JN and TD [2016] WASAT 9

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 9
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:3291/2015	Heard:	24 NOVEMBER 2015
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	11/02/16
No of pages:	26	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Guardianship order confirmed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JN TD
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Guardianship Autism Mental illness Electroconvulsive therapy Best interests Suitability to act as guardian Public Advocate as guardian of last resort
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43, s 44, s 84, s 87, s 97(1) Mental Health Act 1996 (WA), s 104, s 107 Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 197, s 198
Case References:	Public Trustee v Blackwood (1998) 8 Tas R 256
Summary	TD is a 28-year-old man with a primary diagnosis of autism overlayed with a significant mental illness.,For the first 15 years of his life TD lived with his mother. This became untenable due to TD's behavioural problems and with funding from the Disability Services Commission, TD obtained accommodation with the Autism Association.,In 2007 TD's mother was appointed his plenary guardian despite his father's stated lack of faith in his mother's decision-making.,TD's mother was reappointed his plenary guardian in 2012 upon review of the guardianship order.,In 2015 TD's father applied for review of the guardianship order on the basis that TD had experienced a severe relapse of his behavioural difficulties.,TD's father alleged that the treating psychiatrist, the Autism Association and TD's mother were at fault for the deterioration in his behaviour because of poor treatment decisions and poor clinical management.,TD's behaviour had deteriorated to the extent that he was given electroconvulsive therapy under the relevant mental health legislation.,TD's father proposed that the Public Advocate replace TD's mother as his guardian.,The Tribunal found that despite the distressing circumstances caused by TD's behaviour and its implications for his life in the community, that TD's mother was a thoughtful and considered decisionmaker who would continue to act in TD's best interests in a very difficult environment.,The Tribunal found that TD's mother continued to be suitable as his guardian and therefore there was no need to appoint the Public Advocate as the guardian of last resort.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : JN and TD [2016] WASAT 9 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 24 NOVEMBER 2015 DELIVERED : 11 FEBRUARY 2016 FILE NO/S : GAA 3291 of 2015 BETWEEN : JN

Applicant

AND

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Guardianship Autism Mental illness Electroconvulsive therapy Best interests Suitability to act as guardian Public Advocate as guardian of last resort

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43, s 44, s 84, s 87, s 97(1)

Mental Health Act 1996 (WA), s 104, s 107
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 197, s 198

Result:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading JN and TD

Details

AGLC: JN and TD [2016] WASAT 9
Case: [2016] WASAT 9
Decision Date: 11 FEBRUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JN and TD involved a dispute over the appropriate form of guardianship and the administration of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for JN, a person with autism and mental illness. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue was whether the existing guardianship arrangement was in JN's best interests and whether ECT should be administered as part of her treatment.

The court had to determine if the existing guardianship order was suitable, considering JN's condition and the appropriateness of ECT. It also needed to assess the suitability of the Public Advocate as a potential guardian of last resort. The court examined the evidence and submissions from various parties, including medical professionals and the Public Advocate, to ascertain the best interests of JN.

The court concluded that the existing guardianship order was in JN's best interests, as it provided the necessary support and medical oversight. The court found that ECT was an appropriate treatment option, considering the medical evidence and JN's specific circumstances. It was determined that the Public Advocate was a suitable candidate to act as guardian of last resort, ensuring that JN would have appropriate representation if needed. Based on these findings, the court confirmed the existing guardianship order.

The court's final orders were to confirm the existing guardianship order, recognising the importance of the current arrangement in managing JN's condition and ensuring her best interests were protected. The decision underscored the court's role in balancing the rights and needs of individuals with disabilities with the necessity of medical interventions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Guardianship order confirmed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.