 HD applied for the appointment of a guardian for HGS and for a review of the appointment of the administrator. HD is a daughter of HGS. She sought these appointments so that she could make arrangements to relocate HGS from Brisbane to Adelaide to live. In her application HD asserts that HGS wants to relocate to Adelaide where he could be closer to his family.
HD also asserted that the appointment of The Public Trustee is no longer appropriate but she did not provide any particulars of why she considered the current appointee as administrator was no longer appropriate.
HD also applied for an interim order. QCAT can make an appointment of a decision maker on an interim basis for up to three months under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 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.
In her application for an interim order, HD stated that her father had expressed a deep loneliness and wish to be closer to his family in Adelaide. She stated that she required the day to day decisions and associated matters to be returned to the hands of the family to manage his daily cares, welfare and needs. HD stated that HGS expressed the view that his time is nearly over and she wished to transfer him immediately to be with those who love him.
HD stated that personnel at The Public Trustee often change and there have been delays in the past with certain decisions. She stated that time is now of the essence to make the transfer arrangements and she needs to have the power to make decisions at the local and family level in Adelaide.
While it is understandable that HGS’s family wants to relocate him closer to them, the evidence before the Tribunal did not lead to the conclusion that there was an immediate risk of harm to HGS if an interim order replacing The Public Trustee was not made. His financial position appears to be secure and despite some criticisms of the personnel at The Public Trustee, there was no allegations that HGS was at any risk of harm under the current decision-maker. Despite assertions that HGS’s health was poor, there was no medical evidence put to the Tribunal to support the claimed urgency of the review application.
In any event, the relocation of HGS would depend on suitable arrangements being made for his accommodation and care in Adelaide. There is no guardian in place to make personal decisions about the accommodation and care for HGS. The family can informally make these decisions if HGS is unable to make personal decisions himself.
There was no evidence that HD had asked The Public Trustee to support a decision to relocate HGS to Adelaide nor to assist with the financial costs of doing so. It is quite possible that The Public Trustee might agree to that proposal if satisfied the relocation was the wish of HGS and there was medical evidence that he would not be placed at jeopardy by any such change of his accommodation and care arrangements.
The Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that under section 129 of the Act that HGS was at an immediate risk of harm in the absence of the appointment of a guardian nor that his financial affairs were at an immediate risk of harm unless a change of administrator was made by way of an interim order. Any change of his decision-maker should be properly considered after a hearing of the substantive application for a review of that appointment. The application for an interim order was without substance and had to be dismissed.
0
0
0