JC

[2016] WASAT 83

JC [2016] WASAT 83

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 83
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2323/2016	Heard:	4 JULY 2016
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	8/07/16
Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Guardian and administrator appointed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JC
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration ­ Mental illness ­ Illicit drug use ­ Capacity ­ Impaired judgment ­ Incapable of looking after health and safety ­ In need of oversight in interests of health and safety ­ Unable to make reasonable judgments ­ Risks to health and safety if mental illness left untreated ­ Guardian appointed ­ Administrator appointed ­ Role of guardian and administrator includes advocating for represented person and other matters consistent with encouraging the represented person to live in the general community and participate as much as possible in the life of the community ­ Orders set for review in 12 months given formal limitations imposed on represented person's freedom of decision and action
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43(1), s 44, s 45, s 51, s 64(1), s 68, s 69, s 70 Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)
Case References:	Nil
Summary	JC, a 21-year-old woman, was at the time of the Tribunal hearing an involuntary patient in a psychiatric hospital. JC had three other admissions to a psychiatric hospital since August 2015.,Applications for guardianship and administration orders were made with respect to JC pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).,The Tribunal found that JC had the psychiatric condition, schizophrenia. Although she disputed the diagnosis, she provided no contrary opinion to that of her treating psychiatrist. She simply asserted that her use of illicit drugs was the problem and that there was no underlying mental illness.,The Tribunal was not convinced by JC's assertion that she would stop taking illicit drugs and, as a consequence, her mental health would remain stable. JC's history since at least the middle of 2015 was that she consistently used illicit drugs to the extent that she had required a number of admissions to psychiatric hospitals. There was nothing in that history which would support the proposition that she would choose to stop using illicit drugs, or even if she did so choose, that she would be presently able to do so.,The Tribunal accepted the opinion of JC's treating psychiatrist that her judgment was impaired by reason of the consequences of her mental illness. It was highly likely in view of the Tribunal that, despite her assertions to the contrary, JC continued to have auditory hallucinations with a command component and ongoing delusional beliefs.,It was also clear that the effects of JC's mental illness were exacerbated by her illicit drug use.,The combined effects of the mental illness and illicit drug use placed JC at significant risk to her health and safety.,The Tribunal accepted that because of her impaired judgment, JC's plans for her future were not reasoned regarding possible consequences, and were more likely than not made as a response to her immediate needs, which may have included attempting to convince others that she was well and did not need any assistance. The fact of her multiple hospital admissions belied her assertion that she was currently able to reasonably plan for her needs.,The Tribunal decided to appoint a guardian for JC with limited authorities to decide her accommodation, the services to which she should have access, to make her treatment decisions, to decide what education and training she should receive, and to decide whether or not she is to travel outside Western Australia and the terms and conditions upon which that travel could take place.,The Tribunal was satisfied that JC was currently in need of a plenary administration order to deal with her debts and Centrelink, and in support of and complementary to the decisions made by the guardian, particularly in relation to travel that JC might still wish to pursue despite the orders being in place.,The Tribunal was mindful of the difficulties inherent in giving practical effect to the orders made, given JC's ability upon discharge to 'vote with her feet'. However, the orders (together with the authorities available under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)) placed a necessary restriction on JC's freedom of decision and action so as to promote to the greatest extent possible her recovery from her mental illness and to enable her to live a functional life in the community.,Given the formal limitations imposed on JC's freedom of decision and action, the Tribunal decided to set the review of the guardianship and administration orders in 12 months. The Tribunal expected that by that time it should be clear whether the orders had had a positive effect on JC's life and whether her recovery had progressed such that the orders may no longer be needed. The Tribunal was, however, mindful of the long road that JC must travel if she was to reasonably live in the community in safety.