IGS - [2014] QCAT 657

CITATION:

IGS [2014] QCAT 657

PARTIES:

IGS

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAA5789-14

MATTER TYPE:

Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE:

9 October 2014

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Member McDonald

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. The appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for decisions about the following personal matters is revoked:

(a) With whom IGS has contact for visits.

2. The appointment of SM as guardian for decisions about the following personal matters is confirmed:

(a) Accommodation

(b) Health Care

(c) Provision of Services

3. Unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, this appointment remains current for five (5) years.

CATCHWORDS:

Review of Guardianship order – Adult Guardian previously appointed for contact where disputing parents of adults

APPEARANCES:

SM
SR
SP
ES
Anders Berquier (Public Guardian)

REASONS FOR DECISION

IGS is 26 years old, with a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy, and global developmental delay. Under Order of 12 October 2013, the Adult Guardian (now the Public Guardian) was appointed until further Order for decisions relating to with whom the IGS has contact. SM was also appointed as Guardian for decisions about accommodation, health care, and provision of services until further Order. This order came under review on 9 October 2014.
The Tribunal conducted the review under section 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
The Tribunal considered whether IGS had impaired capacity for personal decisions. The evidence before the Tribunal was an Occupational Therapists Report from HC dated 12 October 2011. This report was provided as part of her personal injury proceedings. IGS related to the birth defects sustained at her birth. This report provided history and a functional assessment. The report notes IGS is diagnosed with Cerebral palsy with spastic quadriplegia following a birth injury, global developmental delay, some signs of spasticity, bilateral hemiplegia, and elements of athetosis.
The report notes that she has no functional speech, but can ‘get her message across’ to those who are familiar with her. She is unable to have a complex verbal interaction. HC notes that IGS is unable to verbalise her needs or wants but could effectively indicate her disapproval, displeasure comprehension, frustration, by facial expressions and body language. She continued to use a communication chart to assist her to communicate. At the hearing, SM confirmed that IGS is able to spell out anything IGS she seeks to communicate.
The report notes that IGS has had a history of significant behavioural outbursts, which have included head bashing against a wall, violent rocking back and forth, and thrashing about in a chair. Her moods were noted as unpredictable, and outbursts had appeared to be without trigger. She physically attacked other people, including biting, and has harmed herself. At the time of the report, she constantly picked at wounds. The report notes that IGS does not interact well with others, and had difficulties developing meaningful relationships. The report notes that IGS becomes very upset by changes in routine.
The nature of IGS’s condition is static, and the parties confirmed that this report reflected her current presentation.
The Tribunal finds that IGS is unable to communicate complex decisions.
The Public Guardian’s delegate argued that there was not continuing need for the Public Guardian to be appointed for contact decisions. They reported that during the appointment, they made decisions for IGS to have supervised contact with her father on three occasions. In June 2013 they made the decision to permit the father unsupervised contact, and in July determined that a fortnightly unsupervised contact regime should occur. They noted that arising from discussions with GR the communication between IGS’s parents had improved and they would be able to consult directly with one another around the father’s contact. They noted that the father’s contact has increased from fortnightly to weekly contact without their involvement and cited this as indicative that there is no need for their involvement. The Public Guardian was of the view that there is no continuing need for contact decisions.
SM concurred with the Public Guardian’s position. Her evidence was that she has managed to co-ordinate without difficulty contacts between SR and IGS, although there had been difficulties with cancellations, and accommodating his requests with IGS’s routine. In the hearing SR objected to the Adult Guardian’s position, notwithstanding earlier discussions with them. He indicated that he has diffiulties with SM accommodating his requests for additional contact with IGS. He said that although the Adult Guardian has not assisted in the past he considered there was a need for an independent decision maker to assist with the communication gap between him and SM. There is an extensive history of conflict between the parties contributed in part by family court proceedings.
The Tribunal notes that while this has not always been practically achievable, SR and SM have been able to collaborate around contact decisions to enable IGS to have an ongoing relationship with her father. It is the Tribunal’s view that this can continue to be managed informally as it has in recent months, and there is no continuing need for a decision maker for contact decisions.
SM has been appointed since 12 October 2012 as Guardian for decisions about accommodation, services and health. She has recently made decisions in relation to the review of IGS’s medication, which is managed to treat her anxiety and related behavioural symptoms noted above. SR noted concerns about the side effects of IGS’s medication, specifically the weight gain and instability in her gait. He considered further review of her medication may be warranted. SM indicated that these concerns had been raised in the recent review of her medication; however, Doctors noted this to not be of concern. There is however ongoing need for her medication to be monitored and reviewed, and necessarily, therefore a need for subsequent decisions.
Given IGS’s relationship difficulties noted above, there are fragilities associated with her service provision. IGS is a young and active woman with a need for stimulation and recreation. The Tribunal consider there is a continuing need for decisions in relation to service provision.
IGS has moved accommodation during the period of appointment, and remains living with her mother. While there are no current decisions about accommodation pending, HC’s report indicates that her accommodation needs are significant relevant to her high level of care needs. It is appropriate that SM continues to have decision making ability in this area.
The Tribunal considers there is continuing need for a decision maker for accommodation, service provision and health decisions. SM has acted appropriately under the previous appointment and remains the appropriate guardian for these matters.