HJS
[2010] QCAT 20
•14 January 2010
CITATION: HJS [2010] QCAT 20
PARTIES: HJS
APPLICATION NUMBER: GAA033-10
MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration
HEARING DATE: 14 January 2010
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: C Endicott, senior member
DELIVERED ON: 14 January 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Appointment of administrator continued
CATCHWORDS: Review of appointment of administrator – section 31 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 – appointment continued
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of the parties.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 15 January 2009 the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal appointed HJD as administrator for HJS (the adult). From 1 December 2009 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has replaced the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. Orders made by the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal are taken to be orders of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The appointment is being reviewed today on the basis of information on the Tribunal file. On 12 January 2010 notice of this review hearing was sent to the adult and time has been abridged under section 118(5) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (the Act) to enable the hearing to proceed. Notice of the review hearing was sent on 11 December 2009 to the other persons to whom notice is required to be given by the Act.
HJS is 47 years old and resides in supported accommodation.
When conducting a review of an appointment of a guardian or administrator, the Tribunal must take into account section 31 of the Act which provides that the Tribunal must revoke its order making the appointment unless it is satisfied it would make an appointment if a new application for an appointment were to be made. The Tribunal may make an order removing an appointee and replacing that person only if the Tribunal considers that the appointee is no longer competent or another person is more appropriate for appointment.
The Tribunal when considering the appointment of a guardian or an administrator must be satisfied not only as to the need for appointment as set out in section 12 of the Act but also as to appropriateness of a proposed appointee as set out in sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act.
CAPACITY
The first matter to be considered by the Tribunal is whether HJS has capacity for decision-making about her matters. There is a presumption at law that all adults have the capacity to make their own decisions. That presumption had been rebutted at the time when the appointment under review was made but the Tribunal must consider afresh in this review whether the adult has decision making capacity or not.
In conducting a review, the Tribunal can have regard to the evidence about capacity that had been on the Tribunal’s file at the time of the appointment under review and as well can consider any recent evidence about the adult’s capacity to make decisions.
The Act defines capacity as: “capacity”, for a person for a matter, means the person is capable of-
(a)understanding the nature and effect of decisions about the matter; and
(b)freely and voluntarily making decisions about the matter; and
(c)communicating the decisions in some way.
The Tribunal considered the following evidence about capacity: HJS has an intellectual impairment arising from a medical condition at 7 months of age. An assessment disclosed that HJS has a moderate level of intellectual impairment. She cannot handle money.
The Tribunal made findings of fact about capacity as follows: HJS has an intellectual impairment and she cannot understand information on which to make decisions about her finances. She has relied on others to make financial decisions for her all her adult life.
The Tribunal finds that the evidence established that HJS cannot understand the nature and effect of decisions and is not capable of making decisions freely and voluntarily about her financial affairs.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal determines that HJS does not have capacity to make decisions about her financial affairs.
IS THERE A NEED FOR THE CONTINUED APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR?
The evidence in the file is that: HJS has income and regular expenditure to manage and has accumulated significant savings that must be managed for her future needs. Ongoing decisions are made regularly about expenditure for her daily needs and for more occasional needs.
Based on the information set out above, the Tribunal determines that there is a need for a decision in relation to HJS’s financial affairs and without an appointment the needs of HJS will not be adequately met or her interests will not be adequately protected.
SHOULD THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATOR BE CONTINUED?
The Tribunal considered the following evidence about the ongoing competence of the current administrator: HJD is the adult’s sister. She has acted competently as administrator and has lodged satisfactory accounts.
No other person has sought appointment as HJS’s administrator.
The Tribunal made the following findings about the appropriateness of the current appointee: HJD is part of the adult’s family and she has been competent in the role since her appointment. She has managed the income and expenditure of HJS adequately and secured and invested prudently the funds saved by HJS.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that HJD
- is at least 18 years of age
- is not a paid carer for the adult
- is not a health provider for the adult
- has signed or is willing to sign a statutory declaration as to appropriateness for the role
- is likely to apply the general principles
- is not bankrupt or taking advantage of the laws of bankruptcy
- is an appropriate person to appoint as administrator after taking into consideration the provisions in section 15 of the Act.
APPOINTMENT
The appointment of HJD is continued as administrator for HJS for five years to make decisions about all financial matters.
The administrator must lodge annual accounts with the Tribunal as directed.
0
0
0