JR and MC
[2008] WASAT 217
•19 SEPTEMBER 2008
JR and MC [2008] WASAT 217
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 217 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:1432/2008 | 16 JULY 2008 9 SEPTEMBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | MS D DEAN (MEMBER) | 19/09/08 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | JR appointed limited guardian for one year to make accommodation and medical and dental treatment decisions JR appointed plenary administrator | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JR MC |
Catchwords: | Applications for guardianship and administration Need for a guardian Need for an administrator Application by daughter to be appointed Applications opposed by brother and son Conflict about where the represented person should live Disagreement as to whether represented person should have active medical treatment or palliative care Views and wishes of the represented person Whether in the represented person's best interests for applicant to be appointed guardian and or administrator |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 43, s 44, s 51, s 51(2)(g), s 64, s 68, s 70, Div 3 Pt 5 |
Case References: | Nil |
Summary | Applications for both guardianship and administration were made to the Tribunal in the context of extreme conflict between the applicant and her brother and uncle who opposed her decisions in relation to her mother's medical treatment and accommodation. The applicant proposed herself as both administrator and guardian. ,MC, the mother, was diagnosed with terminal brain metastases associated with previously treated breast cancer and had a life expectancy of several weeks at the time of the hearing of the applications. MC's daughter was very supportive and had been making all medical and lifestyle decisions for MC after she was deemed by her treating doctors as no longer capable of doing so herself. MC had had little or no contact with her son for thirty years and she had always had a fractious relationship with her brother. ,In consultation with the medical treating team, the daughter made a decision that MC not have radiotherapy treatment which had a limited chance of extending her life for a few months and improving her confusion. The brother of MC did not accept that MC had lost the capacity to make decisions for herself and did not accept the terminal nature of her illness. He wanted MC to have active treatment which he said she also wanted for herself. ,The Tribunal heard evidence from the treating geriatric registrar in the hearing, which confirmed the evidence provided in written medical reports to the Tribunal, that MC was not capable of making reasonable judgments for herself and that her illness was terminal.,The Tribunal found that the daughter had been making decisions in MC's best interests and there was every indication that she would continue to do so. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted that the daughter had made appropriate attempts to keep both the brother and the son informed and involved. ,The Tribunal appointed the daughter plenary administrator and limited guardian to make medical treatment decisions and to decide where MC was to live. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : JR and MC [2008] WASAT 217 MEMBER : MS D DEAN (MEMBER) HEARD : 16 JULY 2008
- 9 SEPTEMBER 2008
- Applicant
AND
MC
Represented Person
Catchwords:
Applications for guardianship and administration - Need for a guardian - Need for an administrator - Application by daughter to be appointed - Applications opposed by brother and son Conflict about where the represented person should live - Disagreement as to whether represented person should have active medical treatment or palliative care - Views and wishes of the represented person Whether in the represented person's best interests for applicant to be appointed guardian and or administrator
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4(2), s 43, s 44, s 51, s 51(2)(g), s 64, s 68, s 70, Div 3 Pt 5
Result:
JR appointed limited guardian for one year to make accommodation and medical and dental treatment decisions
JR appointed plenary administrator
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Self-represented
Represented Person : Self-represented
Solicitors:
Applicant : Self-represented
Represented Person : Self-represented
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 Applications for both guardianship and administration were made to the Tribunal in the context of extreme conflict between the applicant and her brother and uncle who opposed her decisions in relation to her mother's medical treatment and accommodation. The applicant proposed herself as both administrator and guardian.
2 MC, the mother, was diagnosed with terminal brain metastases associated with previously treated breast cancer and had a life expectancy of several weeks at the time of the hearing of the applications. MC's daughter was very supportive and had been making all medical and lifestyle decisions for MC after she was deemed by her treating doctors as no longer capable of doing so herself. MC had had little or no contact with her son for thirty years and she had always had a fractious relationship with her brother.
3 In consultation with the medical treating team, the daughter made a decision that MC not have radiotherapy treatment which had a limited chance of extending her life for a few months and improving her confusion. The brother of MC did not accept that MC had lost the capacity to make decisions for herself and did not accept the terminal nature of her illness. He wanted MC to have active treatment which he said she also wanted for herself.
4 The Tribunal heard evidence from the treating geriatric registrar in the hearing, which confirmed the evidence provided in written medical reports to the Tribunal, that MC was not capable of making reasonable judgments for herself and that her illness was terminal.
5 The Tribunal found that the daughter had been making decisions in MC's best interests and there was every indication that she would continue to do so. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted that the daughter had made appropriate attempts to keep both the brother and the son informed and involved.
6 The Tribunal appointed the daughter plenary administrator and limited guardian to make medical treatment decisions and to decide where MC was to live.
(Page 4)
Background
7 MC has been diagnosed with terminal brain metastases associated with previously treated breast cancer. She has a daughter, a son and a brother who disagree on appropriate medical treatment and accommodation options for her.
8 Applications for both guardianship and administration were made by MC's daughter who proposed herself in both roles.
9 The hearing of the applications was brought on urgently in response to a written request from the geriatric registrar who outlined an incident when MC was allegedly abducted by her brother, TM, while being transferred from the hospital to nursing home accommodation. MC was subsequently re-admitted to hospital where she was to remain until a decision was made in relation to the application for guardianship.
Evidence provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing
10 In addition to the written applications, the following written information was provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing:
· Report (20 June 2008) from KB, the hospital social worker, providing a psycho-social history including information about the supportive relationship between MC and her daughter, JR, and the limited contact between MC and her brother, TM. There is no mention in the report of MC's son, DK. The social worker advised that MC is 'often confused and has some short-term memory loss' and impaired judgment. The social worker expressed the view that MC needs both a guardian and an administrator.
· Report (17 June 2008) from Dr A, the hospital medical officer stating that MC is confused and disoriented and has short-term memory loss. She has a 'guarded prognosis' and 'may or may not improve after radiotherapy to her brain'. He assessed her as incapable of making reasonable judgments about any major aspect of her life and/or finances. Dr A advised that MC should not attend the hearing as she 'is confused and may not understand the proceedings'.
(Page 5)
- · Two submissions (27 June 2008) from the geriatric registrar Dr M. In his first submission Dr M requested an urgent hearing because of the conflict between MC's brother and daughter in relation to the 'planned palliative radiotherapy and discharge plan'. Dr M reported that the radiation oncologist advises that with radiotherapy there is a 60% to 70% chance of a temporary improvement in MC's mental and functional status and that she may survive up to eight months. Without radiotherapy, MC is likely to live for approximately six to eight weeks. Given that MC has no other significant medical problems or metastatic disease other than in her brain the radiation oncologist recommends radiotherapy. Dr M's other submission advises that MC 'is deemed incompetent to make to make any sound decisions regarding her treatment and care options'. Dr M advised that MC has a son, DK whom she has 'lost contact with for many years. Her younger brother [TM] maintains occasional contact with her but it is [JR] and her two sons who maintain close daily contact with [MC] and see to her personal needs.'
· Submission (11 July 2008) from Dr M, geriatric registrar, and Dr K, geriatrician, requesting 'urgent attention and action' because of events which occurred on 10 July 2008 when TM, the brother of MC, intercepted the transfer of MC to approved nursing home care and returned her to her home. The police were called in to effect the interrupted transfer but were prevented from acting by TM. MC was admitted to Fremantle Hospital the next day where she was to remain until the hearing of the guardianship application. Enclosed with this submission is a copy of a letter from TM to Fremantle Hospital requesting that radiotherapy commence.
· Submissions (29 June 2008 and 13 July 2008) from JR outlining family relationships and highlighting problems between herself and TM, and MC and TM. Attached to these submissions are: an extract from MC's will which refers to the very limited contact between her and her son DK who 'has not visited me in some thirty years'; a copy of a letter from JR to DK advising him of MC's illness and prognosis; copies of letters from TM to MC and JR over several years in which
- he expresses anger over incidents that have occurred between them.
- · Submission (30 June 2008) from TM requesting that he and DK, son of MC, be included as 'interested parties' in relation to the applications.
· Submission (14 July 2008) from TM and DK proposing the Public Trustee be appointed plenary administrator and the Public Advocate appointed plenary guardian.
· A statement from JR (21 August 2008) of MC's financial particulars detailing the extent of her estate including bank accounts and investments and details of ongoing expenses to the estate.
· Report (1 September 2008) from Dr M stating MC "lacks insight and judgment. Has poor concentration of about 1-2 minutes". He further reported that MC recently suffered a further cerebro vascular accident (CVA) resulting in her now being bedfast.
· Report (5 September 2008) from the Public Advocate recommending JR be appointed plenary administrator of the estate of MC.
Hearings
11 JR, the applicant and daughter of MC, attended both hearings by telephone. Dr M, the geriatric registrar, attended part of the first hearing by telephone. Attending both hearings in person were SR (son of JR and grandson of MC), TM (brother of MC), DK (son of MC), AC (solicitor representing TM and DK for the first hearing. AC attended the second hearing as a support person for TM) and a representative of the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA). MF (solicitor representing JR) attended the second hearing.
Urgency
12 As stated previously, the hearing of these applications was brought on as a matter of urgency as a result of the escalating conflict between JR and TM which culminated in TM allegedly abducting MC from the nursing home after her discharge from the hospital.
(Page 7)
13 In the first hearing AC, representing TM, advised that there was no need for the applications to be heard urgently as his client, TM, was prepared to allow the status quo to remain with regard to accommodation and medical decision-making until a further assessment of MC's capacity had been made by a psychiatrist of TM's choosing. TM does not accept the assessment by Dr M and the other medical practitioners that MC no longer has the capacity to make her own reasonable judgments about either medical treatment or future accommodation.
14 AC said that his client's preference would be for the hearing of the applications to be adjourned until a further cognitive assessment of MC had been completed. TM proposed that he pay any costs associated with this assessment. JR, who is the current medical decision-maker, accepts that MC no longer has the capacity to make her own reasoned judgments and therefore sees no benefit in a further capacity assessment. She said she would not agree to it.
Family relationships
15 JR, TM and DK provided evidence to the Tribunal about the problematic relationships between the various family members. JR, who by all reports has always had a close supportive relationship with MC, outlined a history of conflict between TM and MC. DK provided the Tribunal with evidence in relation to his own conflictual relationship with family members including TM with whom he is currently aligned and JR whom he sees as the source of the problems between him and MC. DK has had little contact with MC over the last thirty years as evidenced in MC's will and has only recently commenced contact again after many years estranged. Evidence was provided that DK has been visiting MC for two or three weeks leading up to the first hearing.
Capacity
16 In his evidence to the Tribunal Dr M advised that MC is 'confused' and has memory problems as a result of the brain metasteses. 'If you discuss with her and then come back a few minutes later she has forgotten what you had discussed so she would be totally incompetent' (T:26). Dr M further advised that two other doctors on the treating team have also found MC to be incapable.
17 In relation to questions put to him as to MC's wishes, Dr M advised:
with regard to treatment, we have explained as best we could on many occasions about … the treatment options … we don't think she has comprehended what the treatment actually involves … she doesn't comprehend the benefits and actually what we
(Page 8)
- have told her … All she says is 'Doctor I leave it in your hands; you know best' (T:27).
18 JR reiterated Dr M's findings that MC is confused and has significant memory problems. TM on the other hand stated his view that MC is not confused and is well aware of her situation with well-grounded views on what she wants.
Treatment options
19 MC has been diagnosed with a terminal medical condition. There is disagreement amongst her family as to whether to commence active medical treatment or to continue with the palliative care which has been agreed to by JR. Active treatment involves five days of radiotherapy with a 60% to 70% chance there may be some improvement in confusion, a 10% to 15% chance there would be no improvement and a 5% chance that things could get worse. The radiation oncologist reports that, with radiotherapy, MC may survive up to eight months. Without radiotherapy she will live for approximately six to eight weeks.
20 Dr M, the geriatric registrar, recommends that because MC is currently 'comfortable' it is in her interests to "leave things as they are" (T:34); that is, to continue with the palliative care rather than to commence radiotherapy with a limited chance of improvement and no chance of a cure.
21 JR reports that currently MC is 'peaceful' and, in her opinion, she should not be subjected to what JR describes as 'aggressive treatment' which will cause MC pain and discomfort that she is not experiencing currently.
22 TM, on the other hand, does not accept the terminal nature of the illness and believes that active treatment, including radiotherapy, should be commenced as soon as possible. He expressed his concerns that, in his view, MC's wishes are not being acknowledged or acted upon. He said that she wants to have radiotherapy treatment, does not want to move into nursing home care but wishes to return home to live.
23 Dr M informed the Tribunal that when he has tried to discuss both medical treatment and accommodation options with MC it is clear that she does not understand the terminal nature of her illness although this has been explained to her. She says 'I want to be in hospital for as long as I can until I get better and then I'll go home'. Her consistent response is 'I'd like to go home' (T:35). Dr M said 'she is confused' and a minute or two after discussion
(Page 9)
- of treatment and accommodation options with her she has forgotten the discussion.
Who should be appointed guardian
24 JR proposed herself as guardian on the basis that she has always had a close and loving relationship with MC who historically has always identified her as next of kin. JR is currently accepted by the medical treating team as the decision-maker and has been making all medical treatment decisions to date.
25 JR provided evidence that she has endeavoured to keep both DK and TM informed about MC's medical condition as evidenced by copies of letters provided to the Tribunal and her direction to the treating doctors that they keep TM informed about MC's progress. It was the result of Dr M's advice (as requested by JR) to TM, that MC was being discharged to a nursing home, that the alleged abduction of MC by TM occurred. This incident resulted in an altercation between the police and TM and the eventual re-admission of MC to hospital.
26 AC advised that JR is not a suitable person to be appointed guardian because of the complex and conflictual family relationships which he said will be further compounded by the appointment of JR. He supports the appointment of the Public Advocate.
27 DK advised that, in his opinion, JR if appointed guardian would use her authority to undermine the tenuous relationship he currently has with MC.
28 The Public Advocate advocated for the appointment of JR whom she said has consistently acted in MC's best interests by taking advice from the medical treating team, weighing up the options and making decisions that she believes to be in MC's best interests. Further, she has attempted to keep both TM and DK informed and involved in MC's life by ensuring they were notified of the whereabouts, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment options for MC. The Public Advocate supports the appointment of JR as limited guardian to make medical treatment and accommodation decisions.
Who should be appointed administrator
29 After an adjournment of several weeks the Tribunal reconvened to hear the application for administration.
(Page 10)
30 The Tribunal heard evidence that JR, who has signing rights on MC's working bank account and another bank account, has been managing her finances on a day-to-day basis including paying all accounts and expenses to date, proposed herself as administrator.
31 Both TM and DK oppose the appointment of JR as sole administrator and each proposed himself as administrator jointly with JR. MF advised that the dysfunctional relationship between JR and TM and DK would make such an arrangement unworkable.
32 The Public Advocate recommended the appointment of JR as plenary administrator of the estate of MC on the basis that she has been managing and overseeing MC's financial affairs for some time and had been trusted by MC to have signing rights on two of her bank accounts.
33 In addition to a house, bank accounts and other investments MC has a large investment portfolio currently managed by a private financial advisor. JR advised that if appointed she would not change the way MC had managed her estate or change the current management instructions in relation to her investment portfolio. JR said she would continue to follow the advice of the financial advisor, particularly in relation to the investment portfolio.
Legislation
34 The principles to be observed by the Tribunal when making determinations in relation to guardianship and administration applications are set out in s 4(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
35 These principles are:
(a) The primary concern of the State Administrative Tribunal shall be the best interests of any represented person, or of a person in respect of whom an application is made.
(b) Every person shall be presumed to be capable of -
(i) looking after his own health and safety;
(ii) making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(iii) managing his own affairs; and
(iv) making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate,
- until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the State Administrative Tribunal.
- (c) A guardianship or administration order shall not be made if the needs of the person in respect of whom an application for such an order is made could, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal, be met by other means less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action.
(d) A plenary guardian shall not be appointed under section 43(1) if the appointment of a limited guardian under that section would be sufficient, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal, to meet the needs of the person in respect of whom the application is made.
(e) An order appointing a limited guardian or an administrator for a person shall be in terms that, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal, impose the least restrictions possible in the circumstances on the person's freedom of decision and action.
(f) In considering any matter relating to a represented person or a person in respect of whom an application is made the State Administrative Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of the person concerned as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from the person's previous actions.
36 Section 43 of the GA Act provides that, where the Tribunal is satisfied that a person in respect of whom an application for a guardianship order is made:
(1) …
(a) has attained the age of 18 years;
(b) is -
(i) incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(ii) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;or
(iii) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others;
and
(c) is in need of a guardian,
- the Tribunal may by order declare the person to be in need of a guardian …
37 Section 44 of the GA Act provides for those who may be appointed guardian:
(1) A guardian (including a joint guardian) shall be an individual of or over the age of 18 years who has consented to act and who in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal -
(a) will act in the best interests of the person in respect of whom the application is made;
(b) is not in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with the interests of that person; and
(c) is otherwise suitable to act as the guardian of that person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c) the State Administrative Tribunal shall take into account as far as is possible -
(a) the desirability of preserving existing relationships within the family of the person in respect of whom the application is made;
(b) the compatibility of the proposed appointee with that person and with the administrator (if any) of that person's estate;
(c) the wishes of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and
(d) whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions vested in him.
(3) Where a proposed appointee is a relative of the person in respect of whom the application is made, he shall not by virtue only of that fact be taken to be in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with those of that person.
(4) The fact that a person is the administrator of the estate of a person does not disqualify him from being appointed as guardian of that person.
(5) Except where he is appointed to act jointly with another person or other persons, the State Administrative Tribunal shall not appoint the Public Advocate as a guardian unless there is no other person who is suitable and willing to act.
(Page 13)
38 Section 51 of the GA Act provides that a guardian must act in the best interests of the person and in particular (s 51(2)(g)) which provides that a guardian act in such a manner as to maintain any supportive relationships the person has.
39 Section 64(1) of the GA Act empowers the Tribunal to appoint an administrator provided it has satisfied itself that the person:
(a) is unable, by reason of mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate; and
(b) is in need of an administrator of his estate.
40 Section 68 of the GA Act provides for who may be appointed administrator. The administrator must consent to act, must act in the best interests of the person and be otherwise suitable to act as administrator. Further, the Tribunal must take into account the compatibility of the proposed appointee with the person and the guardian if any.
41 Section 70 of the GA Act provides that the administrator acts in the best interests of the represented person.
Findings and Reasons
Capacity
42 Medical and paramedical evidence provided to the Tribunal is consistent with an assessment of confusion and severe short-term memory loss associated with brain metastases. Although this is contested by TM, who gave evidence that MC has the capacity to make her own reasoned judgments, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the medical professionals and JR over that of TM who has no medical training.
43 The evidence of Dr M provided in the first hearing left no doubt that MC has significant short-term memory deficits which impact on her ability to retain and process information, to weigh up options and to make reasonable judgments in relation to any major aspect of her life.
44 The Tribunal finds that MC, because of her confusion and inability to retain new information, even for a short period, is incapable of making reasonable judgments for herself in respect of her welfare needs, including appropriate medical treatment and accommodation. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that, because of her mental disability, MC is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of her estate.
(Page 14)
45 In summary, the Tribunal accepts the evidence before it and finds that MC satisfies the criteria set out in both s 43 and s 64 of the GA Act and is therefore a person for whom both guardianship and administration orders can be made.
Need for a guardian
46 Having made a finding that the person is one for whom a guardianship order can be made, the Tribunal must then address the issue of whether there is a need for a guardian.
47 In this case JR, the daughter, has been making medical treatment and accommodation decisions for MC. These decisions are now being challenged by MC's brother, TM and her son DK, both of whom, on the evidence before the Tribunal, have had conflictual and mostly absent relationships with MC.
48 Given the significant conflict and dissention within the family the Tribunal accepts that there is a need for a clearly designated decision-maker with the authority to make decisions in respect of medical treatment and accommodation for MC.
Need for an administrator
49 Although the daughter has signing rights on two of MC's bank accounts, this gives her limited ability to manage MC's large estate consisting of a house, an investment portfolio and several other investments. Further, the assets declaration form whereby the nursing home fee is set needs to be signed by a person with the authority to do so, in this case an administrator.
Wishes and best interests
50 The Tribunal endeavours to take into account, where possible, the views and wishes of the person but the overarching principle guiding the Tribunal in its decisionmaking is the best interests of the person.
51 In this case, the Tribunal was unable to ascertain the wishes of MC directly but had evidence before it that when able to express her wish MC had proposed her daughter, JR, as her next of kin. The Tribunal accepts that this is an indication that MC trusted her daughter and wished her to be considered a substitute decision-maker when appropriate or necessary. In addition, MC authorised JR to sign on her bank accounts indicating she trusted JR in relation to her finances.
(Page 15)
52 Section 51 of the GA Act mandates a guardian to act in the best interests of the represented person and places some emphasis on the maintenance of the represented person's supportive relationships. In this case, the Tribunal accepts that JR has made decisions she believes are in MC's best interests and, despite the long-term conflict between parties, has endeavoured to ensure that both TM and DK are kept informed about MC's diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options and whereabouts. The Tribunal was assured by JR that, if appointed guardian, she will do nothing to sabotage or discourage the relationships MC has with TM and DK but will continue, as she has done in the past, to encourage and support the maintenance of those relationships.
53 In making a decision as to whom to appoint as guardian and/or administrator, the Tribunal must take into account the compatibility of the proposed represented person with the appointed guardian and administrator. There was ample evidence provided to the Tribunal that both TM and DK have a long history of conflict with MC. The Tribunal accepts the evidence provided by JR, and confirmed by the letters from TM to MC, that the relationship between MC and her brother TM has been conflictual and somewhat distant over many years. Similarly, the relationship between MC and her son DK has been complex with no contact (until very recently) for many years. On the other hand, the Tribunal had no evidence before it that JR and MC have anything but a supportive and caring relationship.
54 In considering who to appoint as guardian and or administrator, the Tribunal must also take into account the compatibility of the appointees with one another. Evidence was provided to the Tribunal that the relationship between JR and MC and DK is highly conflictual and, as stated by MC, is unlikely ever to improve, making it very difficult for any of them to work together to make medical treatment, accommodation or financial management decisions in the best interests of MC.
Decision
55 Taking all of the forgoing into account, the Tribunal finds that there is no less restrictive alternative to making a guardianship order and, in accordance with s 44 of the GA Act, on the evidence before it finds that JR will act in the best interests of MC, is not in a position where her interests conflict with the interests of MC and that she is otherwise suitable to act as the guardian of MC.
(Page 16)
56 Similarly, in accordance with s 68 of the GA Act, the Tribunal finds that JR will act in the best interests of MC and is otherwise suitable to act as the administrator of the estate of MC.
Orders
57 The Tribunal made the following orders:
Administration
1. [JR] be appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
2. This order is to be reviewed by 9 September 2009.
Guardianship
1. [JR] be appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a) To decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b) To decide with whom the represented person is to live; and
(c) Subject to Div 3 Pt 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA),to consent to any treatment or health care of the represented person.
2. This order is to be reviewed by 16 July 2009.
I certify that this and the preceding [57] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS D DEAN, MEMBER
(Page 17)
0
0
1